Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh


Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878)
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Section 19

‘Across any customs frontier’ —Apply to goods taken from West Pakistan to East Pakistan by air. Fakir Mohd. Panjabi Vs. Faderation of Pak. (1958) 10 DLR (SC) 122. ....View Full Judgment

Section 30

Mis-statement of price in his invoice by an importer can only be established by showing the actual price in the country of origin and not otherwise—Charge for untrue statement cannot be established of the basis of ‘normal price’ under section 30. M/s. Eastern Rice Syndicate Vs. Central Board of Revenue (1959) 11 DLR (SC) 384. ....View Full Judgment

Section 39

Untrue—what the word really means. The word ‘untrue’ in section 39 of the Sea Customs Act carries the sense of falsity to the knowledge of the person concerned. Thus, upon a point of mere valuation, if a declaration is made by such a person which on enquiry the customs authorities find to be too low, that will not be by itself sufficient to prove that the declaration was false to the knowledge of the maker, but it would be necessary also to establish that at the time when he made the declaration he was in possession of facts from which the necessary inference would be that the value declared by him was too low and that the value which be ought to declare was the same as that subsequently ascertained by the customs authorities. M/s. Eastern Rice Syndicate Vs. Central Board of Revenue (1959) 11 DLR (SC) 384. ....View Full Judgment

Section 64(c)(d)

Any steps by a Ships agent in a suit for damages against the’ Ship’s owner not only binds the agent but also the owner of the ship under clauses (c) and (d) of section 64 of the Sea Customs Act. Seafarers Inc. Vs. Province of East Pakistan (1968) 20 DLR (SC) 225. ....View Full Judgment

Section 167 (8)

Customs authorities’ enormous power of imposing penalties deserves careful and fair exercise of the same. M/s. Eastern Rice Syndicate Vs.. Central Board of Revenue (1959) 11 DLR (SC) 384. ....View Full Judgment

Section 167(8)(81)

. Gold in Pakistan existed from ancient times—A conclusion by the Assayer that gold seized being of higher fineness must be held to be smuggled is wrong. Messers S. A. Haroon Vs. Collector of Customs, Karachi (1967) 19 DLR (SC) 472. ....View Full Judgment

Section 167(8)(36) and (81)

Laws which were in operation before independence in Tribal Areas did not lapse with the Independence Act of 1947 but continued even after that.
The laws of a State or territory do not disappear by a change in its sovereignty. Laws governing or regulating the relations, the rights and obligations of the residents of a ceding or acceding territory do not lapse by a mere change in the sovereignty but continue to remain operative until changed by a competent authority.
Under the Constitution of 1956, by sub-article (2) of Article I the tribal areas which in 1955 were incorporated in the territories of Pakistan but the nomenclature was altered and they were to be known as ‘special areas’.
The tribal areas, therefore, became part of the territories of Pakistan. The Sea Customs Act, the Land Customs Act and section 5 of the Tariff Act, which had been made applicable to the tribal areas therefore, continued to apply in those areas and never lapsed.
Tribal areas were never a part of British-India nevertheless the Crown had acquired jurisdiction therein by grants, usages, sufferances, etc., in the same manner as if the Crown had acquired that jurisdiction by the cession or conquest of territory.
Superintendent Vs. Zewar Khan, (1969) 21 DLR (SC) 408. ....View Full Judgment

Section 167(8)(b)

In violation of the permit giving the license-holder authority to import various items of goods of different description for setting up a cold storage and Ice plant mentioning the amount as against each item to be imported when the importer imported two items for Rs.2 19,000/- whereas under the license- permit the amount allocated for import of these item was Rs.6000/- the license holder was guilty under section 167(8)(b) and the confiscation of these items valid in law. Collector of Customs Vs. Shamsur Rahman (1979) 31 DLR (AD) 60. ....View Full Judgment

Section 167 (37-B)

. The language of section 167(37 B) suggests that this is a case of absolute statutory liability —unlike the provision of section 39 which requires that the statement should be untrue with knowledge. Pakistan Vs. Hardcastle Waud (Pak.) Ltd. (1967) 19 DLR (SC) 157. ....View Full Judgment

Section 167 (9B)

Such goods in section 167(9B) mean goods which are liable to be confiscated u/s. 39 of the Act when they have arrived at the port. Collector of Customs Vs. Shafiullah (1978) 30 DLR (SC) 226. ....View Full Judgment

Section 167 (81)

