The purchase of cars from customs' auction has landed two separate individuals into trouble. In the first case, the car had already been auctioned earlier and complications arose over refund of the bid price paid by the purchaser, Abdul Latif belonging to Peshawar.
In another case, the purchaser Mohammed Shujah