FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS ' DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN.--- This complaint has been filed by Messrs Pearl Continental (Pvt.) Ltd. Against the Model Collectorate of Customs, Export, for non- sanctioning of their supplementary rebate claims pertaining to years 1991 to 1994, despite a number of reminders by them. Not only no response has been given by the Collaborate, but also no reason for the same has been disclosed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant Company, during 1991 to 1994, had exported 127 consignments of Hand Knitted woolen carpets to different countries. Subsequently, the rebate claims were filed under S.R.O 91(1)/88, dated 8-2-1988 and S.R.O 997(I)/79 dated 4-11-1979. The Customs authorities sanctioned the rebate claims according to the said notifications. However, in the year 1994, the then Central Board of Revenue issued S.R.0 261(1)/1994, dated 30-3-1994 retrospectively adjusting the rates of rebate depending on the period of export. The complainant Company accordingly filed the supplementary rebate claims, out of which 35 were still pending.
Initially the Department stated that the claims had gone missing, so the same could not be sanctioned. But in 1996, the Board, in order to resolve the controversy, issued Customs General Order No, 18 of 1996 dated 19-8-1996 and gave an opportunity to the exporters once again to file supplementary claims after getting the claims certified by the concerned Trade Association. The complainants resubmitted the claims, following the above procedure, for the third time on 30th December, 1996 against the Receipt Number assigned to each claim. Ever since, they have been continuously persuading the Customs authorities for sanctioning of these supplementary rebate claims but without any success.
3. Comments in this case were called from the Model Collectorate of Customs (Export) through the Revenue Division by 12-9-2009. The Department sought extension in time limit for filing the comments. Time line was accordingly extended by 15 days; the target date being 30-9-2009, when the Collector in charge of the Collectorate through his letter Sl/MISC/07/2009-Exp/SSCC dated 30- 9-2009 informed that the rebate claims had been sanctioned and that cheques in this regard were under issuance process.
4. Hearing in this case was fixed for 10-10-2009, when the DR brought a computer sheet in order to prove that the claims had been sanctioned, but he pointed out that the cheques could not be issued due to computer acceptance problem with reference to the NTN number of the Company.
He also told that there were clarifications involved in a few cases. The AR was advised to coordinate with the department to sort out the matter. The AR promised to send the relevant person to the DR to reconcile the figures and resolve other issues. With mutual consent the next date of hearing was fixed on 24-10-09, when the AR sought adjournment through written request.
The case was then fixed on 31-10-2009, when the DR told that the rebate claims had been processed and were ready for issuance of cheques but the computer required updating of the NTN number which was fed in the years 1991 to 1994. The Pakistan Automation Private Limited (PRAL), who provide computer services to Federal Board of Revenue were asking for the au-then city of the NTN No, 13250878, which was traced from the record of the Collectorate. The AR promised to dig out proof or copy of NTN certificate to solve the problem. DR was also advised to get the problem solved by persuading the PRAL to upload the data of the relevant period which might help in synchronizing the NTN with the supplementary claims under processing.
5. On the last date of hearing i,e, 5-11-2009, it was told by the DR that the computer related problem had been solved and now cheques of rebate claims equivalent to Rs,781400 could be issued. The remaining amount of Rs,94165 still needed reconciliation with the complainant. It was told by the DR that the cheques in this case were likely to be issued within a week's time.
6. The inordinate delay, inattention and ineptitude on the part of the Department bring this case within the ambit of serious maladministration. The supplementary rebate claims filed in the year 1996 remained in oblivion of inattention, despite the directions issued by the Federal Board of Revenue, till the filing of the complaint before the FTO. It is accordingly recommended that the Federal Board of Revenue to---
(1) direct the Collector, Model Collectorate of Customs, Export, to ensure that the remaining problems in this case are resolved and rebates due issued and delivered to the complainant;
(ii) issue speaking orders in respect of any claims not accepted, within fifteen days of receipt of the recommendations;
(iii) fix responsibility and proceed under relevant E&D Rules against officials, who sat over the claims for years, despite repeated directions issued by the Board, under intimation to FTO Secretariat;
(iv) ask the defaulter officials to explain why appropriate compensation under section 22 of FTO Ordinance may not be awarded to the complainants, and also if they would wish to be heard in person; and
(v) report compliance within 60 days.