The Customs Act, 1969
Sections 196A r/w sec. 16, 156(1)[Clause 9(i)], 194
The Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950
Section 3(1)
There is a statutory appellate forum under Section 196A of the Customs Act the aggrieved person must exhaust that forum and without exhausting that statutory forum an application under Article 102 of the Constitution is not maintainable–– Appellate Division is of the view that where there is a statutory appellate forum under Section 196A of the Customs Act the aggrieved person must exhaust that forum and without exhausting that statutory forum an application under Article 102 of the Constitution is not maintainable inasmuch as the statutory appellate forum under Section 196A of the Customs Act is competent to address the question of both fact and law. As such this Division finds substance in the submission made by the learned Additional Attorney General. Since, this Division already held that the writ petition is not maintainable as such refrained from going into merit of the case. The impugned judgment and order dated 06.05.2007 passed by the High Court Division is hereby set-aside. The respondent is directed to deposit 5% in cash and 5% in bank guarantee within two months from the date of receipt a copy of this judgment and order otherwise the Customs authority can realize the amount in accordance with law. The appellate Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeal on merit expeditiously. .....National Board of Revenue =VS= Basic Dredging Company Ltd., (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 533] ....View Full Judgment

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

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.