Anti-dumping appeals were premature before duty notification, as no adverse legal consequence had yet arisen.

Anti-dumping liability under Rule 18 arises only when the Central Government imposes duty by notification after the Designated Authority's final findings. Because no such notification had yet been issued, the final determination had not created any adverse legal consequence for the appellants, and they were not treated as aggrieved at that stage. The challenge to the final findings was therefore premature, and the correctness of those findings was not required to be examined before issuance of a duty notification. The appeals were held not maintainable at that stage and dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeals against the Designated Authority's final determination were maintainable when no anti-dumping duty had yet been imposed by notification, and whether the appellants could be treated as aggrieved at that stage.

Analysis: Under Rule 18 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, liability arises only when the Central Government, within the prescribed time, imposes anti-dumping duty by notification pursuant to the final findings of the Designated Authority. Since no such notification had been issued, the determination had not yet resulted in any adverse legal consequence for the appellants. The challenge was therefore premature, and the correctness of the final findings need not be examined before a duty notification is issued.

Conclusion: The appeals were not maintainable at that stage and were dismissed.

---