Fifty different commercial fruit juices of various flavor categorizing as mango, apple, orange, strawberry, pineapple, guava, litchi, grapes, coconuts and mixed fruits were purchased from different confectionaries, supermarkets and local markets in Dhaka city, Bangladesh during March-August, 2015. Among these samples 28 were domestic products whereas 22 were imported products. All the four standards benzoic acid, sorbic acid, methylparaben and propylparaben were gifted by Eskayef Bangladesh Limited, Gazipur, Bangladesh. To carry on the analysis, HPLC grade methanol (Fisher Scientific, India), acetic acid (Merck, India) and analytical grade ammonium acetate (Merck, Germany) were used. The analytical separation was carried out on HPLC system (Model LC-20 AT Shimadzu, Japan) equipped with UV/visible detector (Shimadzu SPD 20 A) and Degasser (Shimadzu DGU 20 A3) and connected with a computer. For the analyses, a C18 column (Capcell pak, 150 mm × 4.6 mm i.d., 5µm particle size) was used. The mobile phase consisted of methanol and acetate buffer (pH 4.4) at a ratio of 50:50. The flow rate of mobile phase was 0.7 mL/min and the injection volume were 20 µl. The detection wavelength was set at 254 nm. Individual standard solution of each BA, SA, MP and PP were prepared at a conc. of 1000 ppm. Then, six standard solutions of each were prepared by diluting with mobile phase. Finally, standard solutions of BA in a range of 20-170 ppm, SA in a range of 12-42 ppm, MP and PP in a range of 10-60 ppm were prepared. Accurately measured 40 mL of marketed product was taken in a beaker and it was diluted sufficiently by adding diluting solvent (mobile phase). Then 30 mL of sample was then taken into a centrifuge tube and centrifuged for 10 minutes at 4000 rpm. The supernatant was collected and filtered using a Whatman 41 filter paper to obtain the final sample. Validation of the procedure was performed following pharmaceutical regulatory guidelines ICH Q2 (R1). A number of parameters such as system suitability, linearity, sensitivity, accuracy, precision, specificity and robustness were observed for this purpose. To assess the system suitability, repeatability, retention time, theoretical plate and tailing factor of six replicates of working standard solutions were used. The percentage relative standard deviation (% RSD) was calculated in each case. Standard solutions of BA, SA, MP, PP with their six different concentrations (ranging from 20-170 ppm for BA, 12-42 ppm for SA, 10-60 ppm for both MP and PP) were prepared and analyzed in triplicate to prove the linearity of system. Calibration curves were made using MS Excel 2007 for each standard component. The limit of detection (LOD) is defined as the smallest peak detected with a signal height three times that of the baseline; while the limit of quantitation (LOQ) refers to the lowest level of analyte which can be determined with an acceptable degree of confidence. LOQ value is often calculated as 10 times the signal height to the baseline. LOD and LOQ were calculated in accordance with the 3.3 s/m and 10 s/m criteria, respectively, according to ICH Q2 (R1) recommendations, where ‘s’ is the standard deviation of the peak area and ‘m’ is the slope of the calibration curve, determined from linearity investigation. For Recovery, test was done by analyzing six replicates of a sample of known concentration of standard solutions. Then percent recoveries (mean ± % RSD of six replicates) were calculated. Intra-day precision was determined from standard solution and sample by injecting 20 μl. %RSD was calculated for six replicates of standard and sample solution. For inter-day precision, sample solution was carried out by another analyst daily for six times over a period of three days and % RSD was calculated. The chromatograms of blank injection, standard injection and test sample injection used to justify the specificity of target analytes. To determine the robustness of the method, the effect of change in wavelength was studied at 252 and 256 nm instead of 254 nm. Also, the flow rate was changed to 0.6 and 0.8 ml/min instead of 0.7 ml/min. The mobile composition was studied at (Buffer: Methanol = 52:48) and (Buffer: Methanol = 48: 52) ratio instead of (Buffer: Methanol = 50: 50) ratio. The % RSD for each case was calculated. Ruggedness of the method was determined by analyzing six assay sample solutions of standards by two analysts in the same laboratory to check the reproducibility of the result. The percentage recovery and % RSD were calculated in both cases.