Warehoused import duty rate follows clearance date, so later enhanced additional customs duty was recoverable.

Warehoused imported goods were held chargeable to customs duty, including additional duty, at the rate in force on the date of clearance from the warehouse under Section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The majority applied Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 to hold that an increase in excise duty brought into force after import but before clearance was reflected in the additional duty recoverable at removal from the warehouse, so the enhanced demand was valid. One member dissented, treating the later Ordinance-based levy as a fresh impost not applicable to goods imported earlier.

---

---

Issues: Whether additional duty of customs was leviable on imported goods cleared from a bonded warehouse after the commencement of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Ordinance, 1978.

Analysis: The majority held that imported goods cleared from a bonded warehouse under Section 68 of the Customs Act, 1962 are chargeable at the rate in force on the date of clearance under Section 15(1)(b) of that Act. Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 authorises levy of additional duty of customs equal to the excise duty for the time being in force on a like article, so the post-import increase in excise duty under the Ordinance was reflected in the additional duty recoverable at the time of clearance. The fact that the Ordinance came into force after import did not prevent application of the increased rate when the goods were removed from the warehouse.

Conclusion: Additional duty of customs at the enhanced rate was lawfully leviable, and the demand was valid.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the customs demand was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: For warehoused imported goods, the rate of customs duty and any additional duty lawfully chargeable is determined by the law in force on the date of clearance from the warehouse, not by the position prevailing on the date of import.

Dissenting Opinion: One member held that the additional excise levy introduced by the Ordinance was a fresh impost not in force on the date of import, and that such a subsequent levy could not be applied to goods imported before its commencement; reconsideration of the earlier Tribunal view was indicated.

---