BASHIRUDDIN AHMED Vs. MINISTRY OF FINANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On an application made under Article 102 of the Constitution by the petitioner Bashiruddin Ahmed a Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned order contained in the Nathi No.3 (3) VAT-5/95 corresponding to 25-3-1402 BS (Annexure-M) issued by the Second Secretary (VAT-5) National Board of Revenue should not be declared to have been issued illegally and without any lawful authority and also without appreciating the factual position leading to the sale of abandoned (wreck) and the goods therein.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the wreck in question was not imported or brought into Bangladesh and, therefore, it was not subject to payment of any customs duty. The raw jute and jute goods was meant for export and the VAT having already been paid by the manufacturer and he being only consumer was not required to pay any VAT for jute or the furnished jute goods. He further argued that the wreck was a prize of the Government and not a wreck which was imported or brought into Bangladesh and, therefore, there was no question of payment of any import duty. He has compared the wreck purchased by the petitioner to drift timber, which comes into the territories of Bangladesh of which the Government becomes owner and it is the Government which has to pay the import duty. The petitioners being a purchaser of commodity owned by the Government he is not liable to pay any customs duty.