2008 PLP 617 (PTD)
SAFDRULLAH and another Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
| Citation | 2008 PLP 617 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Bench Members | Justice (Retd.) Saleem Akhtar, Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Parties | SAFDRULLAH and another Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 617 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 617 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Tax Ombudsman bench comprising: Justice (Retd.) Saleem Akhtar, Federal Tax Ombudsman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 617 (PTD) (SAFDRULLAH and another Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.201(1), 168 & 169
Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S.550
Procedure for sale of goods and application . of sale proceeds
Vehicle seized being smuggled was outrightly confiscated
Vehicle was auctioned after fulfilling all legal formalities
Later, with the intention of selling it further took the vehicle to Forensic Science Laboratory, for chemical examination for satisfaction of the intended buyer
Chassis number was proved to tampered with
Police seized the vehicle under S.550 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, being snatched at gun point
Complainant contended that they were deprived of the ownership of vehicle for which they had paid good money without knowing the background of the vehicle that it was stolen one and prayed that either the ownership of the vehicle be restored to the complainants or auction amount and compensation for the expenses borne by them be refunded
Customs Authorities pleaded that complainant should have the chemical examination done on his own prior to taking the possession of the vehicle after the successful bid
Customs authorities auctioned the vehicle bearing tampered chassis number; it was their duty to have the particulars of the vehicle ascertained soon after its seizure as the facilities of forensic chemical test and services of C.P.L.C. were available to them which were not utilized
Such acts of omission were contrary to law, rules and regulations and were a departure from the established practice and procedure for which no valid reasons could be offered by the Department
Such act of omission squarely fell in the definition of maladministration
No reason was given as to why the successful bidder should suffer because of the acts of omission by the customs authorities
Expenses incurred on the repair of the vehicle were not verifiable
Payment of Capital Value Tax and Registration Fee and other registration expenses were not paid to, the customs authorities
Only amount which the complainant could claim from the customs authorities was the auction price
Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the auction price paid by the Complainant amounting to Rs,850,000 be refunded to him and that Central Board of Revenue to issue instructions that in cases of seizure of vehicles in use, Customs Authorities shall ascertain through forensic chemical test and the services of C.P.L.C. or any other Police Service available in the area for this purpose, before passing confiscation order, that it is not a stolen vehicle. Safdarullah and Muhammad Bakhtiar for the Complainants. Muhammad Arshad Khan, DC, Customs, Abdul Razzaq, Inspector, Anti Car Lifting Cell and Asrar Hussain Rizvi for the Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
6. The D.R. reiterated the arguments of the Collector given in his written reply. Furthermore, he stated that the Complainant should have had the chemical examination done on his own prior to taking the possession of the vehicle after the successful bid. He held the view that after the lapse of more than two years, it was not possible to determine whether chassis number which transpired now could be called genuine. He found the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Islamabad unreliable. It was decided that another chemical examination of the vehicle may be conducted in the presence of a representative of Collectorate of Customs, Peshawar.
7. While these proceedings were on one, Mr. Asrar Hussain Rizvi, claiming to be the owner of the stolen vehicle, filed an application requesting that he be associated with the proceedings as one of the Complainants. In his application he narrated the circumstances of import of the vehicle after due payment of customs duty and other charges, his purchase of it, its, snatching away en gunpoint etc. and produced necessary documents in support of his claim.
8. Second Forensic test of the chassis number of the vehicle was done. A report by the Inspector (Customs) by the name of Mr. Said Zaman dated 11-8-2004 was produced and placed on file. Its contents in full are reproduced as under-- "Re-examination of Mitsubishi Intercooler Pajero Jeep bearing Registration IDL-4773 was carried out in my presence on 10-8-2004 in Forensic Science Laboratory Capital Territory Police Islamabad and observed as under
CHASSIS NUMBER BEFORE CHEMICAL TREATMENT "CONV440PJOO188" CHASSIS NUMBER AFTER CHEMICAL TREATMENT "CONV440NJ01096" (Sd.) (SAID ZAMAN) Inspector (Customs) DC/Dryport Customs House, Peshawar" Photostat copy of the chassis numbers before and after chemical treatment was also produced and placed on file.
9. In conclusion, it could be said that the two Forensic tests, one done in the presence and to the satisfaction of a representative of Customs' Department,' prove without any doubt the fact that Customs authorities auctioned the vehicle bearing a tampered chassis number. Besides, it was their duty to have the particulars of the vehicle ascertained soon after its seizure. The facilities of forensic chemical test and the services of C.P.L.C. were available to them which were not utilized. These acts of omission were contrary to law, rules and regulations and were a departure from the established practice and procedure for which no valid reasons could be offered by the Respondent. The act of omissions squarely falls in the definition of maladministration within the meaning of Section 2(3)(i)(a) of the Establishment of Office of FTO Ordinance, 2000. There is no reason why the successful bidder, Mr. Safdarullah should suffer because of the acts of omission by the customs authorities stated above.
10. The question of the compensation due to the complainant was also considered. The complainant claimed the refund of payment of Auction Price, CVT, expenses on repair of the vehicle, Registration Fee and other registration expenses. The expenses incurred on the repair of the vehicle were not verifiable. The payment of CVT and Registration Fee and other registration expenses were not paid to the customs authorities. Therefore, the only amount which the complainant can rightfully claim from the customs authorities is the auction price amounting to Rs.850,000.
11. The application of Mr. Rizvi, who claims to be the real owner of the vehicle, was also considered. Such claim falls outside the jurisdiction.
12. In view of the above discussion, it is recommended that
(i) The auction price paid by the complainant amounting to Rs.850,000 be refunded to him. (ii) C.B.R. issues instructions that in cases of seizure of vehicles in use, Customs shall ascertain through forensic chemical test and the services of CPLC or any other Police Service available in the area for this purpose, before passing confiscation order, that it is not a stolen vehicle. (iii) Compliance of the above-mentioned recommendation be reported within 30 days of its receipt by the Revenue Division. C.M.A./318/FTO Order accordingly.