Keeping in mind the service rendered by the PSI Agency as in section 25A of the Customs Act and in the Contract document and the services mentioned it is seen that since the category of services mentioned and the services which the PSI Agency were required to render in the light of the agreement entered into by the Government and the PSI Agency as well as per provision of section 25A of the Customs Act the services of the PSI Agency is vatable. NBR, Chairman vs Intertek Testing Services International Ltd 11 BLC (AD) 233.

The Customs Act, 1969
Section 13(1)
Bonded Warehouse License Bidhimala 2008
Bidhi 4, 7, 8 and 9
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102
Home consumption bonded warehouse license–– It appears to us that the High Court Division in one hand directed the writ respondents to convert the provisional bonded warehouse license of the writ petitioner into a regular up to date bonded license, on the other hand it was also directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner in accordance with the applicable law/rules and prevailing practices. These directions of the High Court Division appear to be contradictory. It is true that in writ petition No. 6634 of 2007 judgment was passed on 14.12.2008 but prior to that judgment on 26.06.2008 a Gazette notification was published in order to implement section 13 regarding the issuance of bonded warehouse license. However, the said Bidhimala was not placed before the High Court Division at the time of the disposal of Writ Petition No. 6634 of 2007, thus, the same was not considered by the High Court Division. ––In this particular case, no legal or vested right has been created in favour of the writ petitioner to get the regular home consumption bonded warehouse license in absence of any particular law or rules. .....Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh =VS= Deshbandhu Sugar Mills Ltd., (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 642] ....View Full Judgment

On a bare reading of Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1969 it reveals that there is neither absolute bar in importing parallel goods nor said section gives any unfettered right to the importers to import parallel goods. Section 15 of the said Act is balanced legislation. Section 15(d)(e)(g) and (h) of the said Act authorized the importers to import parallel goods subject to compliance with the procedure/conditions as mentioned in the said provision. Nothing has been stated in said section regarding prior permission of the petitioner in importing parallel goods. Therefore the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that without prior permission of the petitioner no one is legally entitled to import the parallel goods of Unilever Bangladesh is misconceived and fallacious. If any importer fails to satisfy the conditions laid down in Section 15(d)(e)(g) and (h) of said Act the customs authority is empowered under section 17 of the Customs Act, 1969 to detain and confiscate the imported goods. Therefore we are of the view that there is no wholesale restriction in section 15 of the said Act in importing parallel goods. ...Unilever Bd Ltd. Vs. Chairman, National Board of Revenue & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 137 ....View Full Judgment

No direction can be passed considering the anticipation of any person. It has already been held that in section 15 of the Customs Act, 1969 there is no wholesale restriction on importation of parallel goods. Therefore, there is no obligation on the part of the respondents to restrain any person from importing parallel goods or to restrain any person from opening letter of credit regarding importation of parallel goods of Unilever Bangladesh Ltd. Any person (s) is entitle to import parallel goods subject to compliance of the conditions imposed in Section 15(d)(e)(g) and (h) of the Customs Act, 1969. But on that score question of taking prior permission of the petitioner is irrelevant being bereft of any legal approval. ...Unilever Bd Ltd. Vs. Chairman, National Board of Revenue & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 137 ....View Full Judgment

Limitation for adjudication of dispute as to penalty under Customs Act-
There is no time limit for adjudication of dispute in respect of imposition of penalty under Customs Act. Merely because adjudication order was passed after 14 years is no ground for holding the same illegal.
Ancient Steamship Company Ltd. Vs. Member (Appeal and Revision) Ministry of Finance, Government of Bangladesh and others. 2, MLR(1997) (AD) 302.

read with
Imports (Control) Act, 1950— Section 3(1)— Forfeiture of illegally imported goods—
The Collector of Customs has the authority to forfeit goods imported in violation of the provisions of section 16 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with section 3(1) of the Imports (Control) Act, 1950 and impose penalty under section 156(l)(9)(i) of the Customs Act.
Messers International Corn Company Vs. Government of People's Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance and another. 3, MLR (1998) (AD) 257.

Article 102 of the Constitution is not meant to circumvent or bypass statutory procedures:
The legislature made specific provisions in Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1969, Order 4 of the বাংলাদেশ আমদানি নীতি আদেশ, 2021-2024, and Section 96 of the Trademarks Act for alternative, effective and equally efficacious remedy to the petitioner for violation of any condition laid down in Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1969 regarding importation of parallel goods. Article 102 of the Constitution is not meant to circumvent or bypass statutory procedures as stated above. When a right is created by a statute, which prescribes a remedy or procedure for enforcing the right, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before seeking extraordinary and discretionary remedy under Article 102(2) of the Constitution. Judicial prudence demands that this Court should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provision. This is a self-restrained restriction of the High Court Division. ...Unilever Bd Ltd. Vs. Chairman, National Board of Revenue & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 137 ....View Full Judgment

18% regulatory duty was imposed by SRO dated 14.02.2010 and that the Bill of Entry was submitted subsequent thereto and as such, the petitioner was under the obligation to pay regulatory duty.
N.G.S. Steel Industries Ltd. -Vs.- The Government of Bangladesh 5 ALR (AD)2015(1) 134

Customs duty is payable by the importer–respondent on the basis of tariff value in force on the date of presentation of the bill of entry and not on the basis of invoice or tariff value in force at the time of opening of letter of credit. Bangladesh and others vs Mizanur Rahman 52 DLR (AD) 149.

