Customs Act (VI of 1969)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑S. 21‑‑‑Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.9‑‑‑Duty drawback‑‑‑Non‑payment of duty draw‑back‑‑‑Complaint against‑‑‑Three duty drawback claims filed in 1995, 1997 and 1999 remained unpaid till March, 2002‑‑‑On receipt of the complaint, the Department obtained duplicate papers from the complainant and promptly made the payment‑‑‑Original claim‑papers were not available with the Department‑‑‑Personal efforts ‑ of the complainant and his letters received were not responded by the Authorities‑‑‑Collector's reply characteristically did not offer any explanation for wrong adjustment, inordinate delay, failure to reply to the exporter's letters and the only excuse offered was about recovery campaign which was belied by the letter of his own office‑‑‑Such was clearly a case of maladministration on account of neglect, inattention, inefficiency and failure in discharge of duties and brought in to sharp focus how casually and on‑seriously the complaints referred by this forum were processed‑‑‑Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that Central Board of Revenue (i) depute the Director‑General Enquiries to carry out an inquiry and identify the dealing officials and senior officers responsible for the gross maladministration and (ii) initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against those found guilty and suitably penalize Item.

M. Mubeen Ahsan, Dealing Officer.

Kausar Ansari, Manager.

M. Amir Thahim, Assistant Collector of Customs (Exports).

FINDINGS/DECISION

The complaint has been filed against the Customs Exports Collectorate in respect of a duty drawback claim filed in 1995 forfeited and two claims filed in 1997 and 1999 not yet paid by the Customs Authorities. The complainant stated that the amount of the first claim for Rs.1,91,309, filed vide SR‑2 No.32241 on 22‑3‑1995, was credited to the account of the Collector of Customs on the instruction of Bank Guarantee Cell as intimated (three and a half years later), by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Treasury, vide letter, dated 1‑7‑1998. The complainant personally approached the senior officers of the Department several times and wrote letters, dated 16‑7‑1998, 16‑2‑1999, 6‑7‑1999, 12‑1‑2002, 19‑1‑2002, 28‑1‑2002 and 8‑2‑2002 'to get back the amount. He neither received the amount nor reply to any of his letters. Two other drawback claims vide SR‑2 Nos.86826 for Rs.14,847 and 40,682 for Rs.1,80,812 were filed on 10‑9‑1997 and 23‑4‑1999 but the complainant has not received the cheque nor any objection memo.

2. The Collector of Customs (Exports) replied to the complaint that non‑payment/deduction of Rs.1,91,309 had been erroneously made during the recovery campaign in March, 1995 against the exporters who had received the duty drawback but failed to furnish the bank credit advices within the stipulated period. About 1810 orders were issued in one week without reference of NTN or export registration numbers. Only names of the defaulters were fed in the computer and in some cases errors had occurred. However, the amount of duty drawback has been paid vide cheque, dated 3‑4‑2002. He stated that the two duty drawback claims filed in 1997 and 1999 have also been paid vide cheques, dated 3‑4‑2002 and 5‑4‑2002.

3. During the hearing of the complaint, the representative of the Department stated that action for sanction of the duty drawbacks claims was taken when the complaint was filed before the Federal Tax Ombudsman. Before that the complainant had not approached the Customs Authorities. The delay, according to him, occurred because of the staff changes in the complainant's office and his inability to pursue the claims. The duplicate claim‑papers were now obtained from him and the duty drawback was sanctioned. Action was initiated in March, 2002 and payments made in April. As far as the Department was concerned, according to its representative, the complaint should be considered as closed:

4. The complainant's representative informed that the due amounts had been recently paid. However, in the claim SR‑2 No.40628, the deduction on account of short shipment of 745 KG Fabrics from the drawback amount was made twice by the Customs Authorities. This error was pointed out to the Principal Appraiser and a supplementary claim of approximately Rs.10,000 has been filed.

5. Where 1810 orders (for recovery) were issued in a short span of a week without any reference number, the recovery campaign could only be termed as arbitrary, highhanded, and a sure recipe for harassment. The Collector has taken the alibi of an error in this campaign to cover up the forfeiture of the refundable amount. The complainant has submitted the copy of a Letter No.SI/MISC/07/98, dated 1‑7‑1998 from the Assistant Collector (Account/Treasury) informing him that the cheque, dated 3‑7‑1996 was credited in the account of the Collector on the instruction of the Bank Guarantee Cell. He (the complainant) was requested to approach the Bank Guarantee Cell for refund of the same. The Collector's statement is belied as (i) the cheque was issued not in March, 1995 but on 1‑7‑1996, fifteen months after the filing of the claim, (ii) it was forfeited to the Collector's account on the directive of a section of the same Department, and, to cap the injustice, (iii) the claimant was asked to approach the forfeiting section for refund.

6. From the facts mentioned above, it is established that three duty drawback claims filed in 1995, 1997 and 1999 remained unpaid till March, 2002. On receipt of the complaint, the Department obtained S duplicate papers from the complainant and promptly made the payment. The original claim‑papers were not available with the Department. Personal efforts of the complainant and his letters received no response from the authorities. The Collector's reply characteristically does not offer any explanation for wrong adjustment, inordinate delay, failure to reply to the exporter's letters and only offers the excuse of recovery campaign which is belied by the letter of his own office. This is clearly a case of maladministration on account of neglect, inattention, inefficiency and failure in discharge of duties. It also brings into sharp focus how A casually and non‑seriously the complaints referred by this forum are processed.

7.???????? It is recommended that C.B.R.‑‑‑

(i)???????? depute the Director‑General Enquiries to carry out an inquiry and identify the dealing officials and senior officers responsible for the gross maladministration;

(ii)??????? initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against those found guilty and suitably penalize them; and

(iii)?????? inform this Secretariat of the action taken within two months.

C.M.A./464/FTO???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.