High Court Rules Detention Charges, Not Storage Rent, Applicable to Goods-Laden Trucks Detained at Chattogram Port
 |
| Supreme Court of Bangladesh |
The judgment was delivered on 22 July 2026 by a High Court Division bench comprising Justice Sardar Md. Rashed Jahangir and Justice Kazi Waliul Islam in Tahmid Enterprise v. Bangladesh and Others (Writ Petition No. 18812 of 2025).
Background of the Case
According to the case record, Tahmid Enterprise, an import-oriented proprietorship concern, imported laminated wood panels from China after completing the necessary customs formalities. Following the assessment and payment of applicable duties and taxes, the customs authority initially permitted the release of the imported goods.
The goods were subsequently loaded into six hired covered vans. However, when the vehicles were about to leave the port premises, the customs authority detained them over an allegation of incorrect HS Code declaration.
Following a prolonged process, the goods were provisionally reassessed pursuant to an earlier direction of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 15827 of 2025. The customs authority subsequently permitted their release upon acceptance of a bank guarantee covering the differential duties, taxes and charges.
However, when the petitioner sought delivery of the six loaded covered vans, the Chittagong Port Authority demanded storage rent amounting to Tk. 65,27,308.23. Challenging this demand, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition before the High Court Division.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the petitioner, the learned Senior Advocate argued that the goods had already been loaded into six covered vans and were detained by the customs authority while attempting to leave the port premises. Therefore, the applicable charge should be detention charges under Regulation 133 of the Regulations for Working of Chittagong Port (Cargo and Container), 2001, rather than storage rent under Regulation 161.
The petitioner further relied on Clause B5.5 of Section B of the Tariff Schedule of the Chittagong Port Authority, which provides for charges on lorries and carts detained within the jetty premises.
On the other hand, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No. 5 argued that although delivery of the goods had been taken, they had not been removed from the jetty premises for more than four months. Consequently, the port authority was entitled to impose storage rent under Regulation 161 of the 2001 Regulations.
It was also contended that the continued occupation of the port premises by the six covered vans prevented the authority from using the designated space for other imported goods.
Court's Observations
After examining the relevant provisions of the 2001 Regulations, the High Court considered the scope and applicability of Regulations 133 and 161.
Regulation 161 provides that cargo or containers for which delivery has been taken but which have not been removed from the jetty premises shall be liable to rent charges as usual.
On the other hand, Regulation 133 provides for detention charges on carts, trucks and other vehicles detained within the jetty premises with imported or exported materials intended for delivery or shipment.
The Court observed that the first part of Regulation 133 specifically deals with loaded trucks or covered vans detained within the jetty premises. The second part concerns empty vehicles left within the port premises due to the negligence of their owners, hirers or drivers.
Rejecting the respondent's interpretation, the Court held that these two parts of Regulation 133 operate independently and are not dependent upon each other. Therefore, the requirement of negligence mentioned in the second part cannot be applied to the first part concerning loaded vehicles.
The Court found that the petitioner's goods had been loaded into covered vans for delivery and that the vehicles were subsequently detained within the port premises. Accordingly, Regulation 133 was more appropriately applicable to the circumstances of the case.
Decision of the Court
The High Court observed that both Regulations 133 and 161 were, to some extent, applicable to the circumstances of the petitioner. However, where two legal provisions are equally or more or less applicable to an aggrieved person, that person has the right to choose the more favourable provision.
The Court accordingly held that the petitioner was entitled to have the charges assessed under Regulation 133 of the Regulations for Working of Chittagong Port (Cargo and Container), 2001, read with the relevant provisions of the Tariff Schedule.
Finding merit in the Rule, the Court made the Rule Nisi absolute and directed that the judgment and order be communicated to the concerned authorities immediately.
Legal Significance
This judgment clarifies the distinction between storage rent and detention charges in cases involving goods-laden vehicles detained within port premises.
It establishes that where imported goods have already been loaded into trucks or covered vans for delivery but the vehicles are subsequently detained, Regulation 133 may provide the more appropriate basis for calculating port charges.
The judgment also recognises the principle that where multiple legal provisions are applicable to a particular situation, an aggrieved person may opt for the more favourable provision.
Case Reference: Tahmid Enterprise v. Bangladesh and Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 18812 of 2025
Court: High Court Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh
Bench: Justice Sardar Md. Rashed Jahangir and Justice Kazi Waliul Islam
Date of Judgment: 22 July 2026
BD Law Post/Masum
