' NMMUDDIN, J.-This Constitution Petition and Constitution Petitions Nos. 11-19 of 1975, 1180 of 1975, 1217 of 1975, 1265 of 1975, 1266 of 1975, 1315 of 1975 and 1327 of 197:: involve common question of law and therefore we propose to dispose of all these petitions by this judgment.
2. The petitioners in Petition No, 1178 of 1975 imported iron and steel scrap for re-re ffiug purpose consisting of cobble plates, cuttings and slabs falling under Pakistan Customs Tariff No 73.13(1) under Import Licence No, 629450, dated 30-6-1975, Issued by the Controller of Impel is and Exports, Government of Pakistan. Tile ship carrying the goods arrived at the poi t cf Karachi on 7th September, 1975. The petitioner filed a bill of entry, dated 22-10-1975, with the Collector of Customs, Karachi, respondent who claimed customs duty, including regulatory duty, at the rate of 624 per cent. Ad valorem in accordance with the Notification S. R.
0. 910/75 published in the Government Gazette, Extraordinary (Part bearing the date of 22nd August, 1975 which in foot was printed on 17th September 1975 and copies whereof were dispatched to the Stationary and Forms Office, situated at Satellite Town, Rawalpindi, on 16th October, 1975
3. The petitioners claimed that they were liable to pay duty at the rate of 25 per cent. Ad valorem io accordance with the rate of duty levied by the Finance Act, 1975 and were not liable to pay the regulatory duty claimed by respondent 1. But respondent 1 refused to release goods on payment of duty at the rate of 25 per cent. Ad V71orem , therefore, the petitioners have filed this petition challenging the Notification S. R.
0. 910(11/75 bearing the date of 22nd August, 1975 where under the respondent 1 claimed the huty at the rate of 624 per cent. Ad valorem which includes the regulatory duty.
3-A. In Petition No, 1179 of 1975 the cobble plates classified under Pakistan Custoois Tariff No, 73.13
(B) were imported under Beene No, 630561 dated 9th June, 1975. The ship carrying the goods arrived at the Port of Karachi on 1-10-1975. The bill of entry was filed on 22nd October, 1975 and the rate of duty payable on the cobble plates fixed by the Finance Act, 1975 was 25 per cent.
4. In Petition No, 1180 of 1975 re-roll able scrap comprising of plate cuttings and slabs etc. For re- rolling falling under Pakistan Customs Tariff No, 73.13 (8), was imported under Licenses Nos. 630726 and 629450 dated 30-6-1975. The ship carrying the goods arrived at the Port of Karachi on 14-10-1975. The bill of entry was tiled on 22nd October, 1975 and the rate of duty payable on the scrap comprising of plate cuttings and slabs etc. Fixed by the Finance Act, 1975 was 25 per cent.
5. In Petition No, 1217 of 1975 reroll able scrap comprising of plate cuttings and slabs etc. For rerolling falling under Pakistan Customs Tariff No, 73.13(B) were imported under Licenses Nos. 630726 and 629450 dated 30.6.1975. The ship carrying the goods arrived at the Port of Karachi on 1-10-1975. The bill of entry was filed on 22nd October, 1975 and the rate of duty payable on the scrap comprising of plate cuttings and slabs etc , fixed by the Finance Act, 1975 was 25 per cent.
6. In Petition No, 1265 of 1975 reroll able scrap comprising of plate cuttings and slabs etc. For recoiling falling under Pakistan Customs Tariff No, 73.16(A) were imported under License No, 455342 dated 21-5-1975. The ship carrying the goods arrived at the Fort of Karachi on 13-10-1975. The bill of entry was filed on 22nd October 1975 and the rate of duty payable on the scrap comprising of plate cuttings and slabs etc. Fixed by the Finance Act, 1975 was 32* per cent.
7. In Petition No, 1266 of 1975 reroll able scrap for remitting and rerolling falling under Pakistan Customs Tarrif No, 73.03 were imported under License No 517119 dated 21-5-1975. The ship carrying the goods arrived at the port of Karachi on 13-10-1975. The bill of entry was filed on 20th October, 1975 and the rate of duty payable on the rerollable scrap for remitting and rerolling fixed by the Finance Act, 1975 was 32* per cent.
