Customs Act
Sections 2, 3,13, 202
The amount evaded against customs du- ties, VAT, income tax and other dues and also Tk.3,97,85,650.64, the amount of penalty which is double the amount so evaded. Commissioner of Customs vs. M/S. Sunlit Fashion ltd (Md. Tafaz- zul Islam J)(Civil) 8 ADC 29
Section 13, 117, 118
The writ petitioner applied to the Com- missioner of Customs for permission in order to import grey fabrics as raw ma- terials for production of garments with- out any master letter of credit and/or back-to-back letter of credit. By his let- ter dated 17.6.1996, the Commissioner of Customs granted necessary permis- sion. Government of the People's vs. Md. Feroz Alam (Md. Joynul Abedin J) (Civil)6 ADC 466
Section 15 and 17 of the Customs Act, 1969: 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. (Para-19)
Section 96 of the Trademarks Act, 2009: The petitioner is the registered trademark holder of the goods in question. Section 96 of the said Act has given protection to the petitioner. Under Section 96 of the said Act, the petitioner company is legally entitled to file suit before civil court for violation of any provision of the Trademarks Act, 2009. (Para-24)
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 h¡wm¡cn Bjc¡¢e e£¢a Bcn, 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. (Para-25)
When a person is entitled to seek remedy in the form of mandamus: Mandamus is a Latin word which means “We command”. Mandamus is issued to keep public authorities within the limit of their jurisdiction while exercising public functions. It is called a ‘wakening call’ and it awakes the sleeping authorities to perform their duty. It is a judicial remedy in the form of an order of the Court to the government or public authority or Court below to do specific act which they are duty bound to do under the statutory provision of law. Any person who has an interest in the performance of the duty by the authority and they have refused to do the duty following law despite demand in writing are entitled to seek remedy in the form of mandamus. (Para-30)
Exercising jurisdiction under Article 102 of the Constitution this Court is not legally empowered to adjudicate any disputed or contentious matter: At the time of opening the Letter of credit, it is not practically possible for respondent Nos. 7 to 57 to identify the products which are parallel goods or counterfeit products of Unilever PLC. It is the customs authority that can examine the consignment and take the decision as to whether the particular imported consignment is parallel goods or counterfeit products of Unilever, PLC, London. Therefore if the petitioner has definite information that any respondent or anyone is importing parallel goods or counterfeit products of Unilever PLC, London in violation of the conditions imposed in Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1969 he is at liberty to file an application to customs authority regarding specific consignment. In the above backdrop of the matter, we are of the view that this writ petition has been filed relying on the highly contentious issue. A contentious issue is one that different people interpret the issue differently. Therefore, it is a controversial or disputed matter. Under Article 102 (2)(a)(i) of the Constitution on the application of any aggrieved person this court is empowered to pass an order directing a person performing any functions in connection with the affairs of the Republic or of a local authority, to refrain from doing that which he is not permitted by law to do or to do that which he is required by law to do. This power of the High Court Division is discretionary. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 102 of the Constitution this Court is not legally empowered to adjudicate any disputed or contentious matter and this Court is loath to embark upon an enquiry into the disputed question of fact. (Para-46, 47)
Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1969: 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. (Para-48) [17 SCOB [2023] HCD 137]
Section 18, 19, 25(1) (2) (3), (7), 30A
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 prevail- ing on the date of submission of the bill of entry. Commissioner of Customs, Chittagong vs Bangladesh Traders (Md. Tafazzul Islam J)(Civil) 2ADC 718
Directing the respondents to assess the customs duty and other charges and release the petitioner's imported goods on payment of customs duties, taxes and other charges. Police Station-Ramna vs. Dulal Chandra Bhoumik (Md. Abdul Matin J) (Civil) 7 ADC 684
Customs Act, 1969
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, [4 LM (AD) 98]
Section 19 and 25(7)
