Reward Rules, 1973‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑Rr.2 & 3‑‑‑Reward to informant‑‑‑Customs‑‑‑Amendment of R.2 as on 5‑8‑1998 and R.3 as on 1‑10‑1998‑‑-Reward Policy announced through Press for distribution of 25 % the value of seized vehicles‑‑ Information was given as on 17‑9‑1998‑‑‑Payment of reward to the informer according to R.3 as amended on 1‑10‑1998 was a 15% of the admissible reward and not according to Reward Policy announced through Press‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Reward Rules, 1973 amended up to 20‑3‑1999 provided that the advertised amendment providing for distribution of the amount of admissible reward equally between the informer and the seizing staff was never made by the Central Board of Revenue‑‑‑Prima facie it was case of mal-administrationof the worst order‑‑‑Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that Secretary, Revenue Division should order an enquiry to determine if the release order C.No.2(i) CUS PRO/98 dated August 4, 1998 under the signature of Public Relations Officer, C.B.R. was duly authorized; whether the name(s) and designation(s) of officer(s) who approved the advertisement as well as of those who authorised its release for publication; to ascertain facts and circumstances which prevented the advertised amendment in the Reward Rules and instead, an amendment reducing the share of informer from 1/3rd to 15% of admissible reward was made on 11‑10‑1998 and findings to be reported under the signatures of the Secretary, Revenue Division within 7 days of the receipt of this recommendation.

Complainant in person. Saleem Ranjha, A.D. for Respondent.

DECISION/FINDINGS

The complainant has alleged mal-administration on the part of Customs Department by denying him the reward in accordance with the reward policy as communicated to General Public through advertisement published in daily "Pakistan". The complainant is an informer. Intelligence and Investigation Department seized a non‑duty paid Toyota Land Cruiser on his information. He claimed a reward of Rs. 1,30,500. The Department had paid Rs. 39,160 to the complainant as reward.

2. The Additional Director of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise) in his written reply to complaint submitted the, full share of reward had already been paid to the complainant i compliance of an earlier, decision of Wafaqi Mohtasib for the same relief.

3. Heard both the parties. The reward rules have been notified vide S.R.O. 603(1)/73, dated 24‑4‑1973. The complainant ha given information on 17‑9‑1998. Rule 2 of Notification No. S.R.O 603(1)/73, as amended on 5‑8‑1998, describes scale of reward a under: --‑

"(2) The following shall be the scale of Reward:

Provided that the scale of reward in the case of smuggled vehicle shall be 25% of the CIF value of the vehicle.

4. The CIF value of the vehicle seized on the basis of information given by the complainant on 17‑9‑1998 was determined at Rs.1,044,447 The admissible reward @ 25% of CIF value, therefore, was Rs. 261,112.

5. Rule 3 of the Rules, 1973, as amended on 1‑10‑1998, that provides for the distribution of admissible reward among the entitle persons, is as under:

(3)Out of the amount of reward admissible according to paragraph 2, the following shall be the distribution:

6.Prior to 1‑10‑1998 clause 3 was as under:

"3.Out of the amount of reward admissible according to para graph 2, the following shall be the distribution:

Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 3 of the reward to a serving officer shall not ordinarily exceed 2 years' salary in any one case. Half of the admissible reward shall be paid immediately after seizure to the informer only.

7. According to the complainant information was given by him on 17‑9‑1998 in response to an advertisement issued by C.B.R. and published in several newspapers on August 7, 1998. It was clearly announced through the advertisement that the C.B.R. has amended the Reward Rules to provide that immediately after the seizure of vehicle 25 % of its CIF value shall be distributed equally between the informer and the seizing staff.

8. The complainant, therefore, claims that he is entitled to a reward amounting to Rs.1,30,500 while it has been submitted on behalf of the C.B.R. that tile share of the informer that was 1/3rd of the amount for reward up to 30‑9‑1998 was reduced to 15% of the amount of reward through amendment in rule 3 as reproduced in foregoing para. 5.

9. Mr. Zafar Akhtar, Secretary (F,TO‑II), C.B.R. has submitted vide C. No.1 (1237) (FTO‑II) 2001, dated 6‑10‑2001 that the publication of aforementioned advertisement was verbally authorized by the then Chairman, C.B.R. Mr. Moinuddin Khan and released by Mr. Muhammad Asghar Chaudhary, Public Relations Officer, C.B.R. vide Release Order C. No.2(i) CUS‑PRO/98, dated August 4, 1998.

10. It transpires on perusal of the Reward Rules amended up to 20‑3‑1999 that the advertised amendment providing for distribution of A the amount of admissible reward equally between the informer and the seizure staff was never made by C.B.R.

11. Prima facie it is, mal-administrationof the worst order. It is recommended that Secretary, Revenue Division orders an enquiry to determine:

(a)If the Release Order C.No.2(i) CUS‑PRO/98, dated August 4, 1998 under the signature of Mr. Muhammad Asghar Chaudhry, Public Relations Officer, C.B.R. was duly authorized?

(b)The name (s) and designation (s) of Officer (s) who approved the advertisement as a well as of those who authorized its release for publication.

(c)Facts and circumstances that prevented the advertised amendment in the Reward Rules and instead, an amendment reducing the share of informer from 1/3rd to 15% of admissible reward was made on 11‑10‑1998.

(d)Findings to be reported under the signatures of the Secretary, Revenue Division within 7 days of the receipt of this recommendation.

12. Decision and recommendations on the instant complaint shall be made on receipt of report from the Secretary, Revenue Division.

C.M.A./M.A.K./225/FTO

Order accordingly.