Anti-dumping duty continuation and fresh extension are distinct powers; a later review notification is not invalid for an intervening gap.

Anti-dumping duty under section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 has a maximum life of five years, but it may be extended on review if the Government forms the requisite opinion that dumping and injury are likely to continue or recur. The pending-review continuation under the second proviso operates only through notification and does not create automatic continuity, while the first proviso separately governs fresh extension after review. A later sunset-review notification is not invalid merely because there was an intervening gap after expiry of the earlier continuation period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the continuation and extension of anti-dumping duty by the notification dated 08.08.2016 was invalid because of an alleged lapse or gap in the earlier duty notifications, and whether a fresh notification under the first proviso to section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 could validly be issued after the expiry of the earlier notification.

Analysis: Anti-dumping duty imposed under section 9A(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 has a maximum life of five years, but section 9A(5) permits extension on review if the Government forms the requisite opinion that cessation of duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. The second proviso enables continuation of duty during a pending review for up to one year, but it does not create an automatic continuation without a notification. The first proviso governs the fresh extension on completion of the review, and there is no statutory requirement that such fresh notification must be issued before the expiry of the earlier extended period. A gap between the expiry of the interim continuation and the fresh sunset-review notification does not by itself invalidate the later levy.

Conclusion: The notification dated 08.08.2016 was valid and the challenge to the anti-dumping duty failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, continuation pending review and fresh extension after review are distinct powers, and a later sunset-review notification is not invalid merely because there was an intervening gap in the earlier levy.

---