Bangladesh and others Vs. Md. Shahinur and others, 3 LNJ (AD) (2014) 41

Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 169-170 of 2002

Judge: Syed Mahmud Hossain,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Md. Nawab Ali,Mr. A. S. M. Moniruzzaman,,

Citation: 3 LNJ (AD) (2014) 41

Case Year: 2014

Appellant: Bangladesh and others

Respondent: Md. Shahinur and others

Subject: Customs,

Delivery Date: 2013-10-10

 
APPELLATE DIVISION
(CIVIL)
 
Nazmun Ara Sultana, J.  
Syed Mahmud Hossain, J.
Muhammad Imman Ali, J.

 
Judgment on
10.10.2013
}
 
}
}
}
}
}
 
}
}
Government of Bangladesh and others.
…Appellants
(In C. A. Nos. 169-70/02)
The Collector of Customs House, Chittagong and others.
…Appellants
(In C. A. No. 188/02)
Government of Bangladesh and others.
…Appellants
(In C. A. No. 128/02)
-Versus-
Md. Shahinur
…Respondent
(In C. A. Nos. 169-70/02)
Babla Chowdhury
…Respondent
(In C. A. No. 188/02)
Nurul Huq Matbar
…Respondent
(In C. A. No. 128/02)
 
Customs Act (IV of 1969)
Sections 18, 18A, 18B, 25 30 and 30A
As the Government has the power to increase the duties and taxes before submission of bill of entry, the principle expounded in the case of Bangladesh Vs. Mizanur Rahman, 52 DLR (AD) 149 applies in the present appeals. . . .(7 and 8)
 
Collector of Customs, Chittagong and others Vs. Ahmed Hossain and 39 others, 48 DLR (AD) 199 and Government of Bangladesh Vs. Mizanur Rahman, 52 DLR (AD) 149 ref.
 
For the Appellants (In C. A. Nos. 169-70/02): Mr. A. S. M. Moniruzzaman, Deputy Attorney General, instructed by Mvi. Md. Wahidullah, Advocate-on-Record.
For the Appellants (In C. A. No. 188/02): Mr. A. S. M. Moniruzzaman, Deputy Attorney General, instructed by Mr. B. Hossain, Advocate-on-Record.
For the Appellants (In C. A. No. 128/02): Mr. A. S. M. Moniruzzaman, Deputy Attorney General, instructed by AKM Shahidul Huq, the then Advocate-on-Record (now Elevated to the Bench).
For the Respondent (In C. A. Nos. 169-70/02): Ex-parte.
For the Respondent (In C. A. No. 188/02):  Ex-parte.
For the Respondent (In C. A. No. 128/02):  Mr. Md. Nawab Ali, Advocate-on-Record.
 
Civil Appeal Nos. 169-170 of 2002.
(From the judgment and order dated 25.04.1998 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition Nos. 4593 and 4591 of 1997).
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 128  and  188 of 2002.
(From the judgment and order dated 01.02.1999 and 18.11.1999 passed by High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 5491 of 1997 and Writ Petition No. 1003 of 1992 respectively)
 
JUDGMENT
SYED MAHMUD HOSSAIN, J:

These appeals involving similar question of law having been heard together are now being disposed of by this common judgment.

In Civil Appeal No. 128 of 2002, the CRF has been modified by subsequent SRO No. 156-Law/97/17/1714 Sulka dated 12.06.1997 claiming duties and other charges on the imported goods of the writ-petitioner by order dated 19.06.1997 prevailing on the date of submission of the Bill of entry. It has been challenged by the writ-petitioner.

In Civil Appeal Nos. 169 and 170 of 2002, the duty and other charges prevailing on the date of opening of the LC were charged by subsequent SRO.

In view of section 30A of the Customs Act, the writ-petitioner shall have to pay customs duty and other charges on the basis of the SRO prevailing on the date of presentation of the Bill of Entry.

In Civil Appeal No. 188 of 2002, it is alleged that the subsequent SRO on the basis of which customs and others duties were assessed was not published in the official gazette. In fact, the subsequent SRO was published in the official gazette on 05.11.1991.

The question raised in these appeals has been settled by this Division in the case of  Collector of Customs, Chittagong and others vs. Ahmed Hossain and 39 others (1996) 48 DLR (AD) 199, this Division held as under :
It appears that the Parliament in the Finance Act 1995 added section 30A after section 30 which is as follows :

“30A. Value and effective rate of duty-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or any decision of any court, for the purpose of section 30, the value and the rate of the duty applicable to any goods shall respectively include the value as determined under section 25 and any amount of duty imposed under sections 18, 18A and 18B and the amount of duty that may have become payable in consequence of the withdrawal of the whole or any part of the exemption or concession from duty whether before or after the conclusion of a contract or agreement for the sale of such goods or opening of a letter of credit in respect thereof.
For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the change in the law as above, we do not find it necessary to grant leave.”   

The principle expounded in the case of Bangladesh Vs. Mizanur Rahman (2000) 52 DLR (AD) 149 is that the importer has to pay taxes and customs duties on the basis of tariff value in force on the date of presentation of bill of entry.

In the appeals before us, instead of tariff value, the duties and taxes were increased by a subsequent SRO before submissions of the bill of entry. The principle expressed in the case of the Government Vs. Mizanur Rahman (ibid) can be applied in the present appeals as Government has the power to increase the duties and taxes before submission of bill of entry.

In the light of the findings made before, we find substance in these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgments are set aside. 

Ed.