High Court Division · Special Original Jurisdiction
Tahmid Enterprise v Bangladesh and others
Writ Petition 18812/2025 · Rule made absolute · Decided 22 July 2026
The petitioner, an importer of laminated wood panels, challenged a demand for store rent before delivery of six covered vans loaded with its imported goods at Chittagong Port. After assessment, payment of duties and a release order, customs detained the loaded vans at the port gate over an alleged untrue declaration. After provisional reassessment under an earlier High Court Division order, customs permitted release, but store rent of Tk. 65,27,308.23 was demanded under regulation 161 of the Regulations for Working of Chittagong Port (Cargo and Container), 2001. The petitioner argued that only the detention charge for detained trucks under regulation 133 applied. The High Court Division held that the two parts of regulation 133 were disjunctive, so its first part applied to loaded detained trucks without any requirement of neglect by the owner. As both regulations were more or less applicable, the petitioner had the right to choose the more beneficial provision and was entitled to be charged under regulation 133. The Rule was made absolute.
- Whether the port authority could charge store rent under regulation 161, or only a detention charge under regulation 133, for loaded covered vans detained within the port.
- Whether the first part of regulation 133 is qualified by the words "due to neglect of the owner or hirer or driver".
- Regulation 161 makes cargo or containers of which delivery has been taken, but which have not been removed from the jetty premises, liable to rent charges as usual.
- The first part of regulation 133, imposing a detention charge on carts or trucks detained in the jetty premises with import materials intended for delivery, is disjunctive from the second part on empty vehicles left due to neglect and is not qualified by it.
- Regulations 133 and 161 were both more or less applicable to goods loaded on trucks for delivery and then detained in the port, but the first part of regulation 133 was more suitable to the petitioner's case.
- When two provisions of law are equally or more or less applicable to an aggrieved person, that person has the right to choose the more beneficial one.
- The petitioner was entitled to be assessed and charged under regulation 133 read with the relevant provision of the Tariff Schedule.
When 2(two) provisions of any law is equally/more or less applicable for any aggrieved person, the person is permitted or having the right to choose the beneficial one.