The exemption under section 19 of the Act and the declaration of tariff value under section 25(7) of the Act are quite distinguishable. The cases reported in 42 DLR (AD) 167 and 48 DLR (AD)199 did not held that the importer acquired vested right to pay tax and duty on the basis of invoice value and tariff value existing at the time of open- ing of the letter of credit. Therefore, the Appellant has to pay tax and duty on the basis of tariff value on the date of pres- entation of the bill of entry. Md. Shahja- han vs. Government of Bangladesh (Syed Mahmud Hossain J) (Civil) 10 ADC 608
Section 19
Appeal by leave by the collector of cus- toms is directed against the judgment
Custom authority was under legal obli- gation to assess duties on the imported goods of the writ petitioner at the rate prevalent on the date of opening of the letter of credit on 30.3.1988 on the basis of SRO dated 18.6.1987 and not on the basis of rate as per SRO dated 16.8.1988 which was prevalent when the writ petitioner submitted the Bill of Entry. The Collector of Customs vs. M/S. Sumi Enterprise (Md Joynul Abe- din J) (Civil) 6 ADC 106
Section 19, 30, 30A
The respondents in both the writ peti- tions demanded customs duty of the aforesaid consignments at the rate of 30% as per SRO No.233- Ain/98/1763/Shulka dated 20.10.1998 hereinafter referred to as SRO No.233 issued pursuant to Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969. Though at the time of opening of the aforesaid letters of credit the earlier notification dated 12.06.1998 was very much in force, wherein the Government pursuant to Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969 ex- empted the payment of customs duty of the aforesaid consignments to the extent of the amount exceeding 15%. The de- mand of the customs authority in the in- stant cases is based on the SRO No.233 issued under the authority of Section 19 of the Customs Act wherein the author- ity has modified the percentage in the carlier exemption by inserting "30%" in place of "15%". As a result the peti- tioner has to pay higher duties suffering huge financial loss. Haji Md. Selim vs. Government of Bangladesh (Moham- mad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 6 ADC 777
Section 21(a)
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 of Revenu vs Mustafizur Rahman (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 3ADC 40
Section 23- Customs Act 1969:
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. (Para 26) Sections 18, 23, 43, 44, 45, 51, 52, 53 and 79 of Customs Act 1969: 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. (Para-28) Advocates should not expect detailed Judgment on the side-issue of a suit/matter, which is already well-settled by the Apex Court While an Advocate would be seen by this Court to be fully justified in receiving a detailed Judgment on finishing hearing of a suit or any other original substantive matter (such as Admiralty Suit, Writ Petition, Company Matter) even if the Court expresses its views dismissing the suit/discharging the Rule, however, as an officer of the Court, an Advocate is expected to assist this Court in saving its time by non-prosecuting an interlocutory application, when the same would be found by the Court without any substance after affording the opportunity of placing the arguments at length. It is to be borne in mind by the learned Advocates that since the number of Judges of this country are very negligible in comparison to the case-load, it has become very difficult for the learned Judges of this country to dispose of the substantive suit/matters and, therefore, the learned Advocates should not expect detailed Judgment on the side-issue of a suit/matter, which is already well-settled by the Apex Court of our jurisdiction. (Para-30) [17 SCOB [2023] HCD 82]
Section 25 and 30
The High Court Division on due consid- eration of the submissions made on be- half of the contesting parties and relying on the principle laid down in the deci- sions given by Appellate Division in the cases of Collector of Customs Vs. A. Hannan reported in 42 DLR (AD) 167; Collector of Customs Vs. Ahmed Hos- sain reported in 48 DLR (AD) 199; and Mostafizur Rahman Vs. Government of Bangladesh reported in 51 DLR (AD) 40 made the Rules issued on the writ pe- titions absolute holding that the respon- dents thereof acted illegally, arbitrarily and without lawful authority in refusing to assess the Customs duty, tax etc., on the imported goods on the basis of the value mentioned in the CRF Certificates issued by the PSI Agents and that the SRO No.113 dated 11.05.1997 could not affect the vested right accrued to the respondents on the issuance of the CRF certificates pursuant to SRO No.316 dated 03.11.1994 and SRO No.244 dated 31.12.1996 issued under Section 25A of the Customs Act. Commissioner of Custom vs. Monohar Ali (Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman J) (Civil) 9 ADC 451
Customs Act [IV of 1969]
Section 25(2) read with Valuation Rules, 2000 Imposing enhanced value with reference to Minimum Assessable Value.
