GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH Vs. MIZANUR RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the Government of Bangladesh by leave is against the judgment and order dated 7-7-1997 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division making the Rule absolute in part in Writ Petition No. 345 of 1991.

(2.) The short fact relevant for disposal of the appeal is that the respondent as writ petitioner opened a letter of credit on 13-4-88 for import of Galvanised Plain Sheets at a time when SRO dated 18-6-87 was in force providing for the tariff value of imported goods of the said description. The goods arrived at Chittagong Port on 9-8-88 and the respondent submitted bill of entry about 2 years thereafter on 29-1-90. In the meantime SRO dated 18-6-87 was superseded by SRO dated 16-6-88 and 15-6-89 raising the tariff value of the imported goods. The writ-petitioner-respondent paid enhanced sales tax and customs duty on enhanced tariff value and cleared the goods on 6-6-90. His case is that he paid an excess amount of Taka 6,36,032.00 on an enhanced tariff value although in law the imported goods were liable to be assessed on the basis of the tariff value as contained in the SRO dated 18-6-87, during the currency of which he opened the LC. The further case of the respondent was that the Chittagong Port Authority collected Taka 2,11,464.56 from him as wharf rent from 21-8-88 to 18-7-90. He contended that under section 25 of the Chittagong Port Authority Ordinance, 1976 the Authority may sell the goods by public auction after the expiry of 75 days from the date on which such goods were placed in the custody of the Authority. The Authority did not do so. The Authority was therefore entitled to realise Taka 23,793.00 as wharf rent for 75 days only from 2l-8-88. The writ petitioner-respondent therefore paid an excess amount of Taka 1,87,670.56 in respect of wharf rent which the Port Authority, respondent No. 4, should be directed to refund.

(3.) The Government-appellant did not tile an affidavit-in-opposition, but appeared through an Assistant Attorney-General Appellant No. 4 entering appearance through a learned Advocate but did not appear at the time of hearing of the writ petition