Summary
The sunset review was validly initiated before expiry of anti-dumping duty although its notice became publicly available later. That initiation did not automatically extend the duty. An extension notification was required during the existing notification’s lifetime; the later notification could not amend or revive a lapsed levy. All appeals were dismissed.
Issues
- Whether public availability before expiry was necessary for initiation of sunset review.
- Whether a pending review automatically continued duty or permitted extension after the existing notification lapsed.
Provisions considered
- Section 9A(5), first and second provisos, Customs Tariff Act, 1975Timely initiation of review differed from continuation of duty, which required a positive extension notification before expiry. (¶¶ 9–18, 30–40)
- Article 265, Constitution of IndiaDuty could not be collected without legal authority through the required notification. (¶ 31)
- Section 24, General Clauses Act, 1897The rule preserving instruments on repeal and re-enactment did not apply to expiry of this duty notification. (¶ 34)
Held
- For initiation of sunset review, the Government’s decision date governed. Section 9A(5) did not additionally require public availability of its notice before expiry, while procedural public notice still served natural justice. (¶ 15–18)
- The second proviso was enabling, not an automatic extension. Government had to decide whether and for what period, within one year, duty should continue pending review. (¶ 30–33)
- The January 23, 2014 notification could not extend or amend the January 2, 2009 notification after it expired on January 1, 2014. Continuation required action during its lifetime. (¶ 35–40)
Result
All appeals dismissed: review initiation upheld and the post-expiry extension held invalid.