' I. MAHMUD, J.-Constitutional Petitions Nos. 192/76 and 278/76 seek to challenge the orders passed on the Bills of Entry by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Custom House, Karachi, the Respondent No, 3, charging import duty under Heading 17.02B of the Pakistan Customs Tariff, as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect. As the two petitions raise a common question of interpretation, they have been heard together and will be disposed of by this judgment.
2. The facts mentioned in Constitutional Petition No, 192/76 are that the petitioner, Asian Food Industries Limited carries on business as a manufacturer of confectionery, namely, toffees, sweets, chocolates etc. In their factory at Karachi. Glucose is largely employed in the manufacture of the said products. On the basis of an import licence granted to it, the petitioner imported 172 drums of Liquid Glucose in sealed galvanised iron drums of 290 kgs. Net, each from their suppliers in Shanghai, China. Petitioner's clearing agents put in a Bill of Entry for consumption which declared the imported article as "Liquid Glucose" under Pakistan Customs Tariff (P. C. T.) Heading 17.02A and the rate of duty applicable as 25 ad valorem. The Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraisement), the respondent No, 3 endorsed on the Bill of Entry the remark "the sample on examination is found to be Liquid Glucose" and marked the goods as dutiable under P. C. T.
17.02B at the higher rate of duty at 62-i per cent. Ad valorem. The petitioner made representations and contended that in the past several imports of Liquid Glucose were being charged to duty at 25% ad valorem under P. C. T. Heading 17.02A and not under P. C. T.
17.02B, as will appear from copies of Bills of Entry Annexure B-1 to B.3 and that the sudden reversal of this practice was illegal and without lawful authority. The petitioners' representations met with no success. Hence, the petitioner filed this Constitutional Petition to challenge the order of the respondent No, 3 charging Liquid Glucose under P. C. T. Heading 17.02B.
3. The facts in Constitutional Petition No, 278/76 are similar. The petitioner imported from Shanghai, China Liquid Glucose for use in the manufacture of biscuits in 100 drums which were declared dutiable under P. C. T. Heading 17.02B at 62 per cent. Ad valorem. The case of the petitioner is that in the immediate past, it had imported two similar consignments of Liquid Glucose which were cleared on payment of import duty under P. C. T. Heading 17 02A and that the deviation from the alleged established practice was illegal and without lawful authority.
4. The respondents disputed the case of the petitioners and contended that the imports of Liquid Glucose were correctly charged to duty under P. C. T. Heading 17.02B because, according to the latest Customs Labortory Test report, the Liquid Glucose imported by the petitioners was a different substance from "Chemically pure Glucose" falling under P. C. T. Heading 17.02A.
5. The relevant P. C. T. Heading 17.02 reads as follows : "CHAPTER XVI-SUGARS AND SUGAR CONFECTIONERY.
17.02 Other sugars; sugar syrups; artificial honey (whether or not mixed with natural honey); {{TABLE}} A. Chemically pure glucose... ... 25 % ad val. B. Other ... 62 ad val." {{TABLE}}
6. The first submission of Mr. Mansoor Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Customs authority having permitted clearance of Liquid Glucose imported by the petitioners in the past under P. C. T. Heading 17.02A, it is estopped from deviating from the post practice to the prejudice of the petitioners and such deviation is illegal and without lawful authority. In support of this submission, learned counsel referred to the observations of the Pakistan Supreme Court in Nazeer Ahmed v. Pakistan and others (1). In that case, the seniority in Service of the appellant, who was serving in the Post and Telegraph Department as an Engineering Supervisor, was lowered by the Department deviating after several years from a construction put on a Rule framed by the Department. In allowing the appeal, their Lordships observed that the seniority of the appellant was initially accorded to him on a particular construction of the relevant Department Rule, which held the ground for the last 10 years, and that whether the construction of the Rule was right or wrong, it would be extremely unfair to make a departure from it now after a lapse of so many years and to disturb the rights that have been settled by a long and consistent course by this practice. With respect, these observations, in or view, do not apply to the interpretation of a fiscal enactment. A fiscal enactment has to be construed strictly according to the letter of the law. As observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in A The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, East Bengal v. B.
