SARAJ DIN & SONS, LAHORE VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD, 2011 PTD-FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN 2401 (2011)

Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)---

----S.2(3)---Maladministration---Inaction, delay and negligence on the part of Collector (Appeals) to decide appeals against\Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Collector Customs---Collector (Appeals) submitted that appeals were under objection as the complainant did net furnish the required court fee, and the appeals were also time-barred---Collector (Appeals) was unable to explain as to what precluded him from passing a proper order; and pleaded that his office did not inform him about appeals being pending without any action; and assured that 'action in accordance with law would be initiated without any further delay; and appeals would be disposed of within 30 days in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the complainant---Appeals filed were left unattended for over 08 months, which spoke of delay, inattention and negligence on the part of Collector (Appeals), hearing, the AR submitted that grievance of the complainants was about inaction, delay and negligence on the part of Collector (Appeals) to decide their appeals against the orders-in-original dated 3-4-2010 passed by Deputy Collector Customs, in pursuance of the Findings/ Recommendations 'of the Hon'ble FTO. tantamountting to maladministration---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that Federal Board of Revenue direct the Collector (Appeals) to dispose of appeals filed by the complainants within 30 days in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the complainant.

Justice (R.) M. Nadir Khan, Advisor Dealing Officer. Ms. Dilharam Shaheen Authorized Representative.

Naveed Abbas, AC Collector Departmental Representative.

FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS

DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE (FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN).---The two complaints though by different complainants are joined for disposal as they involve identical issue, and are represented by the same AR.

2. The complainants plead that being charged for mis-declaration, they were issued show-cause notices, followed by Order-in-Original, whereby a fine equivalent to 50% of the ascertained value was imposed with personal penalty of Rs.100,000. When they approached the Department for release of goods, they came to know that goods had already been auctioned. They, therefore, filed claims for refund of amount of duty and taxes paid by them, and also of sale proceeds of goods, but their requests were left unattended. The Complainants then approached the Hon'ble FTO for redressal of their grievance by filing of Complaints No.16/Khi/Customs(06)/114/2010 and 17/Khi/Customs(07)/ 115 of 2010. The complaints were disposed of vide Findings/ Recom?mendations dated 4-3-2010, and the Department directed to sanction admissible amount of refund within 30 days. The Department in response passed orders-in-original dated 3-4-2010, which were challenged by the complainants by filing of appeals under section 193 of the Customs Act, but the Collector (Appeals) did not pass any order. The Complainants have again sought indulgence of the Hon'ble FTO for redressal of their grievance on account of delay, inattention & negligence on the part of Collector (Appeals).

3. In response to the notice of complaints issued to the Secretary, Revenue Division, the Deptt filed para-wise comments wherein preliminary objections were raised about maintainability of complaints. The Department pleaded that the appeals filed by the Complainants were time-barred.

4. Copies of para-wise comments were supplied to the complainants. However, they did not opt to file any rejoinder. The parties were afforded opportunity of hearing on 21-6-2011.

5. The DR submitted that detailed para-wise comments had been filed, and he had nothing more to add. He was, however, unable to explain the delay on the part of Collector (Appeals) for withholding decision on appeal. He submitted that the Collector (Appeals) functioned independently and PaCCS could not comment on his functioning.

6. The Collector (Appeals), Mr. Shaukat Ali, when contacted, pleaded that he had instructed Mr. Naveed Abbas Memon, Assistant Collector, to seek time for submission of report on his behalf. He inquired about the nature of complaint, and was informed that the complaints were about delay in disposal appeals filed on 21-10-2010. In response, he submitted that the appeals were under objection as the Complainants did not furnish the required court-fee, and the appeals were also time-barred. However, he was unable to explain what precluded him from passing a proper order. The Collector (Appeals) then came up with the plea that his office did not inform him about appeals being pending without any action. He assured that action in accordance with law would be initiated without any further delay and appeals would be disposed of within 30 days in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the Complainants.

7. Submissions made by the parties have been considered in the light 'of the averments of their pleadings and documents available on the record. What is obvious is that the complainants filed appeals on 21-10-2010, but these were, left unattended for over, 8 months, which speaks of, delay, inattention and negligence on the part of Collector (Appeals), tantamounting to maladministration as defined under section 2(3) of FTO Ordinance.

Recommendations:

8. F.B.R. to --

(i)???????? direct Collector (Appeals) to dispose of appeals filed by the Complainants within 30 days in accordance with, law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the complainants.

(ii)??????? report compliance;.

C.M.A./196/FTO???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.