Writ Petition: on whether “segregation” for the dual purpose of classification of HS Code is allowed, for a single “fully integrated machine”
We are happy to announce that, the judgment delivered in the writ petition between G.A.B. Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Dhaka, and Ors. was reported this year in Manupatra. The Chambers lawyers have successfully represented the Petitioner in a complex customs matter involving the importation of a consignment (single data processing machine) via L/C, identified under two HS Codes namely for (software and hardware) followed by the deviations and the dissimilarity of the HS Codes (from the final assessment report and the LC) resulting in dispute with the Customs Authority. The Hon’ble Court in this instance has interestingly observed an alternate forum in the name and form of the Import Trade Control (ITC) Committee empowered under chapter 8 of the Import Policy Order, 2015-2018 to adjudicate any dispute between importer (Petitioner) and the Customs Authority arising from an ITC classification or description of goods imported under the First Schedule of the Customs Act. The Hon’ble Court was also pleased to issued order to physically locate and identify the consignment under its present custodian, whilst maintaining status quo until a final determination is made by any concerned and relevant authority to whom either or any of the parties may refer the dispute at hand.
Our Head of Chambers Mr. Mohammed Forrukh Rahman, Barrister with external Counsel Mr. Abdullah Mahmood Hasan, Barrister, appeared before the Hon’ble Court for the Petitioner. The judgment is reported in the leading online law report Manupatra and can be found here LEX/BDHC/0047/2021
Writ Petition: Mediation under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
We are happy to announce that, the judgement delivered in writ petition between Mohammed Ali Vs. Judge (Joint District Judge), Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong and others were reported this year in Manupatra. The Chambers lawyers have successfully represented the respondent and argued before the Hon’ble court. The Hon’ble Court observed that “whether the provision of section 22(4) is mandatory or directory, the law is Well settled. When a particular law does not suggest any consequence of the non-compliance or any particular requirements, it is merely directory: …”
Our Head of Chambers Mr. Mohammed Forrukh Rahman, Barrister with Deputy head, Finance & Taxes Dept, Mr. Sheikh Abdullah, Advocate appeared before the court for the respondent. The judgment is reported in the leading online law report Manupatra and can be found here LEX/BDHC/0130/2019
Writ Petition: HC issued 6 point directive for misuse of electricity.
We are pleased to inform that the judgment delivered in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh (HRPB) Vs. Government of Bangladesh and Ors. was reported this year in Manupatra. The Chambers’ lawyers from the Supreme Court team were present as Hon’ble High Court, whilst basing its decision from past a judgment in a similar matter, observed the importance of conservation of electricity and prevention against its misuses thereof.
In addition, the Hon’ble Court was also pleased to issue a six (6) point directive in this regard, namely as follows:
- “It is the duty of every citizen to be cautious about the use of electricity and be on guard so that it is not misused
- Some decree of austerity is to be maintained in the use of power/electricity and under no circumstances should there be any wastage.
- The clubs concern should have their power generating system. However, there is no bar in playing tennis but one must be on guard so that consumption of electricity in any manner is not misused or wasted.
- Electricity theft has to be reduced by applying technical solutions such as tamper-proof meters.
- Managerial methods such as inspection and monitoring in the clubs on a regular basis is necessary so as to prevent misuse of electricity and reduce the consumption.
- Energy saving bulbs should be used in the clubs and public places.”
The Hon’ble High Court without any order as to costs had issued the Rule be made absolute-in-part with the observations made in the body of the judgment. The judgment is reported in the leading online law report Manupatra and can be found here LEX/BDHC/0566/2011.
Income Tax matter: Estimation of sell & rate of gross profit
Grameen Danone Foods Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Taxes reported in 6 CLR (HCD) (2018) 25. The Hon’ble Court observed as follows, “Moreover, it appears from the assessment order that the assessee is a Bangladeshi company, but the DCT, while estimating the sale as well as rate of gross profit, rejecting the assessee’s claim, estimated those considering only the sale and rate of gross profit of a renowned multinational company registered in Bangladesh, namely, New Zealand Dairy Products Bangladesh Limited, which is not proper…(Paras 21-22)
In the above context, the matter is sent back on remand to the Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with law considering all the aspects of the appeal after giving the assessee an opportunity to take additional grounds in appeal, to produce further documents, if so required.
The Tribunal is further directed to dispose of the appeal within ninety days from the date of receiving a copy of the Judgment…(paras 28 & 29).
