2003 PLP 442 (PTD)

6. It is necessary to place on record the statement of the Assistant Collector of Customs representing the Export Collectorate that the authorities were considering inquiring against the same owners of three exporting firms who had filed complaints with the Federal Tax Ombudsman whereas there were thousands of exporters ,who had not done so.

7. The reply of the Collector, is brief, cursory and incomplete and gives a definite impression that attempt has been made to quickly and casually dispose of an unpalatable inquiry about the performance of a self‑important officialdom. It is noteworthy that copy of not a single document referred in the reply has been furnished with the reply. The following points and questions were not addressed:‑‑‑ (i) 'No explanation or reason was given about the forfeiture of the refund amounts. (ii) Why re‑adjudication was delayed? Filing of complaint should have prompted speedy disposal and not delayed it till 26‑3‑2002. When was the complaint filed before the Honourable Wafaqi Mohtasib and what was his finding? (iii) Why the cheque was issued to another exporter? (iv) Why the amount due to the complainant was forfeited as dues recoverable from another exporter? (v) Why the blame was attributed to the computer technical fault (specially when the authorities simplistically find miraculous solution of all the problems in computerization); why self correcting mechanism was not introduced or not allowed to work in the software programme? (vi) Was the payment to another party induced by official favour or collusion? (vii) Why it took the department more than three years to inform the claimant that the. refund amounts had been forfeited? (viii) When was the show‑cause notice that one duty drawback claim barred by time issued to the exporter? (ix) What action was taken about the case where bill of export was not returned by the exporter?

8. The most crucial question as to why the claims were not decided for (two to) eight years has not been replied. It is evident that the processing of drawback claims, perhaps even re‑adjudication, was initiated when the complainant approached the forum of the Federal Tax Ombudsman. It was then that the forfeited amount was restored, the amount paid to Messrs Carewell was recovered and paid to the claimant, and cheques for claims as old as of 1994 and 1995 alongwith those filed in 1999 and 2000 were paid. This is blatant manifestation of arbitrary, unreasonable, and oppressive actions arising out of sheer neglect, inattention, incompetence and inefficiency and evidence of administrative excesses, clearly within the meaning of maladministration as defined under subsection (3) of section 2 of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.

9. It is recommended that C.B.R. (i) depute the Director‑General Inquiries (C.B.R.) to conduct a detailed inquiry in the above maladministration with the aim of identifying the officials responsible for wrong forfeiture of refundable amounts and failure to decide the drawback claims, and the senior officers who failed to take action on the verbal and written entreaties and allowed the injustice to prevail, and initiate disciplinary proceedings for suitable action against the guilty; (ii) direct the Collector of Customs (Exports) to ensure that the replies to the complaints referred by this Secretariat should be comprehensive, responsive to all the issues raised, and furnish copies of all the legal provisions, notifications, notices and decisions, and the, correspondence referred to therein, and state complete reasons/explanations to the allegations made; and (iii) look into the working of the Export Collectorate and conduct a thorough house‑cleaning at a senior level to identify the backlog and devise an efficient procedure to deal with the ,e problems of the exporters (instead of leaving this task to the Collector); (iv) with regard to the statement at paragraph 6, the Collectorate officers should better look into the reasons of the complaints instead of targetting the complainant which would be‑ very seriously viewed; , (v) report compliance within thirty days. C.M.A./M.A.K./478/FTO Order accordingly.