Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh

ALL A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z



Import and Export (Control) Act, 1950
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Section 3 (1)

The order states that the appellant has not given any satisfactory explanation as to why there was a long gap between the time of submission of bills of entry in November, 1989 and the physical examination of the goods in February, 1990. Thus the revisional authority was also of the view that the appellant him-self contributed to the customs authority's rejection of his prayer for chemical examination. Md. Morzul Haque vs. Bangladesh (Mustafa Kamal J) (Civil) 3ADC 634 ....View Full Judgment

Section 194

Provision for deposit of the assessed duty or penalty imposed for maintaining an appeal and power of the appellate authority to exempt the appellant from depositing the same under section 194 of the Act has already been noticed. In view of said provision it cannot be said that an appeal against an order of assessment of custom duty or imposition of fine is not an equally efficacious remedy. Unless and until an appeal is filed against an order of assessment of customs duty or imposition of fine and prayer made for exemption from depositing the duty demanded or fine imposed showing good reason for the same and such prayer is unreasonably or arbitrarily rejected it cannot be said that the remedy of appeal provided under the Act is not equally efficacious remedy entitling the aggrieved person to seek remedy by invoking writ jurisdiction. [Per Kazi Ebadul Hoque J, agreeing with Latifur Rahman, C.J.] Bangladesh and others Vs Mizanur Rahman, 20 BLD (AD) 212. ....View Full Judgment