IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

Writ Petition No. 2338 of 2014 with Writ Petition No. 2339 of 2014, Writ Petition No. 2340 of 2014, Writ Petition No. 2341 of 2014, Writ Petition No. 2342 of 2014, Writ Petition No. 4816 of 2014, Writ Petition No. 4817 of 2014, Writ Petition No. 4818 of 2014, Writ Petition No. 4819 of 2014, Writ Petition No. 4820 of 2014, Writ Petition No. 4821 of 2014, Writ Petition No. 4822 of 2014, Writ Petition No. 4823 of 2014, Writ Petition No. 4824 of 2014, Writ Petition No. 4825 of 2014 and Writ Petition No. 4826 of 2014

In the matter of:

An application under Article 102(2)(a)(ii) of the Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh.

-AND-

In the matter of:

BUREAU VERITAS (BIVAC) Bangladesh Limited.

... Petitioner

-Versus-

Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others

.... Respondents

Mr. M. Anwarul Azim Khair, Advocate

… For the Petitioner

Mr. Md.Monjur Alam, D.A.G with

Dr. Mohammad Soeb Mahmud, A.A.G., Mr.Md. Abul Hasan, A.A.G., Mr.MonJur Elahi, A.A.G. and

Mr. Md. Tareq Rahman, A.A.G.

...... For the Respondent

Heard on : 27.05.2025 and 28.05.2025 Judgment on : 02.06.2025

Present:

Mr. Justice Sardar Md. Rashed Jahangir

and

Mr. Justice Kazi Waliul Islam

Sardar Md. Rashed Jahangir , J:

Since  all  the  writ  petitions  involve  identical  point  of  law    based  on  similar  facts  between  the  same  parties  as  such  all  the  petitions  have  been  taken  together  for  hearing  and  disposed  of           by this common judgment.

The point of law is that whether a PSI Agent is required to deposit  the  penalty  imposed  by  the  Commissioner  of  Customs           for  preferring  an  appeal  to  the  Customs,  Excise  and  VAT        Appellate  Tribunal  (shortly  the  Tribunal')  against  the  adjudication

order  imposing  the  penalty.  In  each  of  the  aforementioned            cases,  separate  Rule  Nisi  was  issued  about  the  legality  of  the  following 16(sixteen) individual orders passed by the Tribunal:

At the time of issuance of the Rules in each of the 16(sixteen) cases, operation of the above noted impugned order was stayed.

Brief  facts  of  the  case  are  that  the  petitioner  is  a  limited
company  incorporated  under  the  Companies  Act  and  performing       

as an agent of (BIVAC) International S. A. Bureau Veritas Group     

of  France  which  has  been  appointed  by  the  Government  of  Bangladesh  to  render  pre-shipment  inspection  (PSI)  agency        service  under  section  25A  of  the  Customs  Act.  Different         importers  imported  goods  by  opening  six  different  letter  of               credit  issued  by  the  respective  bank  on  various  dates   during            the  period  from  27.01.2010  to  17.08.2010  under  the  Pre-         shipment  Inspection  (PSI)  Scheme.  Accordingly,  petitioner    conducted  inspection  in  accordance  with  the  PSI  Rules,  2002           and  then  issued  16(sixteen)  Clean  Reports  of  Finding  (CRF)  on various       dates during the period from 23.03.2010 to 11.04.2011.

After  arrival  of  the  goods  at  Chattogram  Port,  the         importers  submitted  bill  of  entry  alongwith  other  commercial documents  for  releasing  imported  consignment  as  per  CRF    particulars  issued  by  the  petitioner.  Upon  examination  of  the       goods,  customs  authority  found  anomaly  in  the  CRF             certificates  relating  to  quantity  of  the  goods  and  customs   classification  and  thus  raised  objection  in  the  relevant  file.          Finally  the  Commissioner  of  Customs,  upon  hearing        representative  of  the  petitioner,  passed  six  adjudication  orders imposing penalties of various amounts ranging from Tk. 1,25,273.22

to Tk. 76,18,483.22 on the petitioner (Annexure- 'A' to all the writ petitions). The sum total of the penalties is Tk.3,05,13,610.87/-.

The  Commissioner  passed  adjudication  orders  with       reference  to  rule  25(2)  of  the  PSI  Rules,  2002  and  recorded    following two grounds in the respective orders:

a) In some of the cases, the quantum of goods were  found  to  be  more  than  the  quantum mentioned in the CRF certificates.

2.       In  some  of  the  cases,  the  H.S.  Codes mentioned in the CRF certificates were found to be wrong.
3.       and  in  other  cases,  certified  value  of  the goods were found incorrect.

Which involves the risk of realization of less customs duty and

other taxes.