Section 18(2), 18A l8B and 19 are instances of delegated legislation by an Act of Parliament in terms of the proviso to Article 65(1) of the Constitution. When the Government passes an order under those sections it has a legislative effect. M/S Kamal Trading Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Ors. 8BLT (AD)-108

From a careful examination of the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, namely, Sections 18, 23, 43, 44, 45, 51, 52, 53 and 79 and relevant provisions of the Import and Export Act, it leads me to hold that when any foreign thing, object, goods, which would include a foreign vessel, is brought into or comes in Bangladesh, be it without or with Bills of Entry, it is dutiable, as per the prevailing rate prescribed in the Bangladesh Customs Tariff, if the same is picked up/collected/arrested for the purpose of home consumption, warehousing, selling to local or foreign national/country or for any other lawful purpose. ...Chattogram Dry Dock Ltd Vs. M.T. Fadl-E-Rabbi & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 82 ....View Full Judgment

The notification issued under section 19 of the Act was without any condition, limitation or restrictions and as such the subsequent notifications cannot have any operation when a right had vested in the importers and he had acted upon the assurance that he would have to pay duties at the rate mentioned in the previous notification. Mostafizur Rahman vs Government of Bangladesh and 6 ors 51 DLR (AD) 40.

Estoppel– The importer having acted upon assurance given, the Government cannot retrace its steps and ask for duty at the rate mentioned in a subsequent notification. Collector of Customs vs A Hannan 42 DLR (AD) 167

The difference in facts would not make any difference in the application of the principle which is based on interpretation of sections 19 and 30 of the Customs Act. Collector of Customs, Chittagong and others vs Ahmed Hossain and 39 others 48 DLR (AD) 199.

Read with Finance Act (XII of 1995)
Sectlon-30 A
Tariff rate enhanced when on the date of opening of the L.Cs, the prevailing rate of tariff was lower which is not only illegal but also affected the vested right of the appellants— relied on 42 DLR(AD) 167 and 48 DLR (AD) 199—Appeals are allowed. [Para- 17] Mostafizur Rahman & Ors. Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors. 7BLT (AD)-299

In the present case SRO dated 18.6.1987 was in existence at the time of opening of the letter of credit but this SRO was not issued under section 25(7) fixing tariff value or under section 19 exempting customs duty. Subsequently SRO dated 16.8.1988 fixing tariff value for the goods imported by the importer in this case was issued and this SRO was in force when the goods in question arrived at the port and bill of entry was submitted by the importer. Since no vested right can be acquired by the importer in matters of tariff value as held in the aforesaid case of Mizanur Rahman the importer is liable to pay customs duty and sales tax on the basis of tariff value as per SRO dated 16.8.1988 and not SRO dated 18.6.1987 which was in existence at the time of opening the letter of credit in the present case. The impugned judgment is therefore set aside and the appellants are not liable to refund any amount realised by them from the respondent importer. .....Collector of Customs =VS= M/S. Sumi Enterprise, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 98] ....View Full Judgment

The marginal note of the above law includes not only ‘goods’ .... ‘wreck’, but also ‘ETC’, meaning that if any foreign thing/object, whether it is goods or something else, comes into Bangladesh, it shall be considered as “imported goods”. In the light of admitted fact that the goods in question (the vessel) has come into Bangladesh from a foreign country, it shall be considered as “imported goods” at the time of its sale/transfer, as per the provisions of Section 23 of the Customs Act. ...Chattogram Dry Dock Ltd Vs. M.T. Fadl-E-Rabbi & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 82 ....View Full Judgment

