Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sayeed Hossain and others

Commissioner of Customs


Sayeed Hossain and others


Supreme Court

Appellate Division



Md. Ruhul Amin J

K.M Hasan J

Md. Fazlul Haque J

Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Chittagong and others………….Petitioner (In both the cases)


Sayeed Hossain…………Respondent (In Civil Petition No. 519 of 2001)

Rabbani Trading Co. Ltd…………Respondent (In Civil Petition No. 520 of 2001)


February 3, 2003.

Lawyers Involved:

Adilur Rahman, Deputy Attorney General, instructed by Md. Ahsan Ullah Patwary Advocate-on-RecordFor the Petitioner (In both the Cases).

Not representedRespondent (In both the cases).

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal Nos. 519-520 of 2001.

(From the judgment & order dated October 31, 2000 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. t981& 5690 of 1997)


Md. Ruhul Amin J.- Delay of 7 days is con­doned. These petitions for leave to appeal have been filed against the judgment and order dated October 31, 2000 in writ petition Nos.1981 and 5690 of 1997. The High Court Division by the aforesaid judgment has made the Rule obtained in the writ petitions absolute and has thereupon directed the Customs Authority to determine the normal value of the imported goods for the purpose of assessment of customs duty, VAT and other charts.

2. The writ petitioners in the respective writ petition opened Letters of Credit in between February 3, 1997 and June 11, 1997 to import 170 metric tons of HDPE Film Grade @ US 600 per metric ton and 160 metric tons of T. M. Compound @ US 700 per metric ton respec­tively. On arrival of the imported goods at the port the importers through their Clearing and Forwarding Agent submitted papers before the Customs Authority for assessment of Customs Duty and other levies on the basis of C & F Value but the Customs Authority directed to declare the value of the goods at the value, load value fixed earlier by the customs authority. The writ petitioners challenged the said action of the Customs Authority contending that there was no basis for fixing the value of the import­ed goods as termed by the customs Authority “load value”.

3. The Rule was contested by the Respondents contending that the value, called ‘load value’ fixed by the customs was the result of determination of normal value through elab­orate process.

4. The High Court Division made the Rule absolute on the finding that Customs Authority could not show any basis of the value i.e. load value of the goods imported and thereupon directed the customs Authority to determine the normal value of the goods upon affording opportunity to the importers to represent their case in support of C & F value.

5. The learned Deputy Attorney General placed the judgment of the High Court Division and other materials on record. The learned Deputy attorney General Could not place before us any material to substantiate the basis of fix­ing the value called ‘load value’ of the import­ed goods or normal value of the goods and that also could not point out in what manner the Customs Authority is prejudiced by the direc­tion as given by the High Court Division for determination of the normal value upon following the procedure spelt out in the judgment.

In the afore stated of the matter we do not find any substance in the petitions.

Accordingly the petitions are dismissed.


Source: 1 ADC (2004) 223