Being  aggrieved  by  the  adjudication  orders,  the           petitioners  submitted  six  separate  appeals  to  the  Tribunal              under  section  196A  of  the  Customs  Act.  But  the  Tribunal      summarily rejected all the appeals by 16(sixteen) separate orders on              the  same  ground  that  the  petitioner  had  not  deposited  the            penalty  as  required  by  section  194(1)  of  the  Customs  Act,  1969.  

These orders have been challenged in these writ petitions.

Mr. M. A. Azim Khair, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner  submits  that  section  194  of  the  Customs  Act      contemplates  deposit  of  duty  demanded  or  penalty  levied             "under  this  Act"  which  for  all  practical  purposes  means  only             the  duty  demanded  or  penalty  levied  under  the  Customs  Act             and  which  cannot  be  extended  to  include  the  penalty  levied           under  the  PSI  rules  and  therefore  the  Tribunal  acted  without jurisdiction  in  rejecting  the  memorandum  of  appeal  for  alleged        non  compliance  of  the  provision  of  section  194  of  the  Customs        Act  as  such  impugned  orders  are  liable  to  be  declared  to  have         been passed without lawful authority and are of no legal effect.

He also submits that with regard to the deposit of the penalty  

in  order  to  file  an  appeal  by  a  PSI  Agent  to  the  Tribunal  has            been  settled  in  the  case  of  Intertek  Testing  Service  (BD)  Ltd.            and  another  -Vs-  President  Appellate  Tribunal,  Customs,  Excise       and  VAT,  Dhaka  and  others  reported  in  57  DLR(2005)  74         wherein  it  has  been  decided  that  a  PSI  agent  is  not  legally         required  to  deposit  a  penalty  in  any  form  for  the  purpose  of           filing  an  appeal  under  section  196A  of  the  Customs  Act,  1969    against  an  adjudication  order  passed  by  the  Commissioner  as          such  impugned  orders  are  liable  to  be  declared  to  have  been        passed  without  lawful  authority  and  are  of  no  legal  effect.         Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that as a pre- condition   

of  it's  appointment  as  PSI  Agent,  petitioner  has  furnished  12 performance Bonds equivalent to TK. 12 cores and mentioned this 

fact as a ground in the memo of appeal, but the Tribunal without considering this legal and factual aspect unlawfully rejected all the appeals as such impugned orders are liable to be declared to have

been passed without lawful authority and are of no legal effect. In support of his submissions, learned advocate referred to unreported cases of Bureau Veritas (BIVAC), Bangladesh Ltd. -vs- Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal and others, passed in writ petition      Nos. 15526-15529 of 2012 and writ petition nos.15531-15535 of 2012

and  the  case  of  Intertek  Testing  Services  (BD)  Ltd.  and  another            -Vs- President, Appellate Tribunal, Customs, Excise and VAT, Dhaka

and others, reported in 57 DLR(2005)74.

On the other hand, Mr. Md. Monjur Alam, learned Deputy Attorney  General  appearing  for  the  respondent  submits  that  the Commissioner lawfully imposed the penalties under rule 25(2) of the PSI Rules, 2002 upon recording proper findings on various defects in the  CRF  Certificates.  However,  learned  Deputy  Attorney  General candidly admits that this legal issue has been settled in the case of Intertek  Testing  Service  (BD)  Ltd.  and  another  -Vs-  President, Appellate Tribunal, Customs, Excise and VAT, Dhaka and others, reported in 57 DLR(2005)74 and following the principle laid down in that case many other judgments have been passed by this Division.

Heard  learned  advocate  for  the  petitioner  and  learned       Deputy  Attorney  General  for  the  respondent.  Perused  all  the            writ  petitions  and  annexures  appended  thereof  alongwith  the    citations referred by learned advocate for the petitioners.

Evidently the only issue raised in these 16(sixteen) cases is that   whether  the  petitioner  being  a  PSI  Agent  is  required  by  section   194(1)  to  deposit  the  penalty  imposed  by  the  Commissioner  for        the  purpose  of  preferring  appeal  to  the  Tribunal  against  the  adjudication order imposing the penalty.

 The  respondent,  being  the  customs  authorities,  have  not      filed  any  affidavit-in-opposition  denying  the  fact  of  furnishing Performance  Bond  by  the  petitioner  as  a  security  for  the     performance  of  it's  statutory  duty  as  a  PSI  Agent  under  the  PSI    Order,  1999  as  claimed  by  the  petitioner  or  under  the  PSI             Rules,  2002.  It  is  noted  that  the  PSI  Order,  1999  was  repealed            by  the  -    ,  .  Rules  6  of  the  said  Rules      contain  detailed  provisions  with  regard  to  appointment  of  PSI      Agent  and  sub  rule  (12)  requires  an  Agent  to  furnish          Performance Bond.