The Customs Act, 1969
Sections 25(1)(1)(3), 30(1)
The Constitution of Bangladesh
Article 102
In a case where violation of law is challenged the writ is maintainable–– The writ petitioners are regular importer of different items mainly food items. In course of business the each of the writ petitioners decided to import 33.33 Metric Ton of Hilsha fish from Myanmar under the business practice prevalent in Teknaf for an amount of US$ 10,000.00 in favour of Myanmar Economic Bank from Sonali Bank, Teknaf Branch, Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh under Border Trade Agreement between Myanmar and Bangladesh signed on 18.05.1994. On arrival of the goods the writ petitioners submitted respective bills of entry on 05.03.2006 before the customs authority with all necessary papers through their clearing and forwarding agents for release of the consignments on the basis of transaction value. But, the customs authority rejected the transaction value as described at US$ 300.00 per Metric Ton and imposed US$ 580 per Metric Ton being “minimum assessable value” as determined/recommended by the Value Determination Committee of the Customs House, Chittagong on examination of random selection of the imported goods having found the same as per declaration. The said imposition of value at US$ 580 per Metric Ton, which has no legal basis under the Customs Act 1969. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petitioners, finding no other alternative efficacious remedy, filed the three writ petitions before the High Court Division and obtained Rules. ––In respect of availability of alternative remedy as a bar in filing writ petition it is settled that, in a case where violation of law is challenged, taking recourse to writ jurisdiction is justified i.e. writ is maintainable. In the case of M. A. Haie Vs. Trading Corporation of Bangladesh reported in 40 DLR (AD)(1988) 206 and in the case of United Commercial Bank Karmachari Union Vs. S. M. Shafiul Azam and others reported in 11 BLD(AD)326, this principle has been well founded which is no longer a ‘Res integra’. .....Customs, Excise and VAT Commissionerate, Ctg. =VS= S.M. Abdul Alim, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 233] ....View Full Judgment

Power of the Government to refix tariff value of imported goods for levying customs duty—
The tariff value of goods imported or exported are fixed from time to time by the Government for the purpose of public revenue and protecting local industries. Government can fix the tariff value from time to time of the imported goods on the recommendations of the High Powered Advisory Committee. The High Powered Advisory Committee does not have unfettered power. It must act on some objective informations and relevant materials germane to Customs Act, 1969 showing the fluctuation in international market price. When not done rationally based on some contemporaneous documents in support thereof the fixation of tariff value disproportionately higher than the previous rate will be arbitrary and capricious consequently the same becoming liable to be struck down.
Mustafa Kamal and others VS. The Commissioner of Customs and others. 5 MLR (2000) (AD) 1.

Power of the Customs Authority to enhance tariff value and the effect thereof— Writ petition for refund of excess customs duty is not maintainable—
Under sub-section (7) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 the Customs Authorities have the power to enhance the tariff value of the imported and exported goods. Section 30 of the Act provides for the effect of such enhancement. The Importer / Exporter has to pay customs duty and sale taxes from the date of bill of entry and not from the date of opening the letter of credit. Writ petition for refund of excess customs duty is not maintainable as (here is already alternative efficacious remedy with the departmental authority.
Bangladesh and others Vs. Mizanur Rahman. 5 MLR (2000) (AD) 209.

Government to fix tariff value for assessment of customs duty of the imported goods– Challenged the vires of section 25(7) of the Customs Act, 1969 being repugnant to articles 27, 65 and 83 of the Constitution as the section has conferred un-fettered power upon the Government to fix tariff value for assessment of customs duty of the imported goods.
It is by now a well settled legal proposition that customs duty shall be levied as per the tariff value prevalent on the date of presentation of the bill of entry. From the facts as stated hereinbefore, it is clear that after the opening of the respective letter of credit in the respective writ petition, tariff value of the respective imported goods was enhanced by the SROs in question. One of the points raised by the appellants in these appeals is that the tariff value was enhanced by the SROs in question in exercising the unfettered power vested upon the Government under section 25(7) of the Customs Act, 1969 as there is no guideline to fix the tariff value.
It is clear that the tariff value of the goods in question was fixed by taking a reasonable approach in the matter and on verification of the market price and in consultation with the concerned persons such as, business community, representatives of different trade unions and of different business groups. Therefore, it cannot be said that the tariff value of the respective imported goods was fixed arbitrarily. We find no merit in these appeals and accordingly, the same are dismissed. ...Mohammad Moshtaq =VS= Collector of Customs, (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 258] ....View Full Judgment

When a writ petition is filed on a bald assertion that the high powered committee arbitrarily and fictitiously raised tariff value without any objective material .before it, the High Court Division ought not to rush into issuing a Rule Nisi and stay payment of duties and taxes. It should take notice under section 114( e) of the Evidence Act, 1872 and should start with the presumption of regularity in official business. Mustafa Kamal and another vs Commissioner of Customs and others 52 DLR (AD) 1

When the Government or the Customs authority in its affidavit–in–opposition annexes rebuttal materials to show that the prevalent international market price of any particular item is approximate to the impugned tariff value, the question of onus fades into insignificance and the High Court Division is then free to decide on the basis of documents annexed by both sides as to on whose side the scale is heavier. Mustafa Kamal and another vs Commissioner of Customs and others 52 DLR (AD) 1

Even though the Government fixes the tariff value on the recommendation of a high–powered advisory committee, the committee does not possess an unfettered, discretion in determining tariff value. Mustafa Kamal and another vs Commissioner of Customs and others 52 DLR (AD) 1.