Presumption as to payment of custom duty—When foreign goods are sold in open market.
The ordinary method of import of goods from outside into Pakistan is that they come through the customs barrier and the duty payable is in fact paid. The presumption, therefore, with respect to any goods which may be sold in the open market, in the absence of an indication to the contrary, would be that the duty has been paid on them. Pakistan Vs. Kazi Zinuddin (1962) 14 DLR (SC) 244. ....View Full Judgment

Section 167 (S1) & 177-A

No offence committed when Government gives permission.
If goods are allowed to be brought into Pakistan without payment of duty on account of instructions issued by the Government it is hardly possible to allege that the Government has been defrauded of the duty payable on the goods by the person who brought the goods into Pakistan. Pakistan Vs. Kazi Ziauddin (1962) 14 DLR (SC) 245. ....View Full Judgment

Section 177-A

Onus on the defense that the duty had been paid.
Item (81) to section 167 and section 177-An are be read together to avoid an absurd result. Prosecutions duty under section 167, item (81) is to show the goods are chargeable with duty which has not been paid or their importation is prohibited. Under section 177-A, the onus is on the defense to prove that the duty on the goods seized had been paid or they had been imported before the imposition or restriction. Collector of Customs, Karachi Vs. Haji Usman, Haji Gani (1959) 11 DLR (SC) 200. ....View Full Judgment

Section 177-A

Presumption rose under section 177-A. Presumption raised under section 177-A is only with respect to the goods and no presumption as to the person who committed the act.
The presumption raised by virtue of section 177- A is only as to an act having been committed, and there is no presumption as to the person who committed the act. Even if the first part of section 177-A were applicable, yet the person from whose possession the goods were seized could not have been found guilty on the basis of that presumption alone. For there will be no presumption that it was he who committed an act to defraud the Government. So far as the second part of section 177- A is concerned, this too raises a presumption only as to the commission of the act to evade a prohibition or restriction and not with respect to the person who committed the act.
Further the presumption under section 117-A even if it is raised with respect to a particular person is not sufficient for holding that person guilty inasmuch as an act may be committed in violation of a prohibition or restriction and yet it may not be committed “knowingly and with intent to evade” the prohibition or restriction and unless this element of “knowingly and with intent to evade” is found to exist no offence can be said to have been committed.
Presumption under section 177-A which arises as to an act would not be sufficient proof of guilt as against the person in possession. And that being so the proper procedure for application of section 177-A would be that the officer who seizes the goods states the grounds of his belief in order that the reasonableness of the belief may be tested. Pakistan Vs. Kazi Ziauddin (1962)14 DLR (SC) 244. ....View Full Judgment

Section 178

: The appellant’s shop was raided by the Custom Officials and certain imported goods were seized there from. The appellant moved the High Court in its writ jurisdiction and the two Judges of the High Court took two different views.
Due to difference of opinion between the learned Judges the matter was referred to a 3rd Judge who expressed his agreement with the judgment of Faruqui, J.
Thereupon on an appeal preferred before the Supreme Court it was contended that the conditions imposed for return of goods to the appellant was illegal and unauthorized in law.
Held: There is no escape from the position that the High Court can give only such direction for which provisions are made in law. If the High Court was of the view that the goods seized were smuggled in contravention of the Sea Customs Act then no order for their restoration should ever have been passed.
In the present case, it having been found that the goods were illegally seized there is no warrant in law for the conditions imposed by the High Court on the restoration of the goods seized by the Custom Authorities from the appellant.
Mohammad Yousuf Vs. The Collector of Sea Customs, Karachi, (1969) 21 DLR (SC) 118. ....View Full Judgment

Section 188

Appeal implies right of audience and an appeal cannot be disposed of on perusing the departmental report. Federation of Pak. Vs. Sardar Ali (1959) 11 DLR (SC) 59 ....View Full Judgment

Section 203B

The question for Court’s consideration is whether the provision of “reward” as contained in rule 7 of the Resolution of the Ministry of Finance dated 18.8.58, confers a right which can be enforced by a writ petition. Govt. of Bangladesh Vs. Md. Arshad Ali (1982) 34 DLR (AD) 348. ....View Full Judgment

— Recording a finding about guilty knowledge, not mandatory.
S. A. Rahman, J. (Cornelius, C.J. agreeing) The High Court, in the present case seems to have thought that unless the Customs Collector had recorded an express finding that the person concerned bed guilty knowledge of the false declarations made i the relevant documents, no penal action could be taken against them.
The Collector need not have stated in so many words that the false statements were made in the relevant documents, consciously and deliberately by the respondents. It is sufficient if the Collector recorded findings of fact, from which such an inference necessarily followed. Pakistan Vs. Hardcastle Waud (Pak.) Ltd. (1907) 19 DLR (SC) 157. ....View Full Judgment