In respect of availability of alternative remedy re as a bar in filing writ petition it is settled that, in C a case where violation of law is challenged, taking e 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'. [31 ALR (2024) (AD) 12]
Mustafa Kamal and others Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and others reported in 52 DLR (AD) (2000)1 which we can profitably quote:
"Section 25 of the Customs Act is concerned with the tariff value of imported and exported goods, not with the rate of duty. This section describes how the tariff value of imported goods and exported goods will be determined, the assumptions on the basis of which the normal price of such goods will be determined and the meaning of some words used in that section. This is an executive power, not a legislative power. Section 25A is also an executive power of the Government to accept as the basis of assessment a certificate issued by an approved pre-shipment inspection agency. Section 30 then provides that both the value and the rate of duty applicable to any imported goods shall be those on the date on which bill of entry is presented under section 79 of the Customs Act. A new section 30A was added by the Finance Act, 1995 with effect from 1.7.95 wiping out the effect of some decisions of this court notably that of Collector of Customs, Chittagong Vs. Ahmed Hossain and others 48 DLR (AD) 199 : 15 BLD (AD) 116.
Collector of Customs and others Vs. TK Oil Refinery Ltd and 22 others reported in 62 DLR (AD)(2010) 217 which we can also profitably quote:
"As it appears, the High Court Division made the Rules absolute holding that a reading of the provisions of section 25(1)(1)(3) and section 30(1) of the Customs Act show that the Customs Authority is authorised to assess customs duties of imported goods at the value prevalent on the date when the bill of entry is presented for assessment of customs duties but, in the present case, the Customs authority fixed the indicative value for the purpose of assessment of customs duties of the imported CDSO and CPO imported by the respondents long before the presentation of the bill of entry and accordingly, "indicative value", that has been fixed by the circular dated 3-7-94, cannot be considered to have been fixed in the light of the provisions of section 25(1), (2) and (3) of the Customs Act and that in terms of the above section the Customs Authority, in appropriate cases, no doubt, is competent to fix normal value of imported goods upon rejection of the invoice value or the declared value but in such a case the Customs authority would be required to notify importers informing them that the Customs authority is not accepting the invoice value or declared value as the basis for the purpose of assessment of customs duty and is going to fix the normal price of the imported goods for the assessment of customs duties and the customs authority would also be required to afford an opportunity to the importers to place their cases, if any, in support of their claim that the invoice value, in fact, is the normal price of the imported merchandise for the purpose of assessment of customs duties or that as against the invoice/declared value of the imported goods the customs authority is going to tax the normal price of the goods for the purpose of assessment of customs duties but, in the instant case, that has not been done by the customs authority and the Customs authority fixed, through internal circular, certain prices of CDSO and CPO for the purpose of assessment of customs duties terming the same as "indicative value" but under the Customs Act, the revenue realising Authority or the Customs Authority is authorised to fix tariff value under section 25(7) of the Act at a prior date through Gazette notification for the purpose of assessment of customs duties and the indicative value that has been fixed later on and circulated through Circular dated 3-7-94 was admittedly not notified in the official Gazette; the learned Attorney-General submitted that the fixation of normal value in every case of imports upon notifying the individual importer would be an impossible task and, as such, for the sake of convenience, the revenue authority has fixed the value of the imported merchandise at a prior date through the Circular dated 3-7-94 for making the same as the basis for assessment of the customs duties in disregard of the invoice value, but the above submission cannot be accepted because in fixing the citizen with the liability of payment of tax, the concerned authority is required by strict compliance of law authorising it to fix a citizen with the liability of payment