When both sides have led evidence in· support of their respective cases the question of onus of proof fades into insignificance and the Court has to decide whether in the absence of reliable and relevant materials on the part of both sides the increase in the tariff value was arbitrary or not. Mustafa Kamal and another vs Commissioner of Customs and others 52 DLR (AD) 1.

The international market price may at times behave in such a manner that it may be necessary to fix the tariff value at a disproportionately high figure than the invoice value. It all depends how the international market price has fluctuated at a given moment. Mustafa Kamal and another vs Commissioner of Customs and others 52 DLR (AD) 1.

Assessment of customs duty and other charges on the yellow book value of the imported reconditioned vehicles—
Consequent upon exclusion of pre-shipment requirement, the apex court held in a number of cases consistently that the assessment of customs duty of the imported reconditioned vehicle shall be made on the basis of the yellow book value. Monzurul Islam (Md.) Vs. National Board of Revenue and others 15 MLR (2010) (AD) 211.

Notice Issue– The law only requires that the notice in writing should be issued by person not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner– The writ-petitioners did not challenge the competency of writ-respondent No.6 Assistant Commissioner to issue the letter impugned in the writ petition. The only grievance of the writ-petitioners was that the formation of the inquiry committee at the verbal direction of writ-respondent No.2 was violation of section 26. Appellate Division finds that section 26 does not in fact require formation of any committee and, therefore, the formation of such committee at the verbal instruction of writ-respondent No.2 was superfluous. The law only requires that the notice in writing should be issued by formed a person not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner. Hence, this Division does not find any illegality or violation of law. ...National Board of Revenue(NBR) =VS= DAF Packaging Ind. Ltd. , (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 61] ....View Full Judgment

Whether the writ-petitioner-respondent is liable to pay customs duty on his imported goods at the rate fixed by S.R.O. which was in force at the time of opening of letter of credit or at the rate fixed by a subsequent S.R.O. which was in force at the time of submission of bill of entry. The Appellate Division held that in view of section 30A of the Customs Act the customs duty and other charges are to be paid at the rate prevailing on the date of presentation of the bill of entry and not at the rate prevailing at the time of opening of letter of credit.
The Collector of Customs and others -Vs.- Smak Cocount Products Limited (Civil) 10 ALR (AD) 226-227

Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 83
The Customs Act
Section 30, 25(7) and 79
The valuation Rules, 2000
The importer has to pay tax and duty on the basis of tariff value in force on the date of presentation of bill of entry–– It as well emerged as a general position that when customs duty is imposed for any intention, the authority to do so is the Parliament as Article 83 of our Constitution speaks that "No tax shall be levied or collected except by or under the authority of an Act of Parliament". As such, for the sake of generating revenue, Government is not exempted from following strict rules of laws. Governments too have to earn revenue within the legal scheme established by the State coupled with its citizen’s rights and interest. Procedural fairness too should be observed on the very face of it instead of whim. ––Appellate Division finds no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment and order factually and legally calling for interference by this Court. .....Ministry of Finance, BD =VS= Yahya A. Z. Khondoker, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 112] ....View Full Judgment

Levy of customs duty—
The Customs Authority is empowered under section 30 of the Customs Act to levy and realise customs duty at the enhanced rate subsequent to the bill of entry.
Collector of Customs, Chittagong & others Vs. Ahmed Hossain and others. 1, MLR (1996) (AD) 253.

Payment of import duties— Release of imported goods under adinterim order on furnishing Bank Gaurantee—
Imported goods may be released on the ad-interim order of the High Court Division pending disposal of the Writ Petition on payment of concessional rate of duty in dispute only upon the petitioner's furnishing Bank guarantee for the balance duty. The Commissioner of Customs, Benapole, Jessore Vs. Partex Beverage Ltd. and another, 3, MLR(1998) (AD) 151.

Release of imported goods on Bank Guarantee when the assessment is under dispute— Personal Guarantee is not permissible—
Imported goods may be released on furnishing Bank Guarantee in respect of the enhanced disputed assessment. Personal Guarantee being weak and uncertain is not considered sufficient. Commissioner of Customs, Mongla Customs House, Khulna and others Vs. SARC Enterprise. 4, MLR (1999) (AD) 240.

Personal guarantee in lieu of Bank guarantee being weak and uncertain is not acceptable—
Pending disposal of the writ petition direction by way of ad-iriterim order may be given for release of imported goods subject to payment of taxes on C&F value and on furnishing bank guarantee in respect of the difference of tax on loaded value and C&F value. Personal guarantee of the importer being uncertain and harmful to the interest of public revenue has been discouraged and highly deprecated. Commissioner of Customs, Customs House Chittagong Vs. Abu Hasnat and others. 4, MLR (1999) (AD) 345.

