Taquah & Anor V. Attorney-general Of The Gold Coast (1947)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Refund of export duty on Gold—Gold Coast Customs Tariff (No. 2) Order,1939Customs Tariff Ordinance, sections 11 and 13—Regulation 17A madeunder section 13 and provisos—Method .of ascertainment of hypothetical lossunder Regulation 17A—” Gold premium “—Interpretation of Regulation 17Aand provisos.

Facts

In ascertaining the hypothetical loss referred to in Regulation 17A of the Regulations made under section 13 of the Customs Tariff Ordinance, subparagraph (2) of that Regulation requires that there be omitted from the account the whole of the gold premium as defined by that Regulation.

The intention and effect of the substantive Regulation 17A (2) are that where by leaving out of account the gold premium, a loss is shown, there shall be a refund of the export duty paid to the extent of 15 per cent of the loss thus shown.

Proviso (a) to the Regulation relates to the method of assessing the loss while provisos (b) and (c) relate to limitations on the amount of the refund and do not in terms relate to the assessing of the loss.

The main purpose of the Regulation is to grant relief from the payment of export duty in certain circumstances, the measure of relief being determined by reference to a hypothetical loss.
Proviso (c) is not in conflict with proviso (b) which it embraces.

Held

The word ” refund ” as used in the Regulation relates solely to the refund of export duty payable on the gold premium and therefore any reference to the refund must naturally be read in relation to such duty.

Where a proviso imposes a limitation in certain circumstances, it is inapplicable and therefore inoperative in cases in which those circumstances do not arise. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast.

Appeal-allowed.