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Bangladesh is directed to take necessary steps under section 161(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984…(para 32)
Power & Energy: Gas Supply through dedicated line 150 psi 12- inch gas line
TM Textile and Garments Vs. Bangladesh reported in 6 CLR (HCD) (2018) 65, 70 DLR (2018) 409
The issues involved were that of a legitimate expectation of the Petitioner to keep its gas line dedicated & exclusive, denying any access to any other party as the Petitioner spent a significant amount of money for its construction. On the other hand TITAS claimed their excess gas in the pipeline which doesn’t belong to the Petitioner. The Hon’ble Court observed, “We do not find it necessary to proceed with an academic discussion on the legality of the impugned orders. We feel that justice would be best served if the Rule is disposed of with the direction upon all concerned to ensure the “approved gas supply and approved gas pressure” at all material times. No gas connection is to be provided to the other nine factories unless the “approved gas supply and the approved gas pressure” is ensured. The respondents are further directed to ensure strict compliance with the conditions set out in the aforesaid paragraphs in connection to the nine factories…(para 15)
Ship Finance and Jurisdiction of Admiralty court
First Security Islami Bank Ltd vs MV Javed and others reported in 69 DLR (2017) 408 – a Landmark decision confirming jurisdiction of Admiralty court as opposed to Artha Rin Adalat.
CIB Report of Nominee Director and Share Transfer
S.M. Akbar and Another vs Bangladesh reported in 70 DLR(2018) 52, 5 CLR(HCD)(2017) 307 & 23 BLC(2018) 126 . The Decision confirmed that prior permission of Lender is required before transfer of share. Otherwise, the name of the transferee will appear in CIB report. It is also decided that nominee director is also a director for the purpose of CIB Reporting.
Hasan Ali vs The State and Another reported in 4CLC(HCD)17 Whether other documents not related to cheque are required to be produced. The question is whether the trial court has judiciously applied its mind or not.
Freight and Charges
Maersk Bangladesh Limited vs Bangladesh reported in 4CLC(HCD)79. The collection of one person’s freight brokerage developed out of trade practice and the distribution of the same is lawfully made by the Government. No legislation is necessary to regulate Government trade practice.
Abdul Mannan vs State and Others 21 BLC (2016) 402. It was held that there was no bar in proceeding with a case under Negotiable Instruments Act while on the same matter, a Artho Rin matter is pending
Abdul Jalil & Others Vs. Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, 2nd Court, Dhaka & Another reported in 67 DLR 475 (In Artha Rin Execution case Bank needs to add Insurance Company as a party if claim remains unpaid)
LC Fraud (Hallmark case)
Alvi Spinning Mills Ltd & Others vs Govt of Bangladesh and others 19 MLR(HCD)277
Md. Shamsuddin and 254 others vs Bangladesh 2 CLR (HCD) 523 :
Mr. Rahman successfully argued in favour of client as to the duty of Ministry of Establish while absorbing surplus employees. This was crucial argument taken as the ratio of the decision as the right to direct absorption has not been accepted.
Freight Management and 16 others vs Bangladesh Bank 2 CLR (HCD) 586; 19 MLR (HCD)336: This is a landmark decision on Distinction between Master and House Bill of Lading and legality of House Bill for sea leg of the journey. Mr. Rahman successfully argued on the duties of the Carrier as opposed to freight forwarder under Foreign Exchange Regulations. Besides, Mr. Rahman successfully argued on the legality and confusion associated with circulation of two sets of title documents i.e. House and Master Bill of Lading for a single consignment.
Admiralty and Maritime claim
Marodi Services vs MV Swift Cro. in 2 CLR(HCD) (2014) 456: Chambers successfully represented its client in negotiation and reaching out of court settlement. The hon’ble court withdrawn the suit as per settlement terms and directed Central Bank to allow conversion of Takas into foreign currency upon submission of Chambers counsel
Arbitration (power plant)
BPDB vs. Summit Industrial & Mercantile Corporation Ltd & Others in 19 BLC(2014)284; 2 CLR(HCD) (2014)73: The Chambers successfully challenged the appointment of the arbitrator on the ground of Bias.
Dr. Moosa Bin Shamsher vs. Ayub Ali & Others 2 LNJ (2013) 1
Anwar Cement Limited vs. Bangladesh Bank 65 DLR (2013) 97 The landmark decision on inclusion of the name of third party guarantor in the CIB report. The Chambers successfully argued on the legal position as the the guarantor as per Bank Company Ain 1991 and Bangladesh Bank Order 1972 and was successful in its submission that name of the third party guarantor may appear in the CIB report however this will not stop them from taking loan from Bank.
Amjad Hossain vs. Bangladesh Bank 17 BLC (HC) 188. This is a important decision on right to fair hearing principles. The Chambers successfully argues on the exception to such right in a suitable circumstances.
Amjad Hossain vs. Bangladesh Bank 41CLC(HCD)2012
Anwar Cement Limited vs. Bangladesh Bank 40CLC(HCD) 2011