Anti-dumping duty gap period levy barred where provisional duty expired before final notification came into force.

Anti-dumping duty could not be levied on imports made in the gap between expiry of provisional duty and the later final notification, because the statutory scheme under the Customs Tariff Act and Anti-dumping Duty Rules did not authorise recovery for a period when no operative levy was in force. The Tribunal also held that Special Bench jurisdiction under the anti-dumping appeal provision was confined to questions concerning dumping determination itself, so ordinary appellate jurisdiction remained available for a challenge to levy and recovery. Delay in finalising provisional assessment did not, by itself, vitiate the demand, as the strict time-limit regulation was not then in force. The demand failed on the interregnum levy issue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether anti-dumping duty could be levied on imports made during the interregnum between expiry of the provisional anti-dumping duty and the later final notification; (ii) whether the appeal could be rejected on the ground that the matter required consideration only by a Special Bench under the anti-dumping appeal provision; (iii) whether the belated finalisation of provisional assessment vitiated the demand.

Issue (i): Whether anti-dumping duty could be levied on imports made during the interregnum between expiry of the provisional anti-dumping duty and the later final notification.

Analysis: The relevant legal framework comprised Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Rules 13, 18, 20 and 23 of the 1995 Anti-dumping Duty Rules. The governing principle applied was that provisional anti-dumping duty can operate only for the period permitted by law, and final anti-dumping duty may, in the circumstances expressly provided, relate back only within the statutory limits. The later final notification could not be used to bridge a period when no operative anti-dumping duty was in force. The Tribunal followed the settled rule that levy during the gap between lapse of provisional duty and commencement of final duty amounts to an impermissible retrospective levy outside the statutory scheme.

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

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal could be rejected on the ground that the matter required consideration only by a Special Bench under the anti-dumping appeal provision.

Analysis: Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was construed as conferring Special Bench jurisdiction only for appeals concerning the existence, degree and effect of dumping or review thereof. The dispute before the Tribunal concerned the legality of levy and recovery in a provisional assessment context, not the merits of dumping determination itself. The provision was not read expansively so as to exclude ordinary appellate jurisdiction for all questions connected with anti-dumping duty.

Conclusion: The objection to jurisdiction was rejected and the Tribunal held that it had competence to hear the appeal.

Issue (iii): Whether the belated finalisation of provisional assessment vitiated the demand.

Analysis: Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Regulation 5 of the Customs (Finalisation of Provisional Assessment) Regulations, 2018 were considered in the context of the timeline for finalisation. The Tribunal noted that the regulations prescribing a strict time-limit were not in force at the material time, and therefore the mere delay, though undesirable, did not by itself invalidate the assessment. The complaint on this score was not accepted as a ground to set aside the demand.

Conclusion: The delay in finalisation did not, by itself, invalidate the proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The impugned levy could not survive because no anti-dumping duty was legally chargeable during the interregnum period, and the order below was therefore set aside with consequential relief to follow in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Anti-dumping duty cannot be imposed for a period when the provisional levy has expired and the final levy has not yet come into force, unless the statute expressly authorises retrospective recovery within its narrow limits.

---