Girilal Garwala Vs. Collector of Customs, Chittagong and others, 58 DLR (2006) (AD) 45

Case No: Civil Review Petition Nos. 52, 53 & 54 of 2000

Judge: Md. Tafazzul Islam ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: A.S.M. Khalequzzaman,,

Citation: 58 DLR (2006) (AD) 45

Case Year: 2006

Appellant: Girilal Garwala

Respondent: Collector of Customs, Chittagong

Subject: Constitutional Law,

Delivery Date: 2003-10-26


Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
KM Hasan CJ
Md Fazlul Karim J
Md Hamidul Haque J
Md Tafazzul Islam J
 
Girilal Garwala
………… Petitioner
Vs.
Collector of Customs, Chittagong and others
………… Respondents
 
Judgment
October 26th, 2003.
 
The Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 105
The ground taken for review indicates that the petitioner intends re-hearing of the whole civil petition which has been disposed of on merit. This is not permissible under article 105 of the Constitution. The Appellate Division cannot re-hear the matter on merit already disposed of. The review petitions are dismissed.
 
Lawyers Involved:
ASM Khalequzzaman, Advocate-on-Record—For the Petitioner (In all the cases).
Not represented—Respondents (In all the cases).
 
Civil Review Petition Nos. 52, 53 & 54 of 2000
(From the judgment and order dated 24 February 2000 passed by the Appellate Division in Civil Petition Nos. 830,831 & 832 of 1999).
 
JUDGMENT

Md. Tafazzul Islam J.
 
1. This application under Article 105 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh is for review of the judgment and order dated 27th February, 2002 passed by this Division in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 831 of 1999 by which this Division upheld the judgment and order dated 27-2-2000 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 1138 of 1995 discharging the Rule.
 
2. The petitioner filed the above writ petition challenging the orders dated 11-1-95 as contained in the Bill of Entry Nos. 3269 and 3270 by which the customs authority directed assessment of customs duty @ 45% on the basis of tariff value on the imported consignment @ US$ 280 per MT treating the consignment as Dunpeas (motor dal) under HS Code 0713.10.00(1) though according to the petitioner the consignment was Dunpeas (whole). The respondents contested the writ petition contending that the assessment of customs duty @ 45% on the imported Dunpeas (motor dal) fixing the tariff value @ US$ 280 per MT is valid and lawful. The High Court Division rejected the claim of the petitioner that the consignment imported by the petitioner was Dunpeas (whole).
 
3. This Division dismissed the civil petition upholding the judgment and order of the High Court Division holding that the petitioner did not at all assert before the High Court Division that direction was given to the petitioner by the Customs authority to pay customs duty etc @ 45% on tariff value @ US$ 280 per MT without physical verification of the imported goods and so the petitioner cannot agitate the above point before this Division for the first time. Mr. SM Khalequzzaman, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, submits that from the contents of the reports of the physical verification dated 11-12-94 and 15-12-94 it will appear that physical verification was done after the issuance of the Rule and beyond the knowledge of the petitioner and  further the consignment was Yellow Peas (pisum satibum) and not Dunpeas (motor dal) and the above report could not be produced before this Bench by the petitioner at the time of hearing of the civil petition despite exercising due diligences and if the above report could be placed before this Division at the time of hearing of the aforesaid civil petition, it would have been crystal clear that the above physical verification was not carried out in presence of the petitioner and so the submission made by the Additional Attorney-General to the effect that on physical verification of the imported goods in the presence of the petitioner  the consignment was found to be Dunpeas (motor dal), was wrong.
 
4. However, the grounds taken above for review indicate that the petitioner intends rehearing of the whole Civil Petition which is not permissible under Article 105 of the Constitution. The matter has been disposed of on merit and here the prayer is for rehearing of the whole matter by entering into the facts of the case which this Division cannot do in such situation.
 
Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed.
 
Ed.