Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Dhaka and others Vs. Abdur Razib

Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Dhaka and others

 Vs.

Abdur Razib.

Supreme Court

Appellate Division

(Civil)

Present:

Mohammad Fazlul Karim J

Md. Joynul Abedin J

Md. Hassan Ameen J

The Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Dhaka and others…………..Petitioners

Vs.

Abdur Razib………………………………………………………………………………………………….Respondent

Judgment

January 3, 2008.

Lawyers Involved:

M.A. Azim, Deputy Attorney General, instructed by Md. Zahirul Islam, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioners.

Not Represented- the Respondent.

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1294 of 2006.

(From the judgment and order dated 22.3.2005 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 277 of 2000.)

Judgment

                  Md. Joynul Abedin J.- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.3.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 277 of 2000 making the rule absolute.

2. The short fact is that the respondent filed the aforesaid writ petition stating that he opened the Letter of Credit No. SIBL/PB/CASH/99/0073 dated 10.6.1999 and imported 20 units of Unia Air Conditioner along with installation covered under H.S. Code No.8415.101 at US$ 485.00 for 8 units and US$ 485.00 for 12 units of the said Air Conditioner at a total C & F Value of US$ 9,712.00.

3. On arrival of the goods, the writ peti­tioner presented Bill of Entry No.025572 dated 1.10.1999 along with all papers and documents for release of the said goods on the basis of SRO No.126/AIN/99/1789/CUS dated 10.6.1999. The customs duly examined the goods and found the same to be the parts of Air conditioning installation kits and accordingly suggested at the initial stage for release of the same by giving benefit of SRO 26 dated 10.6.1999. But subsequently the customs by order dated 17.1.2000 refused to give benefit of the said SRO on the ground that the consignment was imported for com­mercial purpose.

3. The writ petitioner-respondent therefore moved the High Court Division by filing the aforesaid writ petition. The High Court Division issued rule and eventually by the impugned judgment dated 22.3.2005 made the same absolute. The petitioners being dissatisfied filed this civil petition for leave to appeal.

4. Mr. M. A. Azim, the learned Deputy Attorney General for the petitioners sub­mits that the importer in no way can get the benefit of the SRO in respect of Winia Brand,    Model WAPA 712G, Air Conditioner and if the impugned order of the High Court Division is complied with, the government will be deprived of a huge amount of government revenue.

5. We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and perused the connected papers including the impugned judgment. We do not find any substance in the point raised. The High Court Division upon cor­rect assessment of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision. There is therefore no cogent reason to interfere with the same.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Ed.

Source: VI ADC (2009) 314

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.