Sunset review anti-dumping duty can survive a gap after expiry where statutory time relaxation applies.

A sunset review extension of anti-dumping duty under the first proviso to section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was treated as an enabling mechanism: the earlier levy did not have to remain in force on the date of the fresh notification, and a gap between expiry and reissuance did not by itself invalidate the extension. Section 6 of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 was held to extend the relevant time limit for issuance of the notification, including where the requirement was framed as time-related in this context. The challenge to the notification therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Central Government could validly issue the notification imposing anti-dumping duty on 09.06.2020 after the earlier levy had expired on 06.04.2020; (ii) Whether section 6 of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 extended the time limit for issuance of the notification.

Issue (i): Whether the Central Government could validly issue the notification imposing anti-dumping duty on 09.06.2020 after the earlier levy had expired on 06.04.2020.

Analysis: The first proviso to section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is an enabling provision under which, on a review, the Central Government may extend anti-dumping duty for a further period of five years if it forms the requisite opinion on continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. The decision distinguished the purpose of the first proviso from the second proviso, and held that the earlier levy need not remain in force on the date of the fresh notification for a sunset review extension. The further period of five years commences from the date of the extension order, and a gap between expiry of the earlier levy and issuance of the new notification does not by itself invalidate the later notification.

Conclusion: The notification dated 09.06.2020 was not invalid merely because it was issued after expiry of the earlier levy.

Issue (ii): Whether section 6 of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 extended the time limit for issuance of the notification.

Analysis: Section 6 extended time limits under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 that fell during the specified period for completion of proceedings and issuance of orders or notifications. The Court held that, even on the appellant's own premise that the first proviso to section 9A(5) required issuance within the operative period, the statutory relaxation applied to extend the time limit. The argument that section 6 extended only procedural time but not the asserted precondition was rejected, because the asserted requirement of issuance during the life of the existing levy was treated as a time-related requirement in this context.

Conclusion: Section 6 of the 2020 Relaxation Act extended the time limit and supported the validity of the notification.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the anti-dumping duty notification failed, and the impugned levy was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A sunset review notification under the first proviso to section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 may validly be issued after expiry of the earlier levy, and any applicable statutory relaxation extending the time limit for notification issuance preserves the validity of such a notification.

---