Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (HCD)
Customs Act, 1969 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
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 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 |
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 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 |
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 |