দি কাস্টমস এ্যাক্ট, ১৯৬৯ এর সেকশন ৮৩এ, সেকশন ৮৩বি অনুযায়ী পুনঃ শুল্কায়নপূর্বক অতিরিক্ত আদায়যোগ্য ও অপরিশোধিত রাজস্ব বাবদ সর্বমোট টাকা=২,০৩,৯৭৪.১২ (দুই লক্ষ তিন হাজার নয়শত চুয়াত্তর টাকা বার পয়সা মাত্র) দাবীনামা জারী করা হলো। উল্লিখিত দাবীনামাকৃত টাকা ৩০ (ত্রিশ) দিনের মধ্যে সরকারী কোষাগারে জমা দানের জন্য আপনাকে বলা হলো। উপর্যুক্ত বিষয়ে আপনার কোন বক্তব্য থাকলে তা উক্ত সময়ের মধ্যে লিখিতভাবে নিম্নস্বাক্ষরকারীকে অবহিত করার জন্য বলা হলো। আপনি এতদবিষয়ে শুনানী প্রদানে ইচ্ছুক হলে তা লিখিত বক্তব্যে উল্লেখ করতে হবে। It is apparent that though the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to reply and hearing but the petitioner without availing the opportunity invoke the writ jurisdiction impugning the demand notice. .....Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh =VS= Moazzam Hossain, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 294] ....View Full Judgment

In the instant case the respondent being the importer paid all the duties in respect of the goods and when the goods was about to be delivered it was detected that container, contained DOP which was not known to him. The High Court Division was Satisfied from the materials on record that by wrong shipments the goods were sent to the appellant respondent for which he was not at all a liable. The High Court Division was also of the view that there was no provision of inflicting personal fine under the Customs Act by the Commissioner of Customs relating to the transaction. The appellant respondent had not been convicted by any Magistrate for the alleged offence under section 32 of the Customs Act and therefore the imposition of fine of Tk. 30,00,00.00 was highly arbitrary and without jurisdiction—Petitions dismissed. Bangladesh & Ors. Vs. National Bag Traders &Ors 12BLT(AD)-15

There is no provision of inflicting personal fine under the Customs Act by the Commissioner of Customs relating to transaction. No offence was committed by the appellant under section 32 of the Customs Act and the punishment imposed pursuant to section 156 (1) (14) was liable to be set-aside. The Commissioner of Customs was directed to deliver the goods to the appellant for re-exportation of the same to the supplier company, enabling the appellant either to import the contracted item as per letter of credit or to have country’s hard-earned foreign currency refunded to the appellant.
Government of Bangladesh and others. v. Mr. Hossain, Proprietor of National Bag Traders, 22BLD(AD) 233.

There is a tacit admission in this provision that the customs authorities may levy excess customs duties or charges "through inadvertence, error or misconstruction" and there is a clear provision for refund of excess realisation. Commissioner of Customs, Chittagong vs Giasuddin Chowdhury. and another 50 DLR (AD) 129.

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. Latifur Rahman CJ . Bangladesh and others vs Mizanur Rahman 52 DLR (AD) 149.

When a provision for appeal in a statute attended with an inviolable and non-relaxable condition of payment of fine or extra duty in full then it can be said that the petitioner has no equally efficacious remedy. In the instant case 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 Act within six months. He having not availed of this alternative efficacious remedy the writ petition is not maintainable on this score as well. [Per Latifur Rahman, J] Bangladesh and others Vs Mizanur Rahman, 20 BLD(AD) 212

Section 193 of the Act nor filed any application for refund of the alleged excess duty under section 33 of the Act nor gave any explanation for non filing of any appeal or application for refund. In the face of provisions for appeals under sections 193 and 196 of the Act and also provision for refund of any excess duty under section 33 of the Act within six months of such payment writ petition is not maintainable. [Per Kazi Ebadul Hoque J, agreeing with Latifur Rahman, C.J.] Bangladesh and others Vs Mizanur Rahman, 20 BLD (AD) 212.

Refusal of clearance to imported goods–In the present case M/S MA Baker submitted the Bill of Entry as the owner of the disputed cement and assessment of duty was made in respect of the entire cement. M/S MA Baker paid import duty for 4000 metric tons out of 10,000 metric tons.
The respondent then came in and asked for clearance of 5000 metric tons as the substituted owner of the said cement. Customs Authority does not clear the goods raising objection as to procedural matter. The legal course for the respondent was to approach the CCI & E' who alone could issue release instruction to the Customs Authority. Bangladesh Bank made CCI&E's clearance a condition precedent for its own clearance. The respondent did not have the necessary clearance and, as such, it cannot be said that the customs authority acted without jurisdiction in refusing clearance of the goods. Bangladesh & Abu Taleb vs Anis & Co. & others 44 DLR (AD) 65.