8. In Petition No, 1315 of 1975 reroll able scrap comprising used rails falling under Pakistan Customs Tariff No, 73.16 were imported under License Nos. 629450 and 629453, dated 26-7-1975. The ship carrying the gooth arrived at the Port of Karachi on 21-11-'975. The bill of entry was filed on 22nd November, 1975 and the rare of duty payable on the rerollable scrap comprising rails fixed by the Finance Act, 1975 was 25 per cent.
9 In Petition No, 1327 of 1975 reroll able scrap comprising of slabs, sheet bars for retuning, falling under Pakistan Customs Tariff No, 73.13(B) were imported. The date of arrival of the ship and date of filing of bill of entry are not mentioned in the petition. However, the rate of duty' is 25% ad valorem.
10 In all the above cases respondent 1 claimed rate of duty, Including regulatory duty, at the rate of 62% ad valorem.
11. We have Neared Mr. Zia Parvez, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Shan Jamil Alam, Deputy Attorney-General for the respondents.
12. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has raised before us three-fold contentions in support of this petition. The first contention is that the regulatory duty imposed under the Notification S. R.
0. 910 (1)/75, dated 22nd August, 1975 is ultra vices the powers under subsection (2) of section 18 of the Customs Act, 1969 (here inafter called the Act) so far as it purports to levy regulatory duty exceeding 50 per cent. Of the rates of duty mentioned against the relevant items contained in the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1975. The second contention is that the imposition of the regulatory duty on the articles in question is discriminatory and the third contention is that the notifinatioe imposing the duty was not published till 22nd October, 197), when the bill of entry was filed and as such no duty could be claimed on its basis.
13. So far as the third contention is concerned we cannot entertain it for the simple reason that no such ground has been taken in the memorandum of the petitions and the date of publication of the notification is a disputed fact as according to the learned Deputy Attorney-General the notification was published on 14-9-75 and was available for sale from 16-10-1975 much before the dates of bills of entry in all these cases and therefore in the absence of any plea taken in the contention in this regard it would be unfair to the respondents to allow the petitioner to raise this contention.
14. In order to appreciate the first contention it would be convenient if we set forth the provisions of section 18 of the Finance Act, 1975 and the impugned Notification. Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1969 reads as follows:- "18.-(1) Except as hereinafter provided, customs duties shall be levied at such rates as are prescribed in the First Schedule and the Second schedule or under any other law for the time being in force on-
(a) goods imported into or exported from Pakistan;
(b) goods brought from any foreign country to any customs-station and without payment of duty, there transshipped or transported for, or thence carried to, and imported at any other customs station; and
(e) goods brought in bond from one customs station to another.
(2) The Federal Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, levy, subject to such conditions, limitations or restrictions as it may deem fit to impose a regulatory duty on all or any of the articles specified in the First Schedule at a rate not exceeding fifty per cent. Of the rate, if any, specified therein read with any notification issued under subsection (1) of section 2 or subsection
(1) of section 3 of the Protective Duties Act, 1950 (LXI of 1950), or at a rate not exceeding hundred per cent, of the value of such articles, as determined under section 25 and may, by a like notification, levy a regulatory duty on all or any of the articles exported from Pakistan.
(I) in the case of articles enumerated in the Second Schedule at a rate not exceeding thirty per cent. Of the rate specified in the Second Schedule or of the amount which would represent the value of such articles as determined under section 25; and
(ii) in the case of articles not enumerated in the Second Schedule, at a rate not exceeding thirty per cent. Of tie amount which represents the value of such article as determined under section 25.
(3) The regulatory duty levied under subsection (2) shall be in addition to any duty imposed under subsection (1) or under any other law for the time being in force.
(4) Any notification issued under subsection (2) shall, if not earlier rescinded, stand rescinded on the expiry of the financial year in which it was issued."
15. The impugned notification reads: "S. R.
0. 910f1)1.75.-In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2)of section 18 of the Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969), the Federal Government is pleased to direct that regulatory duty shall be levied on all items of iron and steel scrap for rerolling falling under the respective heads of Chapter 73 of the First Schedule to the said Act so as to increase the rate of duty to 621% ad valorem in case of items the rate of which is lo or than the said rate."
17. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in respect of goods covered by items Nos.