of tax and the plea of impossibility of fixation of the normal value of the imported merchandise in the case of each individual importer upon hearing him or that upon affording him an opportunity to place his case, if any, in support of the invoice value, cannot be accepted and the respondents, under the law, cannot be allowed to resort to the practice of pre- fixation of the value of the imported goods for assessment of customs duties in that the Government or any other agency authorised by the delegated legislation cannot act in a manner which is not authorised or provided in the law or by the law; further, the affidavit of the appellant does not show that price to the CDSO and CPO at which those were sold by the countries where from import was made by the respondents, being not taken into consideration at the time of fixing the "indicative value", the statement of the appellants in Annexure-2 to the affidavit -in-opposition to the effect that the price of CDSO in the international market at the relevant time was at about US$ 580/585 per metric tonne and, in that state of the matter, the appellants were quite correct in fixing the value of the goods in question at the amount circulated through the Circular dated 3-7-94, cannot be accepted and in no way it can be said that the invoice value of the respective imports did not reflect the value prevalent in the international market and, be that as it may, the fact remains that appellants, by law or under the law, are not authorised by an internal circular to fix any value like indicative value of any imported merchandise in advance for the purpose of assessment of customs duties. The High Court also did not accept the submissions of the learned Attorney- General that, in terms of the principle laid down in PLD 1988 Karachi 99, the matter of assessment of customs duties of the goods in question be sent back to the customs authority for making assessment after hearing the respondents as the facts of the above case are quite distinguishable from the facts of the instant cases." This cases are referred in [31 ALR (2024) (AD) 12]
Section 25(7)
Government may by notification in the official gazette fix the tariff value of any goods imported or exported as charge- able with customs duty ad valorem. The duty shall be chargeable on the tariff value which was in existence on the date of submission of the bill of entry. (16)
Section 25, 25(1), 25(7)
The goods having arrived at Chittagong Port the respective bills of entry were submitted to the Customs authority for assessment of duties and taxes in order to release the goods on 5.7.1994 and 12.7.1994 respectively. The Govern- ment, however, fixed tariff value of the CP sheet at US$ 1800/- per metric ton vide SRO No.214-Ain/93/1527/Shulka dated 28.10.1993 and accordingly as- sessed the duties and taxes ignoring in- voice value of the appellants' goods at US$ 2.17 and 2.19 per Rim. Thus the writ-petitioners have challenged the same as arbitrary and without lawful au- thority as the said papers were liable to be assessed at US$ 835.49 per metric ton instead of its tariff value at US$ 1800/- per metric ton which is contray prevailing the international market hav- ing no nexus thereto and inflated one. Mahfizul Hoque vs. The Collector of Customes (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 6 ADC 1
The Customs Act, Section 25 (7)
The Government, however, fixed tariff value of the CP sheet at US$ 1800/- per metric ton vide SRO No. 214. Ain/93/1527/Shulka dated 28.10.1993 and accordingly assessed the duties and taxes ignoring invoice value of the appellants' goods at US$ 2.17 and 2.91 per Rim. Thus the writ-petitioners have challenged the same as arbitrary and without lawful authority as the said papers were liable to be assessed at USS 835.49 per metric ton instead of its tariff value at US$ 1800/- per metric ton which is contrary prevailing the international market having no nexus thereto and inflated one.
Usually invoice value is the basis of assessment of custom duty but in order to prevent under-invoicing and over- invoicing by the importer or exporter either in a bid of avoid payment of proper duty or smuggle out foreign exchange, section 25(7) has been introduced providing power vested in the Government to fix tariff value of imported or exported goods and accordingly, when the Government finds from materials that the importer or exporter have taken resort to under-invoicing or over-invoicing and in order to protect realisation of proper customs duty, and to protect the local industrial selfsame product, the Government is obliged to fix tariff value of the imported goods.