Plaintiff filed the Admiralty Suit for. recovery of damages and compensation from the principal defendant-respondent Nos. 1 to 5- Admiralty Judge dismissed the suit—Held The provisions of Sections-50, 64, 66 and 67 of the Customs Act relate to loading and unloading of export goods in a vessel and exception therefrom. Those provisions have no manner of application in case of supply of spare parts, machineries, provisions and necessaries to a vessel in distress, Defendant No. 1 was in distress condition at Mongla port and required the supply of machineries and spare parts for proper maintenance of the said vessel. It also required provisions and laundry services for the use of its officers and crews. There is no legal bar to our knowledge in the Customs Act to the supply of such goods and services to the ship in distress and anchored at any port in Bangladesh. Commissioner of Customs has been impleaded in the suit as defendant No. 9 but he did not enter appearance nor raised any objection to the supply of machineries, spare parts, provisions and laundry services to the vessel by the plaintiff. His silence shows that the supply of above goods and services to a shop in distress was not objectionable. So the learned Judge of the High Court Division was not justified to refuse a decree to the plaintiff appellant on the ground that the goods and services were not supplied with the approval of the Customs officer on board the vessel. Md. Giasuddin Vs. M. V. Forum Power & Ors. 8BLT (AD).272

The date for the purpose of calculating the value of the goods and the date for determining the rate of duty should be the same–– The petitioner acquired vested right under a statutory notification which cannot be taken away by a subsequent statutory notification. ––It is clear that the value of goods and the rate of duty shall be the one prevailing at the time of presenting the In-Bond Bill of Entry and not the Ex-Bond Bill of Entry document and once the In-Bond Bill of Entry is submitted any subsequent development in case of determination of value or any redetermination of rate of duty or taxes, shall not affect the value of the concern goods or the rate of duty for the purpose of payment of duties and charges. .....Commissioner of Customs, VAT & Excise =VS= Abul Khair Steel Mills Ltd., (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 91] ....View Full Judgment

VAT Act, 1991
Section 42
Customs Act, 1969
Sections 82, 98, 196
provision of law it is clear that any person aggrieved by the decision or order passed by the Commissioner, Additional Commissioner or any VAT Official lower in the rank of the Commissioner or Additional Commissioner can prefer appeal to the forum prescribed. .....Customs Excise & VAT Commissionerate =VS= Syed Nurul, (Civil), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 512] ....View Full Judgment

VAT Act, 1991
Section 42(1)(Ka), 42(2)(Ka)
Customs Act, 1969
Sections 82, 98, 196
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102(2)
Under Article 102(2) of the constitution bypassing the appellate forum provided under the law is not maintainable–– The writ-petitioner impugned adjudication order dated 15.08.2007 passed by the writ-respondent no.2 Assistant Commissioner, Customs, Excise and VAT Division and other impugned orders passed by other officials are appealable order under section 42(1)(Ka) of the VAT Act and section 42(2)(Ka) mandates that 10% of the demanded VAT is to be deposited at the time of filing of the appeal.
When there is a statutory provision to avail the forum of appeal against an adjudication order passed by the concern VAT Official then the judicial review under Article 102(2) of the constitution bypassing the appellate forum provided under the law is not maintainable.
The writ petitioners may prefer appeal before the appropriate authority and they may consider the prayer for condonation of delay if the same is so filed. All the appeals are allowed. The judgment and order dated 29.03.2006 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition Nos.3942 of 2005, heard analogously with Writ Petition Nos.3943, 3944, 3945 and 5217 of 2005 are hereby set aside. .....Customs Excise & VAT Commissionerate =VS= Syed Nurul, (Civil), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 512] ....View Full Judgment

Appeal filed the period of limitation shall not stand as bar– The writ petitioner, if so advised may filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner, Customs Bond Commissionarate dated 11.03.2015 and the period of limitation shall not stand as bar to any appeal filed by writ petitioner. ...Customs Bond Commissionerate, Dhaka =VS= Web Coats Ltd. , (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 68] ....View Full Judgment

Confiscation of goods— When conviction of the accused was set aside, no part of the sentence could be maintained— High Court Division was not therefore justified in upholding the order of confiscation of the seized goods which was passed as a part of the punishment for an offence under the Customs Act. Sompong Vs. State 45 DLR (AD) 110.

