Anti-dumping duty applies through the interim period when a final notification gives effect from the provisional levy date.

A definitive anti-dumping notification can operate from the date of provisional duty, so imports made after the provisional levy expired but before the final notification remain chargeable where the notification expressly gives retrospective effect. The place of shipment does not change liability if the goods are found to be Chinese-origin goods re-exported through Hong Kong, because origin, not transit route, governs the applicable anti-dumping duty. A challenge based only on the high quantum of duty does not defeat a valid anti-dumping levy where dumping, injury and quantification are otherwise unchallenged.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether anti-dumping duty was leviable on imports made after expiry of the provisional duty and before the definitive notification was issued. (ii) Whether the goods imported through Hong Kong escaped the duty applicable to Chinese-origin goods. (iii) Whether the plea against levy based on the high quantum of duty could defeat the demand.

Issue (i): Whether anti-dumping duty was leviable on imports made after expiry of the provisional duty and before the definitive notification was issued.

Analysis: The definitive notification stated that the anti-dumping duty would be levied with effect from the date of initial imposition of the provisional duty. The Tribunal followed the view of the three-member anti-dumping bench that the statutory scheme does not create any duty-free hiatus during the period after provisional duty expires and before final notification, because the definitive levy operates from the notified commencement date. The Tribunal also emphasized judicial discipline and declined to prefer contrary smaller-bench rulings over the larger anti-dumping bench decisions.

Conclusion: The duty was leviable on the impugned imports made during the interregnum and the finding is against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods imported through Hong Kong escaped the duty applicable to Chinese-origin goods.

Analysis: The notification distinguished between goods originating in or exported from China and a separate category for certain Hong Kong-origin exports. On the facts found, the goods were Chinese-origin goods re-exported from Hong Kong, so the place of shipment did not alter the applicable duty based on origin.

Conclusion: The imports remained chargeable as Chinese-origin goods and the finding is against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the plea against levy based on the high quantum of duty could defeat the demand.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the magnitude of the duty could not override a validly imposed anti-dumping levy, particularly when there was no challenge to the determination of dumping, injury, or quantification.

Conclusion: The plea failed and the finding is against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The demand of anti-dumping duty was sustained and the appeal failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a definitive anti-dumping notification expressly gives effect from the date of provisional duty, the levy continues through the interim period between expiry of provisional duty and issuance of the final notification, and imports of the covered origin remain liable accordingly.

---