The High Court Division in the respec­tive writ petitions committed illegality in directing the customs authority to assess the customs duty etc, on the basis of invoice value that was prevailing at the time of opening of letters of credit inasmuch as customs authority has the authority to determine normal value and realise duty thereon at the rate prevail­ing on the date of submission of the bill of entry. Commissioner of Customs, Chittagong vs Bangladesh Traders (Md. Tafazzul Islam J)(Civil) 2ADC 718

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

The respondent has not stated in his petition as to the nature and character of the duplex board and that how the same could be converted into boxes or paper board or inner or master carton as admittedly the respondent do not have manufacturing plant to convert duplex boards into inner and master carton and that inner carton and master cartons converted out of duplex boards would not change their original shape or form while making them into cages or boxes National Board ofRevenu vs Mustafizur Rahman (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 3ADC 40 stances. Generally, a review will only be exercised consistently with the nature of review jurisdiction and with due regard to the principles that there must be an end of litigation. Law do not allow any court to sit over in appeal against its own decision but allows its own deci­sion to be reviewed under its very limit­ed scope and limitation set for in the law and rules. And the said jurisdiction should not be exercised or abused sitting over the decision, as it, it is an appeal. A.H.M. Mustain Billah & A.H.M Mustain Billah vs Bangladesh (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) 2ADC'236