Court rules duty on imported goods cannot be applied retrospectively, must be paid at entry time.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the impugned notification imposing 200% duty on goods imported from Pakistan could not be applied retrospectively. The duty should be paid as per the applicable rate at the time of filing the Bill of Entry, allowing for goods to be released within seven days. The court rejected the respondent's argument against retrospective application, emphasizing the importance of the timing of import orders and goods receipt in relation to the notification's issuance. The writ petition was allowed based on the previous judgment supporting the petitioner's position.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to Notification No. 05/2019-Cus. dated 16.02.2019.
2. Retroactive application of the impugned notification.
3. Validity of the impugned notification in relation to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
4. Distinction based on the generation of the Bill of Entry on the day in question.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner was issued an Importer-Exporter Code for importing items, including dry dates and ingredients for food items from Pakistan. After self-assessment and payment of Customs Duty, a notification was issued imposing 200% duty on goods imported from Pakistan on the same day as the import. The petitioner sought directions for the issuance of a Bill of Entry number and challenged the legality of the notification.

2. The Co-ordinate Bench had previously ruled in a similar case that the impugned notification cannot be applied retrospectively. The petitioners had placed import orders and received goods before the notification was issued, making any retrospective application impermissible in law. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, emphasizing that duty should be paid as applicable at the time of filing the Bill of Entry, releasing the goods within seven days.

3. The respondent argued against the retrospective operation of the notification but attempted a technical objection regarding the generation of the Bill of Entry on the same day. However, the court found this objection ill-founded as the petitioner had filed a checklist Bill of Entry on the day of import, with specific details supporting the timely arrival of goods and filing of necessary documents. The generation of the Bill of Entry was considered a procedural formality, not affecting the applicability of the judgment.

4. The court upheld the petitioner's claim based on the previous judgment, confirming that the petitioner had placed import orders before the notification date and received goods before its issuance. The writ petition was allowed in line with the earlier decision, emphasizing the importance of the timing of import orders and goods receipt in relation to the notification's issuance.

---