Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 751 2004 SLD 751 2004 PTD 1222
Federal Tax Ombudsman
Complainant No. 1029-K of 2003, decision dated: 30-08-2003
JUSTICE (RECD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN
M. Mubeen Ahsan, Advisor. Muhammad Yousuf, Proprietor. Ashhad Jawwad, Deputy Collector of Customs, (Appraisement)

MESSRS UNIQUE INTERNATIONAL

VS

SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 33

Customs Act (IV of 1969)---S. 33---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)---Refund to be claimed within six months---Claim of refund---Non-processing of such refund over a period of six years---Validity---In spite of objection of Department that the claims were filed with photocopies, they were barred-by time, and that notices issued were not replied by the complainant, there was no justification to keep the claims pending for over six years---Valuation was examined by the Working Committee and was based on its decision-­Refund claims in respect of 3 bills of entries were filed within less than one month of the issue of final Clean Report of Finding and less than two months in the fourth import, the period should be courted from the final Clean Report of Finding dates---Complainant was not a registered person and any refund or any adjustment from the sales tax returns could not be made---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that Central Board of Revenue to direct the Collector to decide the refund claims within thirty days. FINDING/DECISION The complaint has been filed against the Customs Department for not deciding three claims filed in February, 1997 and one in July, 1997 for refund of excess duty and taxes. Mr. Mohammad Yousuf, Proprietor of Messrs Unique International, has stated that 4 consignments of chemical were imported in February, March and December, 1996. The invoice value of Sodium Hydrosulphite was $ 15960, and that of Sodium Fromaldehyde Sulfoxinate was $ 17500 for each of the 3 consignments. SGS issued CRF for higher values. The consignments were removed to bonded warehouse and the matter was referred to the Working Committee (for valuation disputes). As the decision of the Committee took a long time and bonding period was to shortly expire, he decided to clear the consignments and fight out the valuation aspect with the SGS later on. 2. The complainant stated that he strongly represented the case with SGS and the Working Committee and the Final CRF issued by SGS too were on the higher side. But, in order to avoid further confrontation, he decided to accept the revised CRF and applied for refund. The…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492