73.13(B), 73.16(A) and 73.16(B) the regulatory duty could not exceed 121 per cent. Ad valorem in accordance with the first part of subsection (2) of section 18 of the Act and in respect of the goods covered by Item No, 73.03 rate of regulatory duty could not exceed 161 per cent. Ad valorem as the rates of customs duty on these goods, as would appear from the First Schedule, was 25 per cent.
And 321 per cent. Respectively. The argument is that under first part of subsection (2) of section 18 of the Act the rate of regulatory duty could not exceed 50% of the rate of customs duty provided in the First Schedule to the Act. However, it was contended by the learned Deputy Attorney-General that under second part of subsection (2) of section 18 of the Act the regulatory duty could be levied at the rates not exceeding 100 per cent. Of the value of such articles and the regulatory duty levied by the impugned notification is in accordance with the second part of subsection (2) of section 18 of the Act and therefore infra wires. However, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in respect of articles specified in the First Schedule the regulatory duty could not exceed 50 per cent. Of the rates of customs duty and second part covers only tnose items of which rate of duty is not mentioned in the First Schedule of I he Act, while the submission of the learned Deputy Attorney-General is that the Federal Government has option to net either under the first part of subsection (2) of section 18 of the Act (hereinafter called the first part), and it' it acts under the first part then the rate of regulatory duty could not exceed 50 per cent. Of the rates of customs duty specified in the First Schedule or under second gait of subsection (2) of section 18 of the Act (hereinafter called the second part) an I when it acts under the secon.:1 part the regulatory duty could be levied up to 100 per cent. Of the value of such articles.
' Therefore, the question that falls for consideration is whether the Federal Government has option to act either under the first part or under the second part in respect of all the articles specified in the First Schedule or it can levy regulatory duty on the basis of valuation under the second part in respect of all the articles or some of the articles or, as contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner only in respect of these articles for which no rate of duty has been specified in the First Schedule. In our opinion no difficulty would have arisen in interpretation of the provisions of subsection (2) of section 18 of the Act if rates of customs duty were specified in respect of all the articles mentioned in the First Schedule and on uniform basis. However, on examination of the Schedule we find that customs duties at varying rates and on different basis have been levied for different articles under different chapters contained in the First Schedule. Under First Chapter relating to live horses, rise's, mules and hinnies under heading No, 01.01 livestocks they could be imported free of duty as no rate of duty is provided under the heading 'Rate of Duty' and word 'free' is used. However, under Heading No, 01.102 for live animals of bovine species rata of duty provided is 25 per cent. Ad valorem.
' In order to show that the varying rates of customs duty have been provided for certain articles and no duty is chargeable in respect of certain other articles, e e may also reproduce herein certain portions of Chapters 22, 27. 73 and 87 which would help in understanding and interpreting the provisions of subsection (2) of section 18 of the Act. {{}TABLE TEXT}} Chapter-22 Heading No, Name of article Rate of duty 22 01. Waters, including spa waters and aerated waters; ice and snow; A. Ordinary natural water and natural snow and ice. Free.
B. Other... ... ... 50 % ad val.
22 02. Lemonade, flavoured spa waters and flavoured aerated waters, and other non-alcoholic 2 3 beverages, not including fruit and vegetable juices falling within heading No, 20.07, 125% ad val.
22.03. Beer made from malt; A. In barrels or other containers containing Rs, 7'50 per liqutd 27 oz. Or more. Gallon plus 25 % ad val. B. In bottles containing less than 27 oz. But not Rs, 1.50 per bottle less than 20 oz! Plus 25% ad val. C. In bottles containing less than 134 oz. But g) pa. Per bottle plus not less than 10 oz. 25% ad val. D. In bottles containing 1053 than 6 3/4 oz. But 30 ps. Per bottle plus not less than 5 oz. 25% ad val. E. In other containers.... Rs, 10 per liquid gallon plus 25 % ad vat.
27.01 Coal, briquettes, avoids and Similar solid fuels manufactured from coal A. Coal.. < . . Free.
B. Other.. .. Free.
27.02. Lignite, whether or not agglomerated. Free.
27.03. Peat (including peat litter) whether or not agglomerated. Free.
27.04. Coke and semi-coke of coal of lignite or of peat. 25% ad val.
27.05. Retort carbon. 25% ad val.
27.06. Coal gas, water gas, producer gas and similar gases (bis). 25% ad val.
27.09. Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bitumi- nous minerals, crude ..................................... Free.