Rule 6(12) is quoted below:

()   ()   ()   ¢pÜ¡¿¹         ! "-#

, $ % & ' % Performance Bond ( , )* $ $+ ( ,

( ) - ।

In  the  57DLR  case,  a  Division  Bench  of  this  Court     considered  the  same  issue  in  the  light  of  the  scheme  of  the        Customs Act, 1969 alongwith other relevant laws i.e. . /    0 ,  11  with  particular  emphasis  on  section  194(1)  of  the      Customs  Act,  1969  and  the  Pre-shipment  Inspection  Order,  1999  made under section 25A of the Act, 1969.

The Bench observed as follows:

37.     First,  the  Act  was  promulgated  in  1969.  Under section 156 of the Act various offences or punishments under 98 categories are described and/or  provided.  Under  the  Act  other  penalty may  also  be  possible  to  be  imposed.  By  the expression,  "under  the  Act"  the  legislature clearly  intended  to  include  any  such  penalty imposed  under  section  156  or  any  other provision  of  the  Act.  Had  the  legislature  ever intended to include a penalty levied under the Order, it could have come out with appropriate amendment.
38.     Not Relevant.
39.     Second,  intention  of  the  Government  also becomes clearer if we examine the definition of the Act in the Order itself. In the Order, article 2(Ga)  clearly  says  that  the  Act  means  the Customs  Act.  The  Government  was  very conscious  of  its  limitation  that  when  the legislature did not expand the Act to include the Order, it had no jurisdiction to mean the Order as the Act.

40.   Third, the fact that the PSI agents each had already  furnished  a  performance  bond  in  the form of a bank guarantee of TK.2 crore in favour of the customs authority, it cannot be said that article 12 of the Order does not empower the customs authority to encash such bank guarantee against any penalty levied under the Order that the agent becomes ultimately liable to pay, by decision  in  appeal.  If  the  control  of  imported goods  does  not  require  any  deposit  of  duty demanded, then why the custody to such bank guarantee would not be intended to exempt the deposit of the penalty levied under the Order for consideration of an appeal."

The said Division Bench concluded as follows:

45)  In  the  circumstances,  we  find  that  the Appellate Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction under section 194 of the Customs Act, 1969 in demanding deposit of a portion of the penalty levied  under  article  10(5)  of  the  Pre-shipment Order,  1999  and  in  rejecting  the  appeals presented against the orders of penalty for want of such deposit."

The  57DLR  case  was  followed  by  another  Division  Bench       in  disposing  of  writ  petition  nos.  15526-15529  of  2012  and  writ     petition nos. 15531-15535 of 2012.

On the issue raised in these 16(sixteen) cases, we hold the same view taken by two other Division Benchs.

In  disposing  of  the  writ  petition  nos.15526-15529  of  2012     and  writ  petition  nos.  15531-15535  of  2012  another  Division       Bench of this court arrived at a finding that:

"One of the intentions of section 194(1) of the Customs  Act,  1969  requiring  the  deposit  of penalty imposed by a Commissioner is to ensure the deposit of the penalty as a security. Section 194(1) does not directly exempt a PSI Agent from making such deposit. But when section 194(1) is considered with section 202, of the Customs Act, 1969 and rules 6(12) and 27 of the PSI Rules, 2002 it is evident that the PSI Agent is required to comply with the requirement of section 194(1) in advance and in a different form."

It  appears  that  the  petitioner  has  stated  in  the  memo  of      appeal  before  the  Tribunal  that  it  has  furnished  5(five)            Performance  Bond  amounting  to  TK.12  Crore  under  PSI  Order        and  under  the  said  Performance  Bond  any  dues  of  the              petitioner to the Government is protected and secured.

Considering  the  discussions  made  hereinabove,  we  hold        that  the  petitioner  as  a  Pre-shipment  Agent  is  not  required  to         make  any  form  of  deposit  under  section  194(1)  of  the  Customs        Act,  1969  for  preferring  an  appeal  under  section  196A  against           the penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs.

In such view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal acted illegally  in  rejecting the appeals on the ground  of   non-deposit of the penalty.

Accordingly, the Rule issued in all writ petitions are made absolute without any order as to cost.

Following  orders  of  the  Tribunal  are  declared  to  have           been passed without lawful authority and are of no legal effect.

The  Appellate  Tribunal  is  directed  to  proceed  with  the     appeals  preferred  by  the  petitioner  against  the  aforementioned      orders and to take decision upon admission of the appeals keeping          in  view  of  our  findings  on  the  requirement  of  deposit  of  the        penalty  and  to  dispose  of  the  same  in  accordance  with  law.  In admitting the appeals if the Tribunal is satisfied that the Performance

Bond has been furnished by the petitioner and if it is still valid, the

said bond shall be treated as a security for the purpose of section 194(1) of the Customs Act, 1969.

No order as to cost.

Communicate  a  copy  of  this  judgment  to  the  Appellate  Tribunal at once.

Kazi Waliul Islam, J:

I agree.