2003 PLP 1739 (PTD)

(b) How was the fraud detected? He replied that it was detected on close scrutiny of record on receipt of Provincial Excise Department Lahore's Letter, dated 19-6-2001 for re-verification. The clearing agent was asked to verify. He denied this to be the same bill of entry, he produced and extract of his (clearing agent's), register according to which the name of the importer was the same, make and model was the same but the chassis number was different. The chassis number of the genuine car legally imported vide the subject bill of entry was AT 1704018409. (c) Was any action taken against those responsible for forging the official documents and the staff for giving the first verification report without proper scrutiny? He replied that no inquiry had so far been held or action taken against anybody. (d) Asked what action the respondent intended to take vis-a-vis the vehicle of the complainant? The respondent stated that it was for the officers of jurisdiction i.e. the Lahore Customs Agencies to take any action they deem fit because the car was playing in their jurisdiction.

5. The records of the case and arguments of the parties have been examined. The complainant might have avoided the purchase of the care if he had not, as contended by him, consulted, or if he had not seen, the first verification report issued by Customs House, Karachi confirming payment of duty and taxes. The complications arose when the Customs withdrew the earlier verification report. The discrepancy between, the chassis numbers, as reported by the Customs House is as under:-- Original AT-1704018409 Fake CT-170-0035335

6. It is not understood why the Customs House, Karachi issued the first verification report without proper scrutiny. It is also not understood how the fake documents on the basis of which original verification was made had found their way into the records of the Customs House and why the officers concerned failed to take the necessary precaution and do proper scrutiny before certification. It needs to be determined whether any functionaries of the Customs House were in league with the outside elements forging official documents to hoodwink the department and others for ulterior motives.

7. Reportedly the officials of the Customs Intelligence and Investigation, Lahore are threatening to seize the car because of its being non-duty paid/illegally imported. However, the car, as admitted by the complainant, is still in his possession. The complainant was pointedly asked to let this forum know the names of the officials of Customs who were threatening to seize the car but he- could not disclose the name of anyone of them, nor could he produce any document indicating seizure/detention of the car. On the other hand, the representative of the respondent stated that the Customs House had not given any direction to the Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation, Lahore to seize the car but opined that the Customs Officers of jurisdiction could act on their own, if the care is found to be non-duty paid/illegally imported.

8. The jurisdiction of the FTO does not extend to the acts of omission and commission, of the officials of the Provincial Excise and Taxation Department, Government of Punjab. Therefore, it is not possible to give any direction to the Provincial Excise Authorities in respect of the Registration Book. The complainant should better approach the relevant Provincial Authorities for redress of his grievances.

9. The following significant points have emerged from the investigation in the two complaints:-- (i) Before purchasing the vehicles, both the buyers/complainants had checked up files/the verification reports issued by the Karachi Custom House from the Excise and Taxation Department. (ii) On completion of formalities for registration, they were informed that the Principal Appraiser Group-VIII has withdrawn the verification reports because the duplicate copies of the bills of entry had been found forged. It is significant that the Customs still retained the bills of entry filed on 30-4-1992 and 7-3-1992. The Group officials also verified the payment of duty and taxes from Accounts Section, which means this section, too retained the record of 1992. (iii) The fact that the Registration Authority wrote to the Customs for re-confirmation of earlier verification raises more doubts because if the import documents were available further confirmation should not have been necessary. (iv) The Customs checked up from the records of the clearing agent to send their report. It is intriguing the clearing agent also retained the old record and made it available to the Customs. (v) The Motor Registration Authority first allotted the new Registration numbers and later issued notices for the cancellation of Registration. (vi) The Lahore Customs Intelligence Staff visited the complainant for seizure of the cars. (vii) The Assistant Collector of Customs, Karachi Custom House, stated that the Custom House had not given any direction to the Customs Intelligence Staff to seize the cars. (viii) The car is of 1990 Model. Its first Registration number has not been reported.

10. The fraudulent activity about the sale of car seems to include the car dealer, the Lahore Motor Registration Authority, clearing agent, the Karachi Customs Officials and Lahore Customs Intelligence Staff. When the sale of a car is arranged,' the Motor Registration Authority shows to the prospective buyer one set of documents to satisfy him that import duty and taxes have been paid and the documents are in order. In the present case after the prospective buyer was satisfied about the genuineness of the document and the transaction was completed, he was told that in subsequent Customs report, the documents have been fount to be forged. The Motor Registration Authority's notice for cancellation of new Registration numbers and the Customs Intelligence Officials visit to seize the cars seems to be a pre-planned scheme aimed at blackmailing bona fide buyers for extorting money after selling them old cars.

11. There is noticeable maladministration on the part of the Customs Authorities, which requires serious investigation to unearth, the malpractices and fraudulent activities of the Customs Department.

12. It is recommended that:-- (i) Revenue Division institute a proper investigation/enquiry into this case, also identify other cases of similar nature and take punitive action against those found responsible for forging and tampering with official documents/ records and for committing fraud. (ii) Till the investigation is completed the complainant be allowed to keep possession of the car on the condition that he will not sell, transfer or create any third party interest in it and shall furnish a security or bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.500,000 to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs, Karachi. (iii) Compliance be reported within sixty days. C.M.A./650/FTO. Order accordingly