27.10. Petroleum oils and oils obtaked from bituminous minerals, other than crude preparations not elsewhere specified or included, containing not less than 70% by weight of petroleum oils or of oils obtained from bituminous minerals, oils being the basic constituents of the preparations:A. Partly refined petroleum, including topped crudes. 50% ad val. B. Motor spirit. . . . Rs, 4 per gallon. C.
Kerosene, Jet fuels and white spirit.
(i) Jet Fuels .................................................... 25 paisa per gallon.
(II) Other.... 20 paisa per gallon - D. Gas oil, diesel oils and other fuel oils:
(f) Light diesel oil. 574 paisa per piton.
(U) Furnace oil. 174 paisa per gallon.
1 2 3
(ihi) High speed diesel oil.
(lv) Other Rs, 1. 35 per gallon. 624 % ad val.
E. Lubricating oil and other oils and preparations:
(i) Lubricating oil, that is oil such as is not ordinarily used for any other purpose than lubrication excluding any mineral oil which has its flashing point below two hundred degrees of Fahrenheit's thermometer by Abel's close test: (a)
(b) #TBS
(c) Rs, 4 per gallon. Rs, 4 per gallon.
(d) #TBE
(e) In packs not exceeding 1 gallon.
(f) Other.............
(11) Other:
(a) Mineral oil which has its flashing point at or above two hundred degrees of Fahrenheit's thermometer and is ordinarily used for the batching of jute or other fibre... .
(b)
(c) #TBS
(d) 174 % ad val.
624 % ad val.
624 % ad val.
(e) #TBE
(f) Greases.
(g) Other.
Chapter 37 37.01. Photographic plates and film in the flat, sensi- tised unexposed, of any material other than paper, paperboard or cloth: A. X-ray plates and film. Free.
B. Other. 624 % ad val.
37.03. Film in rolls, senitised, unexposed, perforated or not. A. Cinematograph film. 5 paisa per linear # foot. B. X-ray film. Free.
C. Ott er. 624 % ad val.
Chapter-73 73.01. Pig iron, cast iron and spiegeltisen, in pigs, blocks, lumps and similar forms: A. Spiegeleisen. 321 % ad val. B. Other. 324 % ad val.
73.13. Sheets and places, of iron or steel hot-rolled or cold-rolled. A. Cast iron plates. 624 % ad val. B.
Other. 25 % ad val.
73.16. Railway and tramway track construction material of iron or steel the following: rails, check- rails, switch blades crossing (or frog;), crossing pieces, point rods, rack rails, sleepers, fish-plates, chairs, chair wedges, sole plates 2 (base plates) rail clips, bedplates, ties and other material specialised for joining or fixing rails. A.
Rails.
B. Other.
87.01 Tractors (otter than those falling within head- ing No, 87.07), whether or not fitted with power take offs, winches, or pulleys. A. Road tractors far semi-trailers...................
P. Others... .
137.02. Motor vehicles for the transport of persons, goods, or materials (includings sports motor vehicles, other than those of heading No, 87.09): A. Now motor cars including station wagons built on car chassis, the value of which-(0 does not exceed Rs, 18,000 per vehicle. ,(ii) exceeds Rs, 18,000 but does not exceed Rs, 25,000 per vehicle.
(iii) exceeds Rs, 25,000 but does not exceed Rs, 35,000 per vehicle.
(iv) exceeds Rs, 35,0C 0 per vehicle.
3 25% ad val. 25% ad val.
10% ad val. 10% ad val.
92i % ad val. 150 % ad val.
212i % ad vat. 275% ad val. {{TABLE TEXT}} ' Thus an examination of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1975, would show that the customs duty has not been levied on all articles mentioned therein on uniform basis. It has been levied on 4 different basis. Accordingly, the articles mention ed in the First Schedule can be divided into four groups. In the first group are found the articles on which no customs duty has been levied i,e, they can be imported free of customs duty, such as coal under item 27.01 of Chapter 27, and petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, crude wider item 27.07 and X-ray plates and film under item 37.01 of Chapter 37. In the second group fall the articles which include the articles which are the subject-matter of these petitions wherein customs duty has been imposed on ad valorem basis which means "according to the valuation". (See Bouvier's Law Dictionary, p. 138, Vol. I, III Edo.