Fiscal law containing charges and duties specified thereto having the basis in Article 83 of the Constitution, the object of which is to introduce a fiscal clause charging for determination of value in respect of any import or export which touches each and every citizen of the country who are the ultimate consumers and pay the assessed tax as tariff value and as such the writ petitioners have no personal grievance in the fixation of tar- if value in respect of any imported goods and accordingly, the writ-petitioners could not have any grievance against the said fixation by the Government. Mahfuzul Hoque, Golam Mostafa vs. The Collector of Customs, Customs House, Chittagong & others Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil): ADC 236
The High Court Division cannot grant full relief by way of disposing a revisional application summarily without issuing any Rule and behind the back of the affected party without affording any opportunity to place his case which is neither legal nor fair......(8). Jabbar Jute Mills Ltd vs Md. Abul Kashem (M.M.RuhulAminJ) (Civil) 2ADC 713
Section 25A
The writ-petitioner opened L.C. on 07.10.1996 relying upon SRO No.316- Ain/94/1568/Shulko dated 03.11.1994 allowing benefit to the importers under Section 25A of the Customs Act and the L.C. was amended on 17.10.1994 to increase the value of the goods. As per terms of Section 25A of the Act and SRO No.316 dated 03.11.1994 the goods were inspected at the port of loading by one of the Government approved PSI Agency namely 'Bureau VERITAS' and after inspection the PSI Agency issued CRF Certificate on 12.12.1996. .....(13)
The value of goods and the rate of duty shall be the one prevailing on the date when the Bill of Entry is presented under Section 79. Although admittedly Bill of Entry can be presented either for In-Bond or for Ex bond, and two sepa- rate Bill of Entry number can be allo- cated in this two piece of document, Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1969 only refers to In-Bond Bill of Entry .....(20)
Commissioner of Customs. VAT & Excise vs. Abul Khair Steel Mills (Borhanuddin J) (Civil) 20 ADC 35
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.
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, [9 LM (AD) 258]
Section 25A
For withdrawing CRF on the goods im- ported by the respondents on opening the respective letters of credit and also impugning the directions given by the petitioners to levy and collect customs duties and other taxes on the said im- ported consignments on the basis of CRF certificate. Commissioner of Customs vs. M/S. R.R. International (Md. Tafazzul Islam J) (Civil) 7 ADC 1001
Section 25A(2)
Declaring the action of the revenue levying VAT on the fees and commissions of the writ-petitioners who acted as Pre-shipment Inspection Agencies to have been passed without lawful au- thority and of no legal effect. National Board of Revenue vs. Ntertek Testing Services International Ltd. (Md Ruhul Amin J) (Civil) 7 ADC 7 ADC 25
Customs Act [IV of 1969]
Sections 32(3), 81, 83A(2) and 83A(3) read with
Finance Act [XXXIII of 2010]
Section 5
When it is not possible immediately to assess the Customs duty for the reason that the goods require chemical or other test or a further inquiry for the purpose of assessment or complete documents or full information relating to the imported goods have not been furnished then the duty payable on such goods shall be assessed provisionally. It is also specified in the section that the final assessment shall be completed within a period of 120 working days from the date of the provisional assessment and under exceptional circumstances the National Board of Revenue can extend the period of final assessment.
If the amendment has the effect of imposing a fresh liability or enhancing an existing liability, a demand notice in writing shall be given by the officer of the Customs to the person liable for payment of the duty specifying time limit of 30 (thirty) working days for payment against the aforesaid demand notice from the date of issue.
