DECISION ' The complainant has been filed on account of non-payment of duty drawback on import-cum- export of galvanized sheet weighing 54.736/MT. The Complainants have stated that after re- exportation of the imported goods to Afghanistan via Torkham on 22-1-003 they filed a duty drawback/refund claim, along with relevant documents, under section 35 of the Customs Act in the Appraisement Collectorate on 12-3-2003, which referred it to the Exports Collectorate. They sent reminders, dated 30-1-2003, 25-3-2003 and 18-6-2003 to the Exports Collectorate and also made personal and telephonic requests. After more than three months, the Additional Collector (Exports), vide letter, dated 2-8-2003, referred the matter back to the Appraisement Collectorate.
2. The Complainants stated that the requirements of the Customs Act had been complied with viz.
(i) as required under section 35 of the Customs Act the exported goods were identified on the shipping bill as having been imported from North America, (ii) import duty had been paid and (iii) the goods were re-exported to Afghanistan. They contended that non-payment of drawback by the Customs Authorities constituted maladministration and requested that they be called upon to explain the causes of withholding money and directed to make the payment of refund of Rs,198,905 immediately.
3. The Deputy. Collector of Customs (Appraisernent) replied to the complaint that the importer should have filed the claim for duty drawback at the customs station of export i,e, the Peshawar Customs. The claim was referred to that office on 6-12-2003 followed by reminders, dated 25-2- 2003 and 28-2-2003 along with copies of the complaint and C.B.R.'s letter for early disposal. He stated that he held discussion with Mr. S.M. Younus, Consultant, number of times and explained to him the requirements under sections 35(1) and 391 of the Act. The Consultant insisted that the refund should be sanctioned by the Appraisement Collectorate but the matter was in fact the jurisdiction of the Peshawar Collectorate. He requested that the Complainants be directed to approach the Peshawar Customs for the disposal of the case where documents had already been sent.
4. The learned Consultant submitted a rejoinder to the parawise comments and reiterated his view-point that duty drawback should be paid from the office where the duty had been paid. He referred to the departmental instructions contained in the Notes under section 39 of the Act "that the elements necessary to constitute a claim for drawback" were present in this case and "a necessary step in establishing a claim for drawback is the verification of the payment of the original duty". He contended that in view of the evidence of duty payment, the claim for drawback had been established and, in the interest of justice and merit of the c,t c, order be passed for immediate refund of the claimed amount as it has already been considerably delayed.
5. The Consultant stated during the hearing of the complaint that the refund claim remained under consideration in the two Collectorates for about nine months and eventually it was referred to the Peshawar 'Customs. When the complaint was filed with the Federal Tax Ombudsman on 7-1-2004, the Deputy Collector (Appraisement) wrote to the Torkham Customs for expeditious action. The Deputy Collector of Customs, Peshawar, issued a show-cause notice, dated 20-3-2004 alleging that the mandatory conditions of subsection (1) of section 35 of the Act for identification to the satisfaction of an officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector, and of the establishment of the claim for duty drawback at the time of export under section 391 of the Act have not been complied with and cause be shown why claim of duty drawback not be rejected.
6. The learned Consultant stated that about a year had already elapsed since the export of the goods and the dormant drawback claim has been revived when the complaint was filed with this office. He stated that the identification of the goods had been made on the shipping bill but identification by an Assistant Collector was the responsibility of the customs, the declaration of the claim for drawback at the time of export could not be made due to an omission which might be condoned, and requested that the Customs Authorities be directed to make an early settlement of the claim.
7. The Deputy Collector of Customs replied that when he took over the charge of the concerned Group, he thoroughly examined the matter and came to the conclusion that under the customs law drawback should be paid by the station of export. He, therefore, referred it to the Peshawar Customs for necessary action and wrote to the concerned Deputy Collector to expedite it in view of the complaint made to this office.
8. It is established that the duty drawback application filed in March, 2003 has not been decided for more than a year which is a clear case of maladministration. There was no justification to keep the matter in process for one year without taking any decision. The claim was activated when Mr. Shafqat Niazi, Deputy Collector, took charge of the Group. It is gratifying to note that he immediately sent the case to the Peshawar Collectorate with the advice to take an early decision.
9. It is recommended that C.B.R. Direct the Adjudicating Officer---
(i) to afford the opportunity of hearing to the claimant; and
(ii) decide the claim within thirty days.
(iii) Compliance be reported within forty-five days. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.