Anti-dumping duty cannot be levied for the gap between provisional expiry and final notification, as retrospective extension is not permitted.

Anti-dumping duty could not be recovered for the gap period between expiry of a provisional anti-dumping notification and issuance of the final notification, because the statutory scheme did not allow the final levy to operate retrospectively so as to extend the provisional duty beyond its permitted duration. The final notification could not validate collection for the interregnum after the provisional duty had ceased, and the demand for that period was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether anti-dumping duty could be levied for the period between the expiry of the provisional anti-dumping duty notification and the issuance of the final anti-dumping duty notification.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the effect of the provisional and final anti-dumping notifications governing the imported goods. The controlling precedent held that the statutory scheme did not permit recovery of anti-dumping duty for the interregnum period by treating the final levy as operative from the date of the provisional notification, because such an approach would extend the provisional levy beyond the period permitted under the rules. The final notification could not be construed to validate collection for the gap period when the provisional duty had already ceased to operate.

Conclusion: Anti-dumping duty was not leviable for the interregnum period, and the demand for that period was unsustainable in favour of the assessee.

---