It is settled by the pronouncement of the apex court that a show cause notice is required to be served upon the notice receiver. Accordingly section 83A(2) provides that if the demand has the effect of imposing a fresh liability or enhancing an existing liability, a demand notice in writing shall be given by the officer of Customs to the person liable for the payment of additional duty and section 83A(3) mandates that unless otherwise specified in this Act, the due date for payment against the aforesaid demand notice shall be 30(thirty) working days from the date of issuance of such a demand notice by the officer of Customs. [2023] 27 ALR (AD) 23
Section 50
It appears that though the High Court Division found that the writ-petitioner could invoke the jurisdiction under the Trade Mark Act as well as other juris- diction and could intimate the same to the customs authority which has been given the power of prohibiting importa- tion of goods under section 50 of the Customs Act, 1969, yet they opined that in the circumstances the alternative remedy available to the writ-petitioner was not efficacious, rather would cause damage to the local industry as well as loss of revenue as in the meantime dif- ferent goods of the brand would be im- ported. M/S. Rupanti Enterprise vs. Unilever Bangladesh Limited (Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah J) (Civil) 8 ADC 551
Section 79- 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 (Civil) 75 DLR (AD) 117
Customs Act (IV of 1969)
Sections 80 and 81
Due to unlawful, unauthorize and dilatory tactics of the customs officials, the petitioner could not release the goods from the customs warehouse at airport, Dhaka and suffered loss and confronted with intentional harassment of the customs officials. The goods could not be released due to the concerned customs officials' deliberate negligence and unlawful activities. The petitioner is entitled to refund the taxes and duties paid, demurrage for the goods and not liable to pay the rents for the warehouse of the NBR or the Government as the case may be. [73 DLR (2021) 446]
Section 180
The order states that the appellant has not given any satisfactory explanation as to why there was a long gap between the time of submission of bills of entry in November, 1989 and the physical examination of the goods in February, 1990. Thus the revisional authority was also of the view that the appellant him- self contributed to the customs authori- ty's rejection of his prayer for chemical examination. Md. Morzul Haque vs. Bangladesh (Mustafa Kamal J)(Civil) 3ADC 634
Section 180
A plain reading of the quoted section is sufficient to hold that only that person is entitled to get a show cause notice from whose custody the good in question is seized. But 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 under the section could not make the order of confiscation as illegal. Bangladesh vs Abu Musa (Mohammad Gholam Rabbain J)(Civil) 2ADC 247
Customs Act, 1969
Section 180
That only that person is entitled to get a show cause notice from whose custody the good in question is seized. But 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 under the section could not make the order of confiscation as illegal. Government of Bangladesh and others vs. Abu Musa Mohammad (Civil)4ADC 284
Declaration of title and recovery of khas possession of the second schedule land claiming title and ownership of the land 2) Jabbar Jute Mills Ltd. vs. Md. I Abul Kashem (M.M. Ruhul Amin J) (Civil) 5ADC 598
Section 193C- 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, [5 LM (AD) 331]
Section 196- 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, [4 LM (AD) 325]
Section 198, 16, 32
Section 25B of the Customs Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has made it mandatory for the importers to have their importable goods inspected by a PSI agency before or at the time of shipment of those goods on board a ves- sel, aircraft or other conveyance unless the Government by notification in the official gazette, exempt any class of goods or any goods imported by any class of importers or any goods mported through a customs port or a customs sta- tion or any area within such port or sta- tion from the mandatory pre-shipment inspection as provided in the proviso to the section. The Commissioner of Customs vs. Faridul Alarn (Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah J) (Civil) 10 ADC 954
Customs Act (IV of 1969)
Section 217
Admittedly the Customs Officer received the goods, but failed to furnish any acceptable information-cum-explanation in the tribunal about destruction or whereabout of the goods and also in this Court. The list of destroyed goods does not contain any reference to the relevant PS Case or GR Case or the Lot No. 11/ka about the seized goods or any other relevant particulars. Such failure indicates inaction or virtual silence or at last in advertence of the relevant custom officer(s) in relation to the seized goods. The inaction or silence or in advertence cannot be considered as the "act" or "purported act" of destruction in their official capacity as contemplated in section 197 of the CrPC. Similarly it cannot be considered as an "action in good faith" as contemplated in section 217 of the Act....(24) 73 DLR (2021) 304
Customs Act (IV of 1969)
Section 219
National Board of Revenue is empowered to make rules for carrying out the purpose of the Customs Act by notification in the official gazette. The legislature had in mind that the National Board of Revenue would exercise the power judiciously not capriciously or whimsically. 73 DLR (2021) 252