Case No: Civil Petition for leave to Appeal No. 293 of 2006
Judge: Mohammad Fazlul Karim ,
Court: Appellate Division ,,
Citation: 17 BLT (AD) (2009) 314
Case Year: 2009
Appellant: Rupak Dey
Respondent: Commissioner of Customs
Subject: Customs, Fiscal Law,
Delivery Date: 2008-1-23
Mohammad Fazlul Karim, J.
Md. Joynul Abedin, J.
Md. Hassan Ameen, J.
Commissioner of Customs and others
January 23, 2008.
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Customs Act, 1969
In order to challenge the Tariff Value in force the writ petitioner must disclose reliable and relevant materials in the writ petition itself showing that the Tariff Value as fixed is not fair or has no nexus with the prevailing international market rate , otherwise the petition is not entertainable and must be dismissed.… (4)
Case Referred To-
Mostafa Kamal Vs. Commissioner of Customs and others, 52 DLR (AD) 1
Maqbul Ahmed, Advocate, instructed by A. K. M. Shahidul Huq, Advocate-on-Record- For the Petitioner.
Not represented- the Respondents.
Civil Petition for leave to Appeal No. 293 of 2006.
(From the judgment and order dated 28.11.2005 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 1577 of 1999)
Mohammad Fazlul Karim J.
This petition for Leave to Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2005 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 1577 of 1999 discharging the Rule.
2. The petitioner in course of his business opened a letter of credit on 02.02.1999 through National Bank Limited, Khatoongonj Branch, Chittagong for importing of DRAGON BRAND CHINA ORIGIN white cigarette papers for an amount of US $ 36,160.00. On arrival of the consignment at Chittagong the petitioner submitted two bills of Entry on 14.03.1999 along with all necessary papers and documents to the customs authority for the purpose of assessment of customs duty, tax and other charges, on the basis of the C & F price made but the respondents instead of making the assessment on the basis of the C & F price made the assessment at the rate of US $ 1800.00 per metric ton being the Tariff value.
3. Mr. Maqbul Ahmed, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner submits that the High Court Division failed to take notice that the imposition of the duty on the basis of Tariff value pursuant to notification No.67/99 Customs dated 01.02.1999 is arbitrarily and has no objective basis and does not reflect the fair price of the imported goods in the international market and as such the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside that section 25 of the Customs Act does not confer authority or to determine arbitrary and fictitious Tariff value and in that view of the matter the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside; that imposition of duty on the basis of tariff value determined by executive order creates restriction on freedom of trade and thereby violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner to carry business as guaranteed by Article 22 of the constitution and as such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
In view of the above, we find no substance in the submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.