FINDINGS /DECISION ' The complaint has been filed against the alleged maladministration of the Customs Department for not processing and deciding supplementary duty drawback claims filed on 1-2-2002. The Complainants have stated that they are .a leading manufacturing and exporter of blended and cotton knitted fabrics for a long time, they have an unblemished profile of performance and have been registered under Gold Category which entitles them for payment of duty drawback within 72 hours. They stated that the direction given in the relevant notification for payment within 72 hours has never been observed.
2. The Complainants stated that their duty drawback claims under Gold Category were pre- audited and were eligible for sanction on priority basis. They were surprised that they did not receive payment in accordance with the claims and unlawful deduction had been arbitrarily made. They filed 8 supplementary duty drawback claims (for the deducted amounts) vide ID No,295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301 and 302 for Rs,1,51,914 on 1-2-2002. These claims remained unattended. They requested the authorities vide letters, dated 23-4-2002 and 24-8-2002 to expedite the disposal. They were informed vide letter, dated 31-8-2002 that claims against ID numbers 295, 296, 299, 300, 301 and 302 had been sanctioned and sent to the Audit Section for payment and cheques would be issued on turn, and the original claim -files of ID No,297 and 298 were not traceable, which would be processed as soon as the files were traced out.
3. However, the Complainants stated, neither payment of six sanctioned claims has been received nor the remaining two claims traced and sanctioned. They sent applications, dated 24-11-2002, 13- 1-2003, 1-2-2003 and 12-3-2003 for release of the amount but to no avail. Personal visits too bore no fruit and the Customs Authorities did not respond and ignored all written and verbal requests.
They stated that thousands of cheques have been issued to the exporters for duty drawback but their turn for payment has not arrived.
4. They contended that the claims have been left unattended with mala fide intention, ulterior motive and with the purpose to harass them; this was a case of maladministration as defined in the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000. They requested that the case be declared a serious ease of maladministration, the Customs Authorities be directed to make the payment of Rs,1,51,914 in all 8 claims, responsibility be fixed for delay, and serious view be taken for not responding to their letters, and any other relief deemed fit may be granted.
5. The Additional Collector of Customs (Exports) admitted in his reply to the complaint that the exporters were registered under Gold Category Scheme and the Collectorate was trying utmost to meet the mandatory provision of time-frame for processing of Gold duty drawback claims but this stipulation was not applicable to supplementary claims. He stated that the claims had been processed and deduction made of the inadmissible amounts. According to the reply "Cheques have been issued for lesser to admissible amount purely due to arithmetical mistake". Further, out of 8 claims, one contained inadmissible arithmetical mistake, 5 claims involved wrong calculation, and deduction in two claims was due to calculation mistake of the exporters themselves. Six claims were sanctioned but got misplaced with the Accounts section and the exporters have now been requested vide letter, dated 16-9-2003 to lodge duplicate claims. The two remaining claims have also been processed/sanctioned for payment.
6. The Additional Collector of Customs contended that there was no maladministration which could be verified from the fact that the duty drawback claims of the same exporters had been sanctioned. He stated that there was no (element of) maladministration on the part of the Collectorate.
7. Mirza Muhammad Awais, Advocate, stated during the hearing of the complaint that the Department informed the Complainants on 31-8-2002 about the sanction of six claims and that the remaining two claims would be processed as soon as the files were traced out. Thereafter, several letters were sent to the Customs Authorities, he himself met the Collector, Additional Collector and the Deputy Collector who promised that the cheque would be issued but nothing happened. Two cheques have now been issued by the Export Collectorate on 17-9-2003 and 27-9- 2003 after the complaint was filed with the federal Tax Ombudsman Secretariat and notice was issued to the Department. He stated that the two claims reported not traceable were immediately retrieved when the complaint was filed, they were sanctioned and cheque issued.
8. The learned counsel stated that if the documents were not traceable, the Department should have asked the Complainants to file duplicate documents and if they had been stolen, an F.I.R.
Should have been filed with the Police. He stated that he received a letter, dated 16-9-2003 from the Assistant Collector of Customs for submission of duplicate claims and he supplied duplicate claims vide letter, dated 23-9-2003. He wanted to bring it on record that the misplacement of the sanctioned claims was merely an excuse to cover up the mala fide and negligent attitude of the Customs officials.
9. The Deputy Collector of Customs stated that six claims were sanctioned, taken to the Assistant Collector by a clerk, and after that the claims were lost. The clerk was suspended in October, 2002 and the charge-sheet against him had yet to be framed. She admitted there was nothing on record to show that after the misplacement of six claims, any letter was sent to the exporters to file duplicate claims.
10. The Deputy Collector further stated that while the remaining two claims were scrutinized and verified with the original claims after retrieval from the Audit. Section, the process took considerable time, the sanction was accorded in September, 2003, and the cheque has been issued. She could not explain why the claims remained under process for more than 18 months. She clarified that the supplementary claims were placed at the lowest level in the Department's priority scheme.
11. It is established from the above facts that 8 supplementary duty drawback claims were misplaced/lost and, despite persistent efforts of the Complainants and their Consultant, no action was taken by the Customs Authorities to trace the missing sanctioned claims or to ask them to furnish duplicate documents for reprocessing and sanction. It seems that by according the lowest priority, the Department in effect ignores such claims and no decision is their pre-ordained fate.
This is a clear case of maladministration on the part of the Customs Authorities.
(i) It is recommended that C.B.R. Direct the Collector to sanction and pay the remaining (admissible) supplementary claims within fifteen days; and
(ii) report compliance within thirty days.