read with Special Powers Act, 1974 Section-25
Section 25 of the Special Powers Act is designed towards a person or persons, i.e. whoever, in breach of any prohibition or restriction imposed by or under any law for the time being in force or evading payment of customs duties or taxes leviable thereon under any law for the time being in force bring 'within Bangladesh any goods shall be punishable but offence under section 156 of the Customs Act is directed against the goods itself Admittedly the goods in question were not the subject-matter of the case under Special Tribunal Acts wherein only Captain and crew of the Vessel in question carrying smuggled goods were implicate The provision of both these acts distinct and different. One acts personem and other acts in rem and such acquittal or conviction under one Act was not automatically operate as acquittal conviction or a bar in respect of the proceeding under another Act. The customs authority acting under section 156 of Custom Act was empowered to deal the goods in question seized as contraband goods bringing inside the territory for purpose of evading payment of taxes duties etc. Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors Vs. M/s. Amora Holding Inc. Panama & Ors 15 BLT (AD) 68

It is clear that the Chief Martial Law Administrator interfered with the awarding of sentence and imposed 3 sentences namely, imprisonment, fine and confiscation which the High Court Division found to be not authorised by law when the confiscation has been affirmed in the later part of the order of Chief Martial Law Administrator the High Court Division rightly found that this should be held to be without lawful authority.
Bangladesh and another vs Feroz Mehedi 6 BLC (AD) 80.

Only that person is entitled to get a show cause notice from whose custody the goods in question is seized. In the instant case the goods were seized from an abandoned truck and therefore the order of confiscating the goods in the absence of the show–cause notice could not make the order of confiscation as illegal. Government of Bangladesh and others vs Abu Musa 53 DLR (AD) 77

VAT Act, 1991
Sections 37, 42 and 55
Customs Act, 1969
Sections 193, 194, 196, 196A, 196B, 196C
In order to file an appeal under section 42 of the VAT Act the percentage of the demanded VAT and or the penalty as mentioned therein must be deposited at the time of filing the appeal and in absence of such deposit an appeal cannot be accepted–– 18 MLR AD 356 wherein this Division had reiterated: “The question involved in these two leave petitions squarely came up for consideration by this Division in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 896 of 2009 and in that case after considering the provisions of sections 37, 42 and 55 of the VAT Act, 1991 and sections 193, 194, 196, 196A, 196B, 196C of the Customs Act, 1969 this Division held that "Therefore, the intention of the legislature is very clear that in order to file an appeal under section 42 of the VAT Act the percentage of the demanded VAT and or the penalty as mentioned therein must be deposited at the time of filing the appeal and in absence of such deposit an appeal cannot be accepted. So, no illegality was committed either by the Commissioner (Appeal) in not accepting the appeal or by the Appellate Tribunal in directing the petitioner to deposit the demanded VAT as per the VAT Act and deposit the treasury chalan of such deposit by 18.04.2007" and on the above view the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division was affirmed and the leave petition was dismissed. We find no reason to take a different view from the view taken in the said leave petition and therefore, we find no merit in the leave petitions. Accordingly, both leave petitions are dismissed.”
Further in the case of JMS Glass Industries Ltd. Vs. Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal 64 DLR AD 43 it was also held that the provisions of Section 194 of the Custom Act, 1969 cannot be attracted or applied for the purpose of waiving/dispensing with the statutory deposit as provided in sub-section (2) of section 42 of the VAT Act, it being an independent statue.
It is clear that the Tribunal shall only follow the procedure of the Custom Act only when the appeal presented to it with the required deposit under the VAT Act and with all the trappings of the custom Act as far as it is applicable. After filing of the appeal, it does not contemplate prevailing procedure of the appeal. That is to say requirement before filing to be construed as it is. .....Customs Excise and VAT, Ctg. =VS= Abul Khair Steel Mills Ltd., (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 627] ....View Full Judgment

not a bar to invoke writ jurisdiction—
Constitution of Bangladesh— Article 102— Maintainability of writ petition—
The apex court held the writ petition perfectly maintainable when the dispute involves interpretation of certain law, no disputed fact needs to be decided and the alternative remedy is not efficacious. Commissioner of Customs, Customs House Benapole, Jessore Vs. Cab Express (ED) Limited and others 14 MLR (2009) (AD) 294.

The Customs Act, 1969
Section 193C r/w
The PSI Order, 1999
Article 8(3), 9
Review–
The High Court Division lost sight of the matter that the order of assessment of the goods under sub-article (3) of article 8 of the PSI Order,1999 is amenable to review as contained in article 9 of the PSI Order. Without exhausting the forum of review, the respondent of each of the appeals filed the writ petitions before the High Court Division. Since the respondents failed to exhaust the forum of review the writ petitions filed by each of the respondents before the High Court Division were not maintainable. .....Commissioner of Customs=VS=Excelsior Home Appliance Limited, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 331] ....View Full Judgment

Altemative remedy– Altemative remedy of appeal provided in the Customs Act, and pleaded as a bar against Wiit Jurisdiction, is no equally efficacious remedy. Collector of Customs vs A Hannan 42 DLR (AD) 167.

