(From previous issue) :
8. We have gone through the Writ Petition and other materials on record including the respective orders and judgment passed by review Committee and Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka (hereinafter called as CEVT Tribunal), wherefrom, it transpires that in pursuant of the order of the Review committee in favour of the petitioner, the respondent preferred an Appeal before the CEVT Tribunal, and which appears ex-facie from the record was dismissed and it is revealed upon scrutiny and upon our queries to the respondent that no Customs Appeal was preferred before this Division by the respondent following the judgment of the CEVT Tribunal. Our considered finding is that since no Customs Appeal was ever filed by the respondent and which he could have filed within the statutory period under the law, consequently the judgment dated 9-1-2014 passed by the CEVT Tribunal affirming the earlier order dated 10-10-2011 passed by the Review Committee stands as it is remaining in force.
9. We find strange that the respondent for whatsoever the reasons best known to them neither filed any appeal against the judgment of the CEVT Tribunal nor have they complied with the order of the said Tribunal by way of refunding the excess payment to the petitioner. We find is a violation of the statutory laws and is in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. This inaction and passivity of the respondent ought to be deprecated. The respondent if at all felt aggrieved could have preferred Appeal within the statutory period under the Customs Act, 1969. This did not do. Neither did he comply with the Order passed by the CEVT Tribunal. These kind of attitude is not at all acceptable. By this complete inaction, he is depriving the petitioner of his lawful right to get back the excess amount. The respondent has committed a flagrant violation of law by holding back the amount due to the petitioner and for which a huge loss is being incurred having to pay a considerable amount to the bank by way of interest. This tendency of the respondent the wholly indifferent and unconcerned regarding the monetary loss being caused to the petitioner due to their whimsical conduct may not be encouraged in any manner and ought to be deprecated. So they cannot believe according to their own pleasure or whims and by doing as they are, they have acted in complete violation of the statutory provisions of the relevant laws and have violated the provisions of fundamental rights embodied in the constitution. Therefore, the respondent is under the mandatory provision of law bound to refund the excess payment made by the petitioner as per the order of the CEVT Tribunal.
10. That being the position and taking all the facts and circumstances in to consideration, we are of the view that this Rule merits substance and ought to be made absolute.
11. In the result, the Rule is made Absolute without any Order as to costs and the respondent is hereby directed to implement the Order under Nathi No. CEVT I Case (Cus)-943/2011 dated 9-1-2014 passed by the Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka affirming the Judgment and Order No. 121 of 2011 dated 10-10-2011 passed by the Review Committee to refund the excess amount of customs duties and other taxes deposited by the petitioner at the time of release of the goods under L/C No. 108111010174 dated 20-6-2011, Invoice No. 2011/2404/EXP dated 4-7-2011, CRF No. SG/ 11/536535 dated 14-7-2011 and Bill of Entry No. C-95551 dated 25-7-2011 after making proper assessment of the imported goods within 2(two) weeks from the date of receipt of this Judgment positively.
Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to Parties the concerned authorities at once.
(Concluded)
8. We have gone through the Writ Petition and other materials on record including the respective orders and judgment passed by review Committee and Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka (hereinafter called as CEVT Tribunal), wherefrom, it transpires that in pursuant of the order of the Review committee in favour of the petitioner, the respondent preferred an Appeal before the CEVT Tribunal, and which appears ex-facie from the record was dismissed and it is revealed upon scrutiny and upon our queries to the respondent that no Customs Appeal was preferred before this Division by the respondent following the judgment of the CEVT Tribunal. Our considered finding is that since no Customs Appeal was ever filed by the respondent and which he could have filed within the statutory period under the law, consequently the judgment dated 9-1-2014 passed by the CEVT Tribunal affirming the earlier order dated 10-10-2011 passed by the Review Committee stands as it is remaining in force.
9. We find strange that the respondent for whatsoever the reasons best known to them neither filed any appeal against the judgment of the CEVT Tribunal nor have they complied with the order of the said Tribunal by way of refunding the excess payment to the petitioner. We find is a violation of the statutory laws and is in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. This inaction and passivity of the respondent ought to be deprecated. The respondent if at all felt aggrieved could have preferred Appeal within the statutory period under the Customs Act, 1969. This did not do. Neither did he comply with the Order passed by the CEVT Tribunal. These kind of attitude is not at all acceptable. By this complete inaction, he is depriving the petitioner of his lawful right to get back the excess amount. The respondent has committed a flagrant violation of law by holding back the amount due to the petitioner and for which a huge loss is being incurred having to pay a considerable amount to the bank by way of interest. This tendency of the respondent the wholly indifferent and unconcerned regarding the monetary loss being caused to the petitioner due to their whimsical conduct may not be encouraged in any manner and ought to be deprecated. So they cannot believe according to their own pleasure or whims and by doing as they are, they have acted in complete violation of the statutory provisions of the relevant laws and have violated the provisions of fundamental rights embodied in the constitution. Therefore, the respondent is under the mandatory provision of law bound to refund the excess payment made by the petitioner as per the order of the CEVT Tribunal.
10. That being the position and taking all the facts and circumstances in to consideration, we are of the view that this Rule merits substance and ought to be made absolute.
11. In the result, the Rule is made Absolute without any Order as to costs and the respondent is hereby directed to implement the Order under Nathi No. CEVT I Case (Cus)-943/2011 dated 9-1-2014 passed by the Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka affirming the Judgment and Order No. 121 of 2011 dated 10-10-2011 passed by the Review Committee to refund the excess amount of customs duties and other taxes deposited by the petitioner at the time of release of the goods under L/C No. 108111010174 dated 20-6-2011, Invoice No. 2011/2404/EXP dated 4-7-2011, CRF No. SG/ 11/536535 dated 14-7-2011 and Bill of Entry No. C-95551 dated 25-7-2011 after making proper assessment of the imported goods within 2(two) weeks from the date of receipt of this Judgment positively.
Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to Parties the concerned authorities at once.
(Concluded)
