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

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

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 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

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