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.

Section—194 Proviso
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972, Article—102
The National Board of Revenue having both the technical competence and technical assistance available on hand was in a better position to adjudicate upon the adjudication order and the subsequent order. If thereafter any point of law was left to be decided further either side could have been then invoked the writ jurisdiction.
In the instant case the respondent did not make out any case before the High Court Division that the proviso to section 194 of the Customs Act in the facts and circumstances of the case was availed of by it without success and therefore the appellate forum did not provide any equally efficacious relief to it. It simply did not take any steps in terms of the proviso to section 194 of the Customs Act. In that view of the matter the Appellate Division did not think that the High Court Division was well found in law, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the respondent rightly invoked the writ jurisdiction and that its writ petition was maintainable.
Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others Vs Section Steel Industries lid., 19 BLD (AD) 98.

A commercial importer having a trade license and import registration certificate by importing parts and accessories from different countries assembled the goods in his factory without license to assemble or manufacture and marketing the same coating/printing the name of internationally reputed brand should be dealt with seriously in accordance with law to save the end users/consumers from deception as well as reputation of the country.
The High Court Division held that no doubt that the respondent with an intention to deceive the end users/consumers assembled detained television sets and air conditioner machines in his factory with imported parts and accessories from different countries not related with the brand items and then coated/printed the goods with brand names. Respondent no. 2 imported parts and accessories as commercial importer but illegally assembled finished goods coating/printing brand names for marketing locally as such mis-declaration is amply proved against the respondent no. 2. This sort of practice by the importer should be strictly dealt with. Consideration should not be the quality of illegally assembled goods rather consideration should be that the brand goods are assembled by a commercial importer in his factory without having approval for assembling the goods. Respondent no. 2 is neither a dealer nor an agent of the brand items found in his go-down. This type of traders playing with reputation of the country for personal gain. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above, the High Court Division is of the view that impugned judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal is not tenable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Dhaka -Vs.- Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others (Spl. Original) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 163 ....View Full Judgment

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 Value Added Tax Act, 1991
Sections 42 (2)(Kha)
Customs Act, 1969
Section 196
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972 Article 102
Non-payment of deposit of 50% of the demand as a precondition for admission of appeal–– Law clearly has made provision for depositing 50% of the demanded amount at the time of filing appeal before the VAT Appellate Tribunal, which is condition precedent. The High Court Division has given gracious relief to the writ petitioner ignoring the proposition of law that the Court should not give benevolent construction of a statue when the provision is plain, unambiguous and does not give rise to any doubt as to its meaning. [Reference: Shyam Sundar and others vs Ram Kumar and another AIR, 2001 (SC) 2472].
When the intention of the legislature is clear, no consideration of expediency or possibility of abuse can be allowed to deviate from the natural consequences following the correct interpretation. Thus, the Court has no jurisdiction to exercise its discretion beyond the scope of law. Appellate Division is of an opinion that the High Court Division committed error of law in passing the impugned judgment and order. .....Customs, Excise & Vat Appellate Tribunal =VS= Chattala Industries Ltd., (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 623] ....View Full Judgment

Value Added Tax Act, 1991
Sections 42 (2)
Customs Act, 1969
Section 196
Finance Act, 1996
Finance Act, 1996 the Legislature has again amended section 42 (2) of the VAT Act inserting a mandatory provision of depositing 50% of the penalty or claimed amount at the time of filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. .....Customs, Excise & Vat Appellate Tribunal =VS= Chattala Industries Ltd., (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 623] ....View Full Judgment

The Customs Act, 1969
Section 196 r/w
The VAT Act, 1991
Section 42
Admittedly an alternative remedy in the form of appeal was available to the writ petitioner–
In violation of Section 31 of the Act passed the impugned order dated 01.08.2006 directing the Company to pay an amount of Tk. 2,53,36,161/- as evaded / unpaid VAT and Tk. 3,00,00,000/- as fine i.e. a total amount of Tk. 5,53,36,169/- only under section 37(2) of the Act. Hence, was the writ petition. The Customs and VAT authority has jurisdiction to consider the computer print-out of the monthly statements of sale obtained from the office computer of the Company duly singed by the Deputy Managing Director of the Company as information/evidence for deciding VAT. The Mushak chalans were also placed before the Customs Authority. It was also found that admittedly an alternative remedy in the form of appeal was available to the writ petitioner under Section 196 of the Customs Act read with Section 42 of the VAT Act before the Appellate Tribunal which the writ petitioner did not avail of. Could not place before us any new ground or discover any new evidence for review of our earlier decision. The review petition is dismissed. .....Sagar Chemical & Paint Industries Ltd. =VS= Bangladesh, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 325] ....View Full Judgment