The Admiralty Judge, in allowing the vessel to have the territorial waters of Bangladesh without payment of her dues payable to the Chittagong Port Authority, travelled beyond his jurisdiction. Chairman Chittagong Port Authority & another vs Ministry of Defence and others 49 DLR (AD) 152.

Customs Act, 1969
Sections 25(7), 25(1), 30, 33
Sales Tax Ordinance, 1982
Section 4(1)
Chittagong Port Authority Ordinance, 1976
Section 25
The Govt. has the power to fix tariff value by publishing notification in the official gazette and this power has been vested in the Govt. under sub-section (7) of section 25 of the Act to fix tariff value of imported or exported goods by notification. Appellate Division therefore review this Division’s opinion expressed in that decision in 51DLR(AD)40 and hold that no vested right is acquired by the importer to pay sales tax and custom duty on the basis of tariff value declared by notification in force on the date of opening the letter of credit. The imported has to pay tax and duty on the basis of tariff value in force on the date of presentation of bill of entry. Appellate Division hold that this being a case under section 25(7), the learned Judges of the High Court Division failed to appreciate the ratio decidendi of 48DLR(AD)199 and wrongly held that the duty has to be paid on the tariff value prevalent on the date of issuance of the letter of credit. The petitioner having released the goods on payment of additional customs duties and sales tax ought to have asked for refund under section 33 of the Customs Act within six months. He having not availed of this alternative efficacious remedy the writ petition is not maintainable on this score as well. .....Bangladesh =VS= Mizanur Rahman, (Civil), 2025(2) [19 LM (AD) 279] ....View Full Judgment

Notice– In the plaint, there is an averment that notice under section 49 of the Chittagong Port Authority Ordinance had been served. When there is clear assertion in the plaint itself that notice under section 49 of the Ordinance was served upon the Chittagong Port Authority, it could not be said that the suit is barred by law as envisaged in clause (d) of rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure.
We hold that the High Court Division was justified in allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment delivered by the learned Subordinate Judge rejecting the plaint. The appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment passed by the High Court Division is affirmed. ...Abdur Razzak Dobhash =VS= Ali Murtaza Dobhash, (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 79] ....View Full Judgment

Purpose of serving notice prior to the institution of the suit under section 49 of the Chittagong Port Ordinance, 1976:
Service of notice under Section 49 thereof prior to institution of any suit against the Chattogram Port authority has been incorporated for its smooth functioning and discharging its regular routine activities. Another purpose of such notice is to save public time and litigants’ expenditure in the cases where any person aggrieved serves notice upon the port authority and the authority by itself addresses his grievance realizing the right course of action before going to the court. In such view of the matter, if a person already institutes a suit under whatever notion and the summon with a copy of the plaint is served upon the port authority, the purpose of notice under Section 49 of the Ordinance would be sufficiently served inasmuch as no alternative remedy is provided in the Ordinance for dissolving any land dispute between the Port Authority and a private individual. ...Chattogram Port Authority Vs. Md. Mehedi Hasan, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 34 ....View Full Judgment