Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Customs Act, 1969 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Sections 2(qq) and 25A |
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. |
NBR, Chairman vs Intertek Testing Services International Ltd | 11 BLC (AD) 233 |
Section 13(1) |
The Customs Act, 1969
|
Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh =VS= Deshbandhu Sugar Mills Ltd. | 14 LM (AD) 642 |
Section 15 and 17 |
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 |
Unilever Bd Ltd. Vs. Chairman, National Board of Revenue & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 137 |
Section 15 |
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 |
Unilever Bd Ltd. Vs. Chairman, National Board of Revenue & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 137 |
Section 16 |
Limitation for adjudication of dispute as to penalty under Customs Act-
|
Ancient Steamship Company Ltd. Vs. Member (Appeal and Revision) Ministry of Finance, Government of Bangladesh and others. | 2 MLR (AD) 302 |
Section 16 and section 156 |
read with
|
Messers International Corn Company Vs. Government of People's Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance and another. | 3 MLR (AD) 257 |
Section 17 |
Article 102 of the Constitution is not meant to circumvent or bypass
statutory procedures:
|
Unilever Bd Ltd. Vs. Chairman, National Board of Revenue & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 137 |
Section 18(2) |
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) 134 |
Sections 18, 19, 25, 30 & 79 |
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. |
Bangladesh and others vs Mizanur Rahman | 52 DLR (AD) 149 |
Sections 18(2), 18B and 19 |
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 |
M/S Kamal Trading Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Ors. | 8 BLT (AD) 108 |
Sections 18, 23, 43, 44, 45, 51, 52, 53 and 79 |
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 |
Chattogram Dry Dock Ltd Vs. M.T. Fadl-E-Rabbi & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 82 |
Section 19 |
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. |
Mostafizur Rahman vs Government of Bangladesh and 6 ors | 51 DLR (AD) 40 |
Sections 19 and 30 |
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 |
Collector of Customs vs A Hannan | 42 DLR (AD) 167 |
Sections 19 & 30 |
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. |
Collector of Customs, Chittagong and others vs Ahmed Hossain and 39 others | 48 DLR (AD) 199 |
Sections 19 & 30 |
Read with Finance Act (XII of 1995)
|
Mostafizur Rahman & Ors. Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors. | 7 BLT (AD) 299 |
Section 19, 25(7) |
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 |
Collector of Customs =VS= M/S. Sumi Enterprise | 4 LM (AD) 98 |
Section 23 |
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 |
Chattogram Dry Dock Ltd Vs. M.T. Fadl-E-Rabbi & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 82 |
Sections 25(1)(1)(3), 30(1) |
The Customs Act, 1969
|
Customs, Excise and VAT Commissionerate, Ctg. =VS= S.M. Abdul Alim | 15 LM (AD) 233 |
Section 25(7) |
Power of the Government to refix tariff value of imported goods for levying
customs duty—
|
Mustafa Kamal and others VS. The Commissioner of Customs and others. | 5 MLR (AD) 1 |
25(7) and section 30 |
Power of the Customs Authority to enhance tariff value and the effect
thereof— Writ petition for refund of excess customs duty is not
maintainable—
|
Bangladesh and others Vs. Mizanur Rahman. | 5 MLR (AD) 209 |
Section 25(7) |
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.
|
Mohammad Moshtaq =VS= Collector of Customs | 9 LM (AD) 258 |
Section 25 |
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 |
Mustafa Kamal and another vs Commissioner of Customs and others | 52 DLR (AD) 1 |
Section 25 |
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 |
Mustafa Kamal and another vs Commissioner of Customs and others | 52 DLR (AD) 1 |
Section 25 |
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. |
Mustafa Kamal and another vs Commissioner of Customs and others | 52 DLR (AD) 1 |
Section 25 |
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. |
Mustafa Kamal and another vs Commissioner of Customs and others | 52 DLR (AD) 1 |
Section 25 |
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. |
Mustafa Kamal and another vs Commissioner of Customs and others | 52 DLR (AD) 1 |
Section 25B |
Assessment of customs duty and other charges on the yellow book value of
the imported reconditioned vehicles—
|
Monzurul Islam (Md.) Vs. National Board of Revenue and others | 15 MLR (AD) 211 |
Section 26 |
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 |
National Board of Revenue(NBR) =VS= DAF Packaging Ind. Ltd. | 11 LM (AD) 61 |
Section 30A |
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 | 10 ALR (AD) 226 |
