https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787763 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. en-us Wed, 11 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Mar 2026 16:38:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787763 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. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 11 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787763