SHEHZAD KHAN VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD, 2007 PTD-FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN 1349 (2004)

Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----S. 168(2)---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)---Seizure by Customs Officer---Complainant alleged that his Taxi Cab was seized/detained by Collector of Customs (Preventive) on 13-9-1998---No show-cause notice was issued and no action was taken on his applications and reminders---Department had admitted the seizure by Anti-smuggling Organization and presence of vehicle in the bonded wherehouse---Validity---Vehicle was seized by the Customs Department on 13-9-1998 and show-cause notice under section 168(2) should have been issued to him within two months of its seizure failing which the seized vehicle should have been returned to the person from whose possession it was seized---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended Central Board of Revenue to direct the Collector of Customs (Preventive) to return the vehicle to the owner.

Zahid Khan for the Complainant.

Basit Maqbool Abbasi, Deputy Collector of Customs (Preventive) Headquarters.

FINDINGS/DECISION

The complaint has been filed against the Collector of Customs (Preventive) on account of the detention/seizure of a Yellow Taxi Cab bearing registration No.PL-7468 on 13-9-1998. The complainant had stated that despite vigorous efforts, the Customs Authorities have not issued any show-cause notice or given reasons for detention of the vehicle, more than five years have elapsed but no action has been taken and no intimation given to him about the vehicle in spite of his repeated applications and reminders.

2. The complainant stated that he sent his latest application to the Deputy Collector (Preventive) on 17-1-2004 and another application to the Collector on 28-2-2004 but received no reply. He personally visited

various offices of the Customs Department, his taxi was still parked in CPF bond in a very bad condition, and requested that the matter may be inquired into and the Customs Authorities be directed to release the taxi to him.

3. The Collector of Customs (Preventive) admitted in his reply that the Yellow Cab taxi was seized by the Anti-Smuggling Organization of the Collectorate on 13-9-1998 as it was found in white colour and used as a private car instead of being used as a taxi. He stated that the case file was sent to the appropriate officer to issue show-cause notice and initiated adjudication proceedings. However, the file was misplaced and efforts were being made to trace the missing file.

4. He denied the complainant's plea of pursuing the matter for several years and stated that he contacted the Customs Department on 17-1-2004 after lapse of five years. He admitted that during this period no intimation was given to the owner. On receipt of his letters, dated 17-1-2004 and 28-2-2004, inquiry was initiated to trace the file and he was verbally told that as soon as the record was traced, the decision on his application would be made. The Collector also stated that the vehicle was still at the CPF bonded warehouse.

4A. During the hearing of the complaint, the complainant reiterated the circumstances of the case already stated in the complaint. The Deputy Collector of Customs also stated that the records have been checked but the relevant file was not traceable. He has ascertained that the case was not pending in the Court of law and the vehicle was available in the CPF bonded warehouse, but even the auction records did not disclose any action in respect of the vehicle.

5. The facts of this complaint are quite simple. The vehicle was seized by the Customs Department on 13-9-1998 and show-cause notice under section 168(2) should have been issued to him within two months of its seizure failing which the seized vehicle should be returned to the person from whose possession it was seized. Since the mandatory requirement of issue of show-cause notice was not complied with, the vehicle was liable to be returned to the person concerned. The failure to issue a show-cause notice within the mandatory period of two months is contrary to law and involves neglect, inattention and inefficiency in the discharge of duties by the concerned officials of the Customs Department which constitute maladministration as defined under subsection (3) of section 2 of the Ordinance No. XXXV of 2000.

6. It is recommended that C.B.R.

(i) direct the Collector of Customs (Preventive) to return the vehicle to the owner within fifteen days against an undertaking that he would abide by the conditions prescribed under the "Prime Minister Transport Incentive Scheme"; and

(ii) furnish to this office a consolidated list of all the seized/ uncleared vehicles in the custody of .the Customs Department showing the dates of seizure/detention, the action taken and the present status of each such vehicle;

(iii) Compliance of (i) be reported to this office within thirty days and of (ii) within sixty days.

M.I.1338/FTOOrder accordingly.