https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259453 Retrospective operation of an amending anti-dumping duty notification was disputed where the amendment inserted a manufacturer's name into a specified entry. One view treated the amendment as curative from the date of the original notification, preventing producer-exporters from escaping duty and bringing the imports within that entry. The contrary view relied on the original notification's separate residual entry and the absence of express retrospective language, applying the principle that fiscal notifications imposing liability operate prospectively unless retrospective intent is express or arises by necessary implication. The Members differed, leaving the issue unresolved. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 May 2015 11:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259453 Retrospective operation of an amending anti-dumping duty notification was disputed where the amendment inserted a manufacturer's name into a specified entry. One view treated the amendment as curative from the date of the original notification, preventing producer-exporters from escaping duty and bringing the imports within that entry. The contrary view relied on the original notification's separate residual entry and the absence of express retrospective language, applying the principle that fiscal notifications imposing liability operate prospectively unless retrospective intent is express or arises by necessary implication. The Members differed, leaving the issue unresolved. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 08 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259453