W. M. Abdul Rahman (2) :- "But indeed, in determining whether or not a particular matter comes within a taxing statute, it is only the letter of the law which must be looked to. There is ample authority for the proposition that in a fiscal case, form is of primary importance, the principle being that if the person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law, he must be taxed, however, great a hardship may thereby be involved."
' In or view, the petitioners could not acquire any vested rights to clear the import of 'Liquid Glucose' under P. C. T. Heading 17.02A attracting the lower import duty by being permitted to do so in the past on an erroneous interpretation of the P. C. T. Heading by the Customs Authority. Neither does the alleged past practice become law, nor can there be an estoppel against a statute. We must, therefore, reject this submission of counsel.
7. The next submission of Mr. Mansoor Ahmed Khan was that 'Liquid Glucose' is 'Chemically Pure Glucose'. His argument is that merely because 'Liquid Glucose' comprises of a mixture of dextrose, maltose, dextrin, and water, it does not make it chemically not pure Glucose. The phrase 'chemically pure', he argues means free from impurity. This method of interpretation of a phrase is, in my opinion, fallacious. As stated in Craies on Statute Law, 7th Edition, p. 160: "It is often fallacious, in considering the meaning of a phrase {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1970 SC 453 (2) 1973 SCM R 445 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' consisting of two words, to find a meaning which each has separately and then infer that the two together cover the combination so arrived at. The two together may have acquired a special meaning of their own."
' On the other hand, it is contended by Mr. Shah Jamil Alam, learned Deputy Attorney-General, that the phrase `Chemically Pure Glucose' has acquired a special meaning of its own. In this connection, the learned Deputy Attorney-General has referred us to the Explanatory Notes to the Brussel's Nomenclature. a reference to which is recommended in the Pakistan Customs Tariff, in :case of doubt. The Explonatory Notes to the Clause Heading No, 17.02 "Other Sugars" show that the Heading includes both chemically pure Glucose Or dextrose) and commercial glucose. It reads as follows:- "The present heading includes chemically pure glucose (or dextrose) and commercial glucose.
' Dextrose C6 H12 06 is a white crystalline powder. It is used in the food and pharmaceutical industries.
' Commercial glucose is obtained by hydrolysing starch with acids and/or enzymes. It always contains, in addition to dextrose, a variable proportion of dl, trl-and other poly-saccharides (maltose, maltotriose, etc.). It has a reducing sugar content, expressed as dextrose on the dry substance, of not less than 20%. It is usually in the form of colourless, more or less viscous liquid (glucose syrup), or of lumps or cakes glucose aggregates) or of an amorphous powder. It is used mainly in the food industry, in brewing, in tobacco termination and in pharmacy."
' Chemically pure Glucose is treated therein as synonymous with Dextrose whose molecular formula is C6 H12 06 which is a white crystalline powder and is contrasted with Commercial Glucose, which is a mixture of dextrose, maltose etc. And is usually in the form of a colourless, more or less viscous liquid (glucose syrup). The petitioners also have relied on the Explanatory Note above quoted to the Brussel's Nomenclature. No doubt Dextrose, which is chemically pure glucose as well as Liquid Glucose are used in both food and pharmaceutical industries, and if they are medicaments, as they have been included in the British Pharmaceutical Codex 1963 at page 241 (Dextrose) and page 338 (Liquid Glucose), they are not covered under Chapter 17 relating to Sugars and Sugar Syrups, but would appear to fall in Chapter 30 P. C. T. Under Pharmaceutical products. The fact remains however, that the Heading 17.02 classifies chemically pure glucose independently and as a different substance from other Sugars which includes Liquid Glucose, which is otherwise known as commercial glucose. It is a fact that the petitioners have imported .Liquid Glucose in drums in the form of viscous liquid for commercial use. The laboratory test report of the Chemical Examiner in respect of the c consignments in question confirms that the sample was found to be commercial glucose in the form of thick viscous liquid composed of dextrose, maltose, dextrine and that it was not synonymous to chemically pure glucose (dextrose). We are therefore, of the view that the Liquid Glucose falls under P. C. T. Heading 17.02B and that it was rightly charged to import duty at the rate of 62 per cent. Ad valorem.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we find no force in these petitions, which are dismissed with no order as to costs.