Customs duty imposed post-Ordinance upheld; Refund claim denied; Duty correctly levied

The Court held that the additional duty of customs was lawfully imposed on goods removed from the private bonded warehouse after the Ordinance came into effect. The duty was determined based on the prevailing regulations at the time of removal, not at the time of importation. The petitioners' claim for a refund of the duty paid under protest was rejected, emphasizing that the duty was correctly levied in accordance with the law. The Court dismissed the petitions, citing previous Supreme Court judgments supporting the decision.

---

---

Issues:
1. Applicability of additional duty of customs on imported goods stored in private bonded warehouse.
2. Interpretation of the provisions of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textile & Textile Articles) Ordinance, 1978.
3. Determination of the rate of additional customs duty on goods imported prior to the imposition of additional duty of excise.
4. Claim for refund of additional duty paid under protest.
5. Whether the imposition of additional customs duty amounts to giving retrospective operation to the Ordinance.

Analysis:

1. The case involved two mill companies engaged in manufacturing man-made fabrics from synthetic fibers and continuous filament yarn, importing such goods with private bonded warehouse licenses. The issue was the applicability of additional duty of customs on goods stored in the warehouse.

2. The Additional Duties of Excise (Textile & Textile Articles) Ordinance, 1978 imposed additional duty of excise on certain textile articles. The question was the interpretation of this Ordinance concerning the imposition of additional customs duty on goods imported before the Ordinance came into force.

3. The Customs authorities demanded additional duty from the petitioners for goods removed from the warehouse after the Ordinance was in effect. The petitioners claimed that since the goods were imported before the Ordinance, the duty should not apply. The Court referred to previous judgments and held that the rate of customs duty is determined at the time of actual removal from the warehouse.

4. The petitioners objected to the payment of additional duty demanded and paid under protest. They sought a refund, arguing that the duty should not have been levied. However, the Court held that the duty was correctly imposed as per the prevailing law at the time of removal from the warehouse.

5. The petitioners argued that applying the Ordinance for determining the rate of additional customs duty would give retrospective operation to the provisions. The Court clarified that the duty imposed was additional customs duty, not excise duty, and the rate applicable was as of the removal date, not the import date. The argument of retrospective operation was rejected.

6. The Court dismissed the petitions, emphasizing that the duty was lawfully imposed based on the prevailing regulations at the time of goods removal from the private bonded warehouse. The judgments of the Supreme Court in similar cases were cited to support the decision.

---