| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1967 SLG 85 1967 SLD 85 1967 PLD 371 |
Dacca High Court
Writ Petition No. 582 of 1965, decision dated: 20th April 1966. dates of hearing: 31st March and 18-04-1966
SALAHUDDIN AHMED AND A. M. SAYEM, JJ
Kamal Hossain and Md. Mozammel Huq Khan for Petitioner. Md. Nurul Huda, Deputy Attorney-General and K. H. Rashid for
Respondent
Writ Petition No. 582 of 1965, decision dated: 20th April 1966. dates of hearing: 31st March and 18-04-1966
SALAHUDDIN AHMED AND A. M. SAYEM, JJ
Kamal Hossain and Md. Mozammel Huq Khan for Petitioner. Md. Nurul Huda, Deputy Attorney-General and K. H. Rashid for
Respondent
B. RAHMAN
VS
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (FOR LICENCES)
Law: Sea Customs Rules
Section: 19
Sea Customs Rules, r. 19--Cancellation of licence on ground other than those mentioned in r. 19-Not warranted- Customs authority demanding payment of duty and sales tax froth Clearing Agent on pain of cancellation of licence-Failure of Clearing Agent to comply with demand-Licence cancelled by authority without specifying any ground mentioned in r. 19-Order of cancellation, unlawful. JUDGMENT SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioner who is a Clearing and Forwarding Agent of goods has obtained this Rule nisi upon the respondent to show cause why certain order and proceedings, namely, the order of suspension dated the 30-4-65 and the proceedings leading up to the passing of the impugned order dated the 16-10-65 should not be declared to have been passed without any lawful authority and are of no legal effect. The facts pertinent for the disposal of Lire Rule are as follows: 'The petitioner who claim himself to be the senior-most Clearing Agent engaged in the business of clearing and forwarding of goods at Chittagong port has been carrying on business under a licence valid till the 31-12-65 issued to him under the Sea Customs Act. On or about the 3-5-65 the petitioner was served with a copy of an order dated the 30-4-65 suspending with immediate effect the petitioner's licence. The petitioner therefore, approached this Court and obtained the Rule nisi on the 21-6-65 calling upon the respondent show cause why the said order of suspension should not be declared to have been made without lawful authority. The order issuing the Rule nisi also directed the stay of the operation of the said suspension order. This Rule was, however, discharged. In the meantime during the pendency of the aforesaid Rule nisi the respondent by its order dated the 25-6-65 served a show-cause notice upon the petitioner wherein it was alleged that the petitioner had forged Customs seal and signatures on the bills of entry and thereby obtained delivery of goods thereon causing a loss to the Government in duty and sales tax to the extent of Rs. 1,29,299-12 paisa. In the said show-cause notice the petitioner was further charged with unsatisfactory conduct and unfaithful behavior and he was called uponβ¦
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492