Ad valorem duties are always estimated at a certain per cent. On the/ valuation of the property as opposed to fixed or specific duties as explained in the Law Lexicon by P. R. Aiyar, p. 28 and in Karachi Municipal Corporation v. Messrs Muhammad All Shaikh Ismailji (1). In the third group come the articles which carry the levy of customs duty on per unit basis i,e, at paisas or rupees so much per gallon, per pound, per foot or per piece, for example, on cinematograph film under item 37.02 of Chapter 37 customs duty payable is 5 paisa per linear foot, and in the fourth group are found the articles which bear the burden of the customs duty payable on per unit basis in addition to ad valorem basis such as been made from malt under item 22.03 of Chapter 22 on which customs duty payable is Rs, 7.50 per liquid gallon 25% ad valorem.
Now, taking up the question of interpretation of the provisions of sub- -section (2) of section 18 of the Act, we find that in respect of the articles
(1) PLD 1966 Kar. 42 ' falling in the first group which carry no liability of payment of any customs duty, that is, they are importable free of duty, the regulatory duty could be levied only on valuation basis under the second part of subsection (2 of section 18 as under tie first part regulatory duty could be levied up to 50 per cent. Of the rate of custeni s duty provided iu the First Schedule but sin in respect of such articles no customs duty is provided, therefore, regulatory duty could not be levied under the first part. However, in respect 0 the articles on which the customs duty has been levied on ad valorem basis if regulatory duty is allowed to be imposed at the option of the Federal Government either under the first part or under the second part as claimed by the Deputy Attorney-General, it would lead to not only anomalous results but would also bring the levy of the duty under first part into conflict with the levy of duty under the second part as would be presently seen. Under the first part tie regulatory duty in respect of the present articles i,e, iron and steel scrap on which the customs duty is levied at 25 per cent. Ad valorem could be up to l2i per coot. Ad valorem but if it is accepted that in respect of these very articles the regulatory duty could also be levied under the second part then it could be levied up to 100 per cent. Ad valorem as provided therein. This would bring the levy directly in conflict with the provisions of the first part which prohibit the levy of regulatory duty exceeding 50 per cent. Of the rate of customs duty, if any, provided in the First Schedule. Therefore, it could not be the intention of the Legislature to permit to do under the second part what it has prohibited to be done under the first part. Nov, we take another example of motor cars of which the value exceeds Rs, 35,000 per vehicle. In respect of such cars the rate of customs duty provided in the First Schedule is 275 per cent. Ad valorem. Under the first part the regulatory duty in respect of such cars could be levied up to the rate of 1371 per cent, ad valorem but if the Government can act under the second part, the rate of regulatory duty could not exceed 100 per cent. Ad valorem as provided thereunder. Now, again, the intention of the Legislature could be to prohibit the levying of duty exceeding 100 per cent. Under the second part what it has permitted to be done under the first part where under in respect of such cars of regulatory duty could be up to 137i per cent.
' It is well-settled rule of construction of statutes that the provisions contained in statues bearing on the same subject-matter should be s interpreted as to yield a harmonious result, avoiding a conflict and a contradiction. However, if any authority is needed reference may be had to a Division Bench decision of the West Pakistan High Court in Jamal Din v. Haft Mohammad Asian: (1).
Reference may also be had to a Full Bench decision of Dacca High Court in Mrs. Montraz Malik v.
The Taxing Officer \ (Registrar, High Court), Dacca (2). The Full Bench, while considering the question whether court-fee was payable on a memorandum of appeal filed against an award for compensation given in respect of the property requisitioned under section 3 of the East Bengal (Emergency) e Requisition of Property Act, 1948 and subsequently acquired under section 5 of the said Act, under Article 1 of the Schedule 1 or under Article 11 of the Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, observed as follows:- "It is a well-recognized rule of construction that where there is an apparent conflict between two provisions of a statut i, it is the duty of the Court to harmonise them and to place such construction on them-as shall avoid a conflict (Reference PLD 1957 SC (Pak.) 219 and AIR 1961 SC 420). A harmonious construction of Article 1 of - Schedule 1 and Article 11 of Schedule II is possible if it is construed 0) PLD 1965 Lab. 503 (2) PLD 1969 Dacca 803 ' that the former Article applies only to a memorandum of appeal when the appeal is from a decree or an order having the force of a decree. Such a construction will render Article 1 of Schedule I and Article 11 of Schedule II mutually exclusive without any possibility of any conflict between them."
