B.F.J. ENTERPRISES, KARACHI VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
2012 P T D 150
2012 P T D 150
[Federal Tax Ombudsman]
Before Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Suddle, Federal Tax Ombudsman
Messrs B.F.J. ENTERPRISES, KARACHI
Versus
SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Complaint No.260/Khi/Customs(107)647 of 2011, decided on 06/09/2011.
Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005)---
----S. 5---Zero rate of duty and drawback of duty etc.---Duty draw back claim---Non implementation of order of Appellate Tribunal despite repeated reminders---Department contended that due to change in system the supplementary duty-drawback claim could not be processed and PRAL had been approached for amendment in Rebate Processing Software, the matter was still pending resolution and submitted copies of correspondence made between the Department and PRAL and undertook to process the pending claims manually within 30 days---Validity---Withholding of duty drawback / rebate since 2002 and non implementation of the order of Appellate Tribunal without any stay order from High Court would tantamount to maladministration---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the Federal Board of Revenue to direct the Collector to sanction the complainant's claims, as per law, within 21 days; todirect the Collectors (Customs) to submit details of all rebate / duty drawback claims pending up to 31st August, 2011, to the Registrar, Federal Tax Ombudsman Secretariat, within 21 days; to ensure processing and payment of all pending rebate/duty drawback/refunds, as per law, within 60 days and to direct PRAL to fix the software problem within 21 days.
Justice (R) M. Nadir Khan for Dealing Officer.
Ammar Yasir for Authorized Representative.
Dr. Amna Naeem, Assistant Collector Departmental Representative.
FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS
DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE (FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN).---The complainant has sought indulgence of the Hon'ble FTO against delay, inaction and negligence on the part of the Customs Department to implement order dated 25-6-2009 passed by the Customs Appellate Tribunal.
2.According to the complainant, the Deptt in 2002 did not accept his duty duty-drawback claim. He therefore approached the Hon'ble FTO vide Complaint No.C-1498/K/2002. The complaint was disposed of vide Findings/Recommendations dated 15-4-2003, directing the Department to decide the claim within 30 days. As the Department vide order-in-original dated 26-5-2003 did not accept the plea of the complainant, he challenged the order-in-original before Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal which allowed the appeal vide order dated 25-6-2009, declaring the order-in-original unlawful. The complainant thereafter approached the Department for implementation of the order of the Appellate Tribunal.
3.In response to the notice of complaint issued to the Secretary Revenue Division, Islamabad, the Department submitted reply contending that on the basis of order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, the complainant had desired to avail the duty-drawback concession through submission of supplementary rebate claim on the basis of value determined by price check committee of the Collectorate in year 2002. According to the Department, the needful required necessary conversion from SR.3 (rebate claim filed under group procedure) to SR.2 (filing of rebate claims under ordinary procedure), and subsequent feeding into software system of PRAL. It was contended that as soon as the conversion process was complete the supplementary claim would be processed in compliance of the order of Appellate Tribunal. The Department at the same time pleaded that in other identical/similar cases the Department had filed appeals before the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh. The Department requested for adjournment of the matter till decision of the Hon'ble High Court.
4.The complainant was supplied copy of para-wise comments, but he did not opt to file a rejoinder.
5.During hearing, the AR submitted that the grievance of the complainant was about non implementation of order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 25-6-2009. Also, despite repeated reminders, the Department had not responded, which clearly fell within the definition of maladministration.
6.The DR explained that due to change in the system the supplementary duty-drawback claim of the complainant could not be processed. While PRAL had been approached for amendment in Rebate Processing Software, the matter was still pending resolution. The DR submitted copies of correspondence made between the Department and PRAL. However, he undertook to process the pending claims manually within 30 days.
Findings:
7.Withholding of duty drawback/rebate since 2002 and non-implementation of the order of the Appellate Tribunal without any stay order from the High Court was tantamount to maladministration under section 2(3) of the FTO Ordinance, 2000.
Recommendations:
8.F.B.R. to -
(i)direct the Collector to sanction the complaint's claims, as per law, within 21 days;
(ii)direct the Collectors (Customs) to submit details of all rebate/duty drawback claims pending up to 31st August, 2011, to Registrar, FTO Secretariat, within 21 days;
(iii)ensure processing and payment of all pending rebate/duty drawback/refunds, as per law, within 60 days;
(iv)direct PRAL to fix the software problem within 21 days; and
(v)report compliance of (i), (ii) and (iv) above within 30 days, and progress on (iii) on monthly basis.
C.M.A./233/FTOOrder accordingly.