2004 PLP 91 (PTD)

(a) "The refund should have been applied on prescribed Form No. 1 L.H. 10 of the Light House Accounting Rules. (b) The application for refund should have been made to "Customs Collectorate at nearest port of call" which in the instant cases is the Collectorate of Customs Port Qasim. (c) The refund application should be complete with original receipts. (d) In case the refund is applied at Karachi, the Collectorate of Customs (Preventive) is the relevant authority to monitor collection and refund of the Light Dues".

4. C.A.O. stated that copy of the relevant file was being forwarded to the Collector of Customs (Preventive) and Collector of Customs Port Bin Qasim and the complainant was being informed to approach the relevant Collectorate with proper application on Form No.1.L.H.10, alongwith original receipt of payment.

5. During the hearing of the complaint Mr. Muhammad Ismail, Managing Director, stated that when he approached the officials of the Accounts Department of the Custom House, he was waved away and no official was willing to take notice of him. Someone advised him to approach the senior officials, but due to the stiff attitude of the lower officials, he did not have the courage to access the senior officers.

6. Mr. Sajjad Haider, Assistant Collector of Customs, informed that when the matter regarding the pending refund claim of the complainant came to his notice, he immediately took the initiative, obtained the refund application on the prescribed form and, after necessary examination, sanctioned the refund on 7-6-2003. He stated that the claim would be sent to the audit section for pre-audit and a cheque would be sent to the complainant within seven days.

7. The first reply of the C.A.O. that the Customs Department was not empowered to refund the amount and the complainant should approach the M.M.D. not only betrayed ignorance of rules and procedure, but also reflected the ingrained attitude not to resolve even a minor problem of the people. The C.A.O. did not consider, that the amount was not erroneously paid, it was correctly paid in anticipation of the arrival of the Vessel, and when the Vessel berthed at another port, the applicant was entitled to refund. By referring him to the M.M.D., the C.A.O. in fact refused the refund.

8. In his second reply, the C.A.O. raised four objections that the refund application was not on prescribed form, it should have been submitted at Port Qasim, it should be complete with the receipt, and the relevant Authority was the Collector of Customs (Preventive) or the Collector Port Qasim. Thus he again refused to entertain the case of refund of a small amount even when referred by this office. To compound the problem of the complainant, he forwarded copies of the file to the two Collector of Preventive and Port Bin Qasim, without advising which Authority to approach. He should have known that if the dues were collected by the Appraisement, the refund was also their responsibility.

9. The C.A.O. does not seem to be helpful officer and perhaps not fit for a public dealing office. If he can be so difficult in a very minor refund case, it is not difficult to imagine the .serious problems he would be creating for the dealing public ;who have to' contact him in a very large number almost on a' daily basis. However, it is appreciable that when the matter was referred to the young Assistant Collector, he acted very promptly and informed this office that he had already sanctioned the refund and it would be paid to Mr. M. Ismail within seven days. Mr. Ismail did not seem confident that the promise would be fulfilled.

10. It is recommended that Chairman C.B.R. to direct the Collector of Customs (Appraisement):

(i) to keep a very close watch on the working of the C. A. O. ; and (ii) compliance of payment of refund be communicated within 15 days. C.M.A./889/FTO Order accordingly.