https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378505 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a firm importing soda ash, in a case challenging the imposition of anti-dumping duty beyond the expiry date of the original notification. It held that no fresh levy can be imposed after the expiry date of the original notification and emphasized the need for specific conditions to be met for the continuation of duties pending a sunset review. The court declared any duty collection beyond the expiry date of the original notification unauthorized, entitling the petitioner to a refund of amounts collected post-expiry. The judgment focused on upholding legal principles governing duty imposition and extension. en-us Wed, 06 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Sep 2019 12:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378505 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a firm importing soda ash, in a case challenging the imposition of anti-dumping duty beyond the expiry date of the original notification. It held that no fresh levy can be imposed after the expiry date of the original notification and emphasized the need for specific conditions to be met for the continuation of duties pending a sunset review. The court declared any duty collection beyond the expiry date of the original notification unauthorized, entitling the petitioner to a refund of amounts collected post-expiry. The judgment focused on upholding legal principles governing duty imposition and extension. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 06 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378505