Rupak Dey Vs. Commissioner of Customs and others, 17 BLT (AD) (2009) 314

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

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
Mohammad Fazlul Karim, J.
Md. Joynul Abedin, J.
Md. Hassan Ameen, J.
 
Rupak Dey
…………...........................Petitioners
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs and others
…………………….…......Respondents
 
Judgment
January 23, 2008.
 
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102
Customs Act, 1969
Section 30
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
 
Lawyers Involved:
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)
 
JUDGMENT
 
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.
 
4. It appears from the record that as per provisions of Section 30 of the Customs Act the importer is liable to pay the duty, tax and other charges at the rate prevailing on the date of submission of the Bill of Entry and the petitioner being well aware about the provisions of Section 30 of the Customs Act opened the Letter of Credit and inasmuch as the Tariff Value under reference has been fixed before opening of the L.C. by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is barred apart from the provision of Section 30 of the Contract Act under the principle of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel from challenging the Tariff Value as fixed for the purposes of assessment of duty, tax and other charges by the Customs Authority. Further, the petitioner did not disclose any relevant or reliable material in the writ petition to show that the Tariff Value as fixed has no nexus with the prevailing international market rate and or the Tariff Value as fixed is inflated one. It also appears that our appellate Division in the case of Mostafa Kamal Vs. Commissioner of Customs and others reported in 52 DLR (AD) 1 has observed that 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.
 
In view of the above, we find no substance in the submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioner.
 
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
 
Ed.