2012 PLP 102 (PTD)

FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN.

This complaint has been filed alleging maladministration for passing arbitrary and unreasonable order of rejection of unanimous recommendations of ADRC (Alternate Dispute Resolution Committee) constituted by the Federal Board of Revenue.

2. The complainant filed 23 customs duty drawbacks claims for the years 2004 and 2005. During scrutiny of documents, the Department observed that claims were filed after expiry of limitation. The Deputy Collector Customs rejected the claims vide Order-in-Original No.131 of 2006 dated 7-11-2006. The complainant filed appeal before the Collector (Appeals) against the decision of Deputy Collector. As the appeal was rejected vide Order-in-Appeal No.74 of 2007 dated 17-3-2007, the complainant filed further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. While appeal was pending before the Appellate Tribunal, the complainant requested the Federal Board of Revenue for appointment of ADRC in terms of section 195C of the Customs Act 1969. The F.B.R. appointed the ADRC vide letter dated 6-10-2007. The ADRC examined the case and observed that late filing of claims was of no advantage of the exporter and hence it could not be deliberate. The ADRC unanimously recommended for condonation of delay under section 224 of the Customs Act 1969. However, the F.B.R. found the explanation of late filing of claims not satisfactory and rejected the recommendations of the ADRC in terms of section 195C(4) of the Customs Act, 1969.

3. Feeling aggrieved with the decision of the F.B.R., the Complainant filed this complaint alleging maladministration for passing an arbitrary and unreasonable order almost three years after submission of recommendations of the ADRC. The Board was required to take decision on the recommendations of ADRC within 45 days of receipt of recommendations as stipulated in subsection (4) of section 195C of the Customs Act, 1969.

4. The complaint was sent to the Revenue Division for comments in terms of section 10(4) of the Establishment of the Office of the FTO Ordinance, 2000.

5. During the course of hearing, the AR submitted that the Deputy Collector Customs in identical cases had condoned delay and decided the duty drawbacks claims on merit vide Order-in-Original No.183 of 2007 dated 18-7-2007. The AR further submitted that unanimous recommendations of ADRC were rejected by the F.B.R. whereas F.B.R. had been allowing condonation of time in other cases.

6. Here it would be relevant to observe that the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case cited as PLD 1998 SC 64 (Messrs Pfizer Laboratories Ltd. v. The Federation of Pakistan) held that the Government had no right to withhold citizen's money on ground of limitation or technical reasons. The F.B.R. had also allowed condonation of delay on the recommendations of Hon'ble FTO in complaints C.No. 573-L/2009, 574-L/2009, 304/Lhr/ST(40)535/2010, and 582/Lhr/ST(63)864/2010. Findings:

7. The F.B.R. has been allowing condonation of delay in submission of documents in many cases. The Customs Collectorate had also allowed condonation of delay in other duty drawback claims. The treatment given to the Complainant is discriminatory and is tantamount to maladministration under section 2(3)(i) of the FTO Ordinance, 2000. The F.B.R's rejection of the unanimous recommendation of the ADRC is also both arbitrary and unreasonable. Recommendations:

8. F.B.R. to direct the concerned officials to

(i) condone delay in the filing of duty drawback claims under the provisions of section 224 of the Custom Act, 1969 and decide the pending cases in accordance with law within 21 days; and (ii) report compliance within 07 days thereafter. H.B.T./257/FTO Order accordingly.