Section 30, 25(7) and 79 |
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
|
Ministry of Finance, BD =VS= Yahya A. Z. Khondoker | 14 LM (AD) 112 |
Section 30 |
Levy of customs duty—
|
Collector of Customs, Chittagong & others Vs. Ahmed Hossain and others. | 1 MLR (AD) 253 |
Section 30 |
Payment of import duties— Release of imported goods under adinterim order
on furnishing Bank Gaurantee—
|
The Commissioner of Customs, Benapole, Jessore Vs. Partex Beverage Ltd. and another, | 3 MLR (AD) 151 |
Section 30 |
Release of imported goods on Bank Guarantee when the assessment is under
dispute— Personal Guarantee is not permissible—
|
Commissioner of Customs, Mongla Customs House, Khulna and others Vs. SARC Enterprise. | 4 MLR (AD) 240 |
Section 30 |
Personal guarantee in lieu of Bank guarantee being weak and uncertain is
not acceptable—
|
Commissioner of Customs, Customs House Chittagong Vs. Abu Hasnat and others. | 4 MLR (AD) 345 |
Sections 32, 83A & 83B |
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 |
Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh =VS= Moazzam Hossain | 12 LM (AD) 294 |
Section 32 |
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 |
Bangladesh & Ors. Vs. National Bag Traders &Ors | 12 BLT (AD) 15 |
Sections 32, 156 (1) (14), 138 |
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, | 22 BLD (AD) 233 |
Section 33 |
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. |
Commissioner of Customs, Chittagong vs Giasuddin Chowdhury. and another | 50 DLR (AD) 129 |
Section 33 |
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. |
Bangladesh and others vs Mizanur Rahman | 52 DLR (AD) 149 |
Section 33 |
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 |
Bangladesh and others Vs Mizanur Rahman, | 20 BLD (AD) 212 |
Sections 33, 193 and 194 |
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. |
Bangladesh and others Vs Mizanur Rahman, | 20 BLD (AD) 212 |
Sections 48 & 82 |
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.
|
Bangladesh & Abu Taleb vs Anis & Co. & others | 44 DLR (AD) 65 |
Sections 50, 64, 66 and 67 |
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 |
Md. Giasuddin Vs. M. V. Forum Power & Ors. | 8 BLT (AD) 272 |
Sections 79, 25A, 25(1)(2)(7), 98 |
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 |
Commissioner of Customs, VAT & Excise =VS= Abul Khair Steel Mills Ltd. | 14 LM (AD) 91 |
Sections 82, 98, 196 |
VAT Act, 1991
|
Customs Excise & VAT Commissionerate =VS= Syed Nurul | 16 LM (AD) 512 |
Sections 82, 98, 196 |
VAT Act, 1991
|
Customs Excise & VAT Commissionerate =VS= Syed Nurul | 16 LM (AD) 512 |
Sections 111, 116 and 156(1)(58) |
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 |
Customs Bond Commissionerate, Dhaka =VS= Web Coats Ltd. | 11 LM (AD) 68 |
Section 156(8) |
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. |
Sompong Vs. State | 45 DLR (AD) 110 |
Section 156 |
read with Special Powers Act, 1974 Section-25
|
Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors Vs. M/s. Amora Holding Inc. Panama & Ors | 15 BLT (AD) 68 |
Section 156 (89) |
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 |
Section 180 |
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 |
Government of Bangladesh and others vs Abu Musa | 53 DLR (AD) 77 |
Sections 193, 194, 196, 196A, 196B, 196C |
VAT Act, 1991
|
Customs Excise and VAT, Ctg. =VS= Abul Khair Steel Mills Ltd. | 15 LM (AD) 627 |
Section 193 |
not a bar to invoke writ jurisdiction—
|
Commissioner of Customs, Customs House Benapole, Jessore Vs. Cab Express (ED) Limited and others | 14 MLR (AD) 294 |
Section 193C |
The Customs Act, 1969
|
Commissioner of Customs=VS=Excelsior Home Appliance Limited | 5 LM (AD) 331 |
Section 194 |
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. |
Collector of Customs vs A Hannan | 42 DLR (AD) 167 |
Section 194 |
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. |
Bangladesh and others Vs Mizanur Rahman, | 20 BLD (AD) 212 |
Section 194 |
Section—194 Proviso
|
Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others Vs Section Steel Industries lid., | 19 BLD (AD) 98 |
Section 196D |
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.
|
Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Dhaka -Vs.- Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 163 |
Sections 196A ,16, 156(1)[Clause 9(i)], 194 |
The Customs Act, 1969
|
National Board of Revenue =VS= Basic Dredging Company Ltd. | 14 LM (AD) 533 |
Section 196 |
The Value Added Tax Act, 1991
|
Customs, Excise & Vat Appellate Tribunal =VS= Chattala Industries Ltd. | 14 LM (AD) 623 |
Section 196 |
Value Added Tax Act, 1991
|
Customs, Excise & Vat Appellate Tribunal =VS= Chattala Industries Ltd. | 14 LM (AD) 623 |
Section 196 |
The Customs Act, 1969
|
Sagar Chemical & Paint Industries Ltd. =VS= Bangladesh | 4 LM (AD) 325 |