MOHAMMAD BROTHERS Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner has preferred this petition for leave to appeal from the judgment and order dated 1.8.95 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.1607 of 1995 summarily rejecting the petition.

(2.) The petitioner imported 100 water pumps and 100 sewing machines at a price of US $45 and US $60 C & F Chittagong respectively after opening a Letter of Credit. He submitted Bill of Entry and Bill of Lading on arrival of the goods at the Port of Chittagong on board the vessel MV Fong Yun. The appraiser assessed the customs duty on the goods at the rate of 100% on the imported value on the ground of under invoicing. The petitioner unsuccessfully made a representation before the Assistant Collector of Customs and further to the Collector of Customs. By the impugned dated 11-4-95, served on the petitioner on 14-6-95, the Collector of Customs upheld the order of the appraiser and found that the main sales contract dated 24-4-94 between the petitioner and the exporter provided that the LC would be established on 30-6-94. Hence the sales contract is not acceptable. The imported consignment was seized releasable on payment of a fine of Taka 20, 000.00 and the duty imposed by the appraiser.

(3.) The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 11.4.95 in the writ petition on various grounds. The High Court Division dismissed the writ petition in limine on the ground that when the goods were imported in breach of the sales contract relating to the rate there is no want of authority on the part of the revenue to enforce the rate prevail for levy of such duty. When breach of contract disputed the grievance that the impugned order offends the principle of natural justice is not entertainable. The High Court Division further held that the petitioner is not without any remedy as the Customs Act provides for appeal, revision, etc which the petitioner can avail of by producing evidence on disputed facts.