Anti-dumping duty extension must be issued before expiry of the original notification; a lapsed notification cannot be revived.

Anti-dumping duty under Section 9A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 can be continued only by a valid notification issued while the original notification is still in force. Once the original notification expires, it ceases to have legal existence and cannot be revived, extended, or amended thereafter. Because a duty in the nature of tax must rest on authority of law, imports made after expiry of the original notification could not be subjected to a post-expiry extension. The demand was therefore held unsustainable and the extension notification invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether anti-dumping duty could be demanded on imports made after the expiry of the original notification, and whether a notification extending such duty after its expiry was valid in law.

Analysis: Anti-dumping duty is imposed through a notification issued under Section 9A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The provision permits extension of the duty only by a valid notification issued while the earlier notification is still in force. Once the original notification expires, it ceases to exist, and a lapsed notification cannot be extended or amended thereafter. A duty in the nature of tax cannot be recovered without authority of law, and the continuation of anti-dumping duty must therefore rest on a subsisting legal notification.

Conclusion: The post-expiry extension notification was invalid, and the demand of anti-dumping duty was not sustainable. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Anti-dumping duty can be continued only by a valid notification issued before the original notification expires; a lapsed notification has no legal existence and cannot be extended thereafter.

---