August 23, 2002	Friday	Jamadi-us-Saani 13,1423

ISLAMABAD, Aug 22: The Collector of Customs (Exports) has released an amount of over Rs1,300,000 against 22 duty drawback claims by Knitter (Pvt) Limited on the Federal Tax Ombudsman directive.

The Ombudsman had recommended the Central Board of Revenue to direct Collector of Customs to sanction and pay the pending 23 drawback claims to the complainant — Knitter (Pvt) Ltd.

The complainant had imported machinery and accessories under the scheme of a manufacturing bond but purchased raw material from the market and exported the manufactured goods under claim for rebate. The duty drawback claims were filed in time but were withheld awaiting some directive/clarification from the CBR.

The complainant approached the Federal Tax Ombudsman Secretariat against the “illegal, malafide attitude of the Collector of Customs (Exports)” for not releasing and sanctioning 23 duty drawback claims pending since 1993 without any legal and cogent reason.

The reminders sent to the office have fallen on deaf ears. As many as 130 letters were sent to the Customs authority during the last nine years but not even reply was received and no reason was given why the claim were pending. The claims were not even rejected by the department.

During the investigation it has been admitted that for three years — 1993 to 1996 — the rebate claims were not processed and no action was taken for unknown reasons. On the basis of an (unreliable) information and subsequent complaints, the department computed the duty and taxes and for several years has been corresponding with the Collector, Lahore, trying to convince him of the huge amount due from the complainant.

It was further noted that there was also no justification for the export collectorate to compute the dues on machinery imported and installed in Lahore and insist on recovery thereof by the Lahore Customs.

The report and the findings of the Lahore Customs should have been accepted that no other dues were outstanding and that payment in 23 claims of duty drawback was required.

It is a classic case of mal-administration where nobody was willing to decide the claims pending since 1993. It is unfortunate that the department did not reply to the pleas and applications of the exporter during these nine years.