Law: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000

Section: 2(3)(i),9

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: Sched.I

(a) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)---S.2(3)(i)---Maladministration--- Processing and dealing with the claim of refund in very casual and irresponsible manner by the officers of the Department amounted to maladministration and delinquent officials deserve to be reprimanded. (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Sched. I---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.9---Pre-shipment inspection fee--­Claim and refund of---Levy of service charges @ 2% on all goods specified in Sched. I of the Customs Act, 1969 was declared unlawful by the Supreme Court and complainant-company claimed refund of such amount paid as pre-shipment inspection fee-Department informed the complainant that only those importers were entitled to the refund who had not passed on the incidence of 2% service charge to their clients---Complainant-company furnished a certificate issued by a Chartered Accountant that complainant-company had not passed the incidence of payment of 2% pre-shipment inspection service charges to others/public---Department, during the pendency of complaint, rejected the claim of refund, without considering such certificate, by stating that complainant had failed to furnish proof in respect of 2% pre-shipment service charges---Validity, --Officer representing the Department had promised to furnish documents but nothing was supplied instead the order was passed in haste, ignoring the documents which had been received by the Department--­Document in question was a certificate from a Chartered Accountant certifying that 2% pre-shipment inspection charges had not been passed on to its customers or anybody else---In the face of such 'certificate there was` no occasion to reject the claim of refund---Only two possibilities existed either the Deputy Collector of Customs did not examine the certificate of the Chartered Accountant or he completely ignored it as he had already resolved to reject the claim--­Delay in the disposal of the claim seemed to be motivated and mala fide otherwise the grounds stated in the order were available to Deputy Collector from the very beginning and he could have passed this…

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