Retrospective validating amendment permits recovery despite an approved classification list and defeats the reopening objection.

A retrospective validating amendment can override the earlier rule that approval of a classification list barred recovery of differential duty. The text notes that the Tribunal had relied on Cotspun to hold that no reopening was permissible after approval, but the later statutory amendment with retrospective effect from 17-11-1980 was held valid, removing the legal basis for that objection. As a result, the limitation and approved-classification-list objections did not survive, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the objection to recovery of differential duty on the basis of an approved classification list could survive in view of the retrospective amendment and the overruling of the earlier precedent.

Analysis: The levy in question had been dealt with by the Tribunal on the basis that differential duty could not be recovered once the classification list had been approved, relying on the earlier view in Cotspun Limited. During the pendency of the appeal, however, the statutory amendment brought about by Act 10 of 2000 with retrospective effect from 17-11-1980 was held valid, and the earlier rule that an approved classification list barred reopening no longer survived. In consequence, the legal foundation on which the Tribunal had proceeded was unavailable.

Conclusion: The objection based on approval of the classification list and limitation failed, and the appeal was allowed with remand for fresh decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A retrospective validating amendment can neutralise the effect of an earlier precedent and permit reopening of demands based on an approved classification list.

---