https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72343 Additional duty under section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was treated as customs duty for levy and quantification, so the relevant point for assessment was the date of clearance from warehousing rather than the date the goods entered territorial waters. On that basis, the refund claim failed. The Tribunal also held that imported goods did not escape additional duty merely because Tariff Item 68 then referred to goods manufactured in a factory; the excise duty on a like Indian article served only as the measure of duty, and the imported article needed only to correspond to the relevant class or description for tariff purposes. The rejection of refund was upheld. en-us Mon, 05 May 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 May 2011 16:59:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72343 Additional duty under section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was treated as customs duty for levy and quantification, so the relevant point for assessment was the date of clearance from warehousing rather than the date the goods entered territorial waters. On that basis, the refund claim failed. The Tribunal also held that imported goods did not escape additional duty merely because Tariff Item 68 then referred to goods manufactured in a factory; the excise duty on a like Indian article served only as the measure of duty, and the imported article needed only to correspond to the relevant class or description for tariff purposes. The rejection of refund was upheld. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 05 May 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72343