HAJI MD. SELIM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for Leave to Appeal at the instance of the petitioner is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.10.2005 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.4183 of 1998 discharging the Rule.

(2.) The facts leading to the case are that the petitioner in course of his business opened two letters of credit both dated 30.09.1998 for importing Indonesia brand "Grey Portland Cement" totaling 21,800.00 metric tons. After arrival of both the consignments the petitioner through his clearing agent submitted related bills of entry on 07.01,1999 and 24.12.1998 respectively for the purpose of assessment of customs duty, tax, VAT etc. The respondents in both the writ petitions demanded customs duty of the aforesaid consignments at the rate of 30% as per SRO No. 233-Ain/98/1763/Shulka dated 20.10.1998 hereinafter referred to as SRO No.233 issued pursuant to Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969. Though at the time of opening of the aforesaid letters of credit the earlier notification dated 12.06.1998 was very much in force, wherein the Government pursuant to Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969 exempted the payment of customs duty of the aforesaid Consignments to the extent of the amount exceeding 15%. The demand of the customs authority in the instant cases is based on the SRO No.233 issued under the authority of Section 19 of the Customs Act wherein the authority has modified the percentage in the earlier exemption by inserting "30%" in place of "15%". As a result the petitioner has to pay higher duties suffering huge financial loss.

(3.) Mr. Abdul Baset Majumder, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the judgment and order dated 25.10.2005 passed by the High Court Division is neither proper nor in accordance with law; that the SRO notification dated 20.10.1998 enhancing the duty on grey Portland cement from 15% to 30% under Section 19 of the Customs Act is without lawful authority inasmuch as Section 19 does not contemplate enhancement of duty. He further submitted that the writ-petitioner having opened letters of credit to import the cement on 30.09.1998 the present petitioners have no lawful authority to charge enhanced duty.