' Again a Division Bench of Dacca High Court in Abdul Rehman and others v. The State (1) observed: "We feel that the fundamental principle is that not only each part of the statute has to live and serve a definite purpose but also that conflict should be avoided between one section and another as far as possible."
' Further, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mr. Justice A. S. Farooqui and Mr. Justice Abdul Kadir Shaikh (the present Chief Justice) in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Zelin Ltd., Karachi (2) observed 85 under: "An important and fundamental principle of interpretation of statutes is that a statute is to be read as a whole and attempt is to be made to reconcile the various provisions contained in it although apparently they may seem to be in conflict with each other."
Therefore, in our opinion to avoid the aforesaid conflict and anomaly and to construe the provisions of subsection (2) of section 18 of the Customs Act, 1969 for the purpose of levying regulatory duty on the articles mentioned in the First Schedule to the Finance Act. 1975, harmoniously it is necessary to interpret that in respect of those articles in respect whereof the rate or customs duty has been provided on ad valorem basis the regulatory duty could be levied only under the first part i,e, it could not exceed 50 per cent. Of the rate of customs duty provided in the First Schedule. Such an interpretation would be also in accord with the intention of the Legislature which is manifest by the words, "if any" used in subsection (2) (481d), and when these words are given effect to (and they must be given effect to) they would mean that the rate of regulatory duty could not be more than 50 per cent of the rate of customs duty, if any mentioned in the First Schedule.
' It has already been seen that in respect of customs duty free articles mentioned in the First Schedule, regulatory duty could be imposed only under the second part and not under the first part. Similarly in reaped of articles which carry the levy of customs duty at certain rates on ad valorem basis, the regulatory duty could be levied only under the first part and not under the second part.
' It is only in respect of the articles in the third and the fourth group in respect whereof the rate of duty provided is wholly or partly on per unit basis i,e, per pound or per piece etc , that it was possible to levy regulatory duty on both the basis namely, on the basis of valuation and also on the basis of rate as in respect of such articles the rate of customs duty provided in the First Schedule is not on ad valorem basis but the intention of Legislature appears to be to prohibit the levy of regulatory duty exceeding 50 % of the rate of customs duty, if any, provided in the First Schedule.
However, since none of the petitions before us pertain to articles falling in either of these
(1) PLD 1967 Dacca 459 (2) PLD 1967 Ker. 341 ' two groups, we would not like to express any final views in respect thereof.
' As regards the last contention that the levy of regulatory duty on the articles imported by the petitioners is discriminatory, the submission of the learned counsel is that when commercial importers import the same articles they do not pay any regulatory duty but when the petitioners, who according to the learned counsel are industrial consumers, import the same they are required to pay the regulatory duty. However, the learned counsel has failed to substantiate that the commercial importers when they import the same articles they do not pay such duty or that they are exempted under the impugned notification or under any other law from the payment of such duty. According to the plain reading of the notification the import of the articles carry the liability for payment of the regulatory duty irrespective of the consideration who imports it and for what purpose or use. We therefore, find no substance in this contention and reject it.
' Now, having come to the conclusion that the Federal Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by and under section18(2) of the Captions Act, 1969 could levy regulatory duty up to 50% of the rate of customs duty mentioned in the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1975, and accordingly the levy of 62- per cent. Regulatory duty being ultra-vices the provisions of section 18
(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, we have no alternative but to declare that the Federal Government could levy and charge regulatory duty in respect of the articles in question up to 50% of the rate of customs duty provided in the First Schedule besides any other duty and tax levied under any otter law and therefore, any amount charged or claimed by the respondent as regulatory duty in excess of 50% of the rate of customs duty mentioned in the First Schedule on the articles in question is without lawful authority and accordingly we allow the petition to that extent but without costs, as the success of the parties is divided.