Clarificatory amendment on meter length under compounded levy scheme confirms single-roller computation for embroidery machines.

Under the compounded levy scheme for embroidery machines with more than one roller, the relevant meter length was to be computed by reference to only one roller, namely the distance between the first and last needle of that roller. The later amendment to the definition of meter length was treated as clarificatory of the existing position, not as creating a new levy. On that construction, multiple-roller machines could not be assessed by multiplying the measurement through additional rollers or double frames, and differential duty on that basis was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for determining duty under the compounded levy scheme for embroidery machines having more than one roller, the meter length was to be computed with reference to only one roller or with reference to all rollers, and whether the later amendment was clarificatory.

Analysis: The definition of meter length, as it stood and as amended, indicated that the relevant distance was between the first and last needle of only one roller. The later amendment was treated as clarificatory of the existing position rather than as creating a new liability. On that construction, machines with multiple rollers could not be assessed by taking double frames into account for differential duty. The view was consistent with the earlier Tribunal ruling relied upon in the order.

Conclusion: The demand of differential duty was unsustainable and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory definition governing levy under a compounded scheme is clarified by amendment, the clarification operates retrospectively to confirm that duty must be computed according to the single applicable measurement unit and not by multiplying the levy on the basis of additional machine components.

---