Retrospective import policy amendments cannot penalise earlier imports; doubtful commodity coverage is read in favour of the importer.

A later import-policy amendment could not be applied retrospectively to imports already made because no express words or necessary implication authorised retroactive operation. On the relevant policy date, ABS moulding powder and ABS extrusion granules were treated as distinct commodities with different commercial identity and end use, so the earlier prohibition did not cover the imported granules. Any genuine doubt in an import-control provision had to be resolved in favour of the importer. The confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the subsequent public notice amending the import policy to include ABS resin/granules/moulding powder could operate retrospectively against the import already made; (ii) Whether ABS moulding powder and ABS extrusion granules were the same commodity for the relevant import policy period so as to attract the prohibition and justify confiscation and penalty.

Issue (i): Whether the subsequent public notice amending the import policy to include ABS resin/granules/moulding powder could operate retrospectively against the import already made

Analysis: The amendment expanded the banned entry only by the later public notice. In the absence of express words or necessary implication, a change in the import policy could not be given retrospective effect. The entry as amended could be used only to understand the earlier wording, not to impose a later prohibition on imports already made.

Conclusion: The amendment was prospective and did not validate the confiscation of the goods imported before the change.

Issue (ii): Whether ABS moulding powder and ABS extrusion granules were the same commodity for the relevant import policy period so as to attract the prohibition and justify confiscation and penalty

Analysis: The relevant policy entry, as it stood at the time of import, referred only to ABS moulding powder. On the evidence, ABS moulding powder and ABS extrusion granules were treated as different commodities, having different end uses and commercial recognition. In a case of doubt, the interpretation favourable to the importer had to prevail. The later amendment including granules of all grades reinforced that granules were not covered earlier.

Conclusion: ABS moulding powder and ABS extrusion granules were not the same commodity for the relevant period, so the import was not prohibited and the orders of confiscation and penalty could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The importer succeeded on both the retrospective effect question and the commodity-classification question, and the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A later amendment to an import-control entry is prospective unless retrospective effect is clearly provided, and where the earlier entry uses a narrower description, goods not clearly covered at the relevant time cannot be treated as prohibited merely because a subsequent amendment expressly brings them within the ban; any genuine doubt in a taxing or import-control provision must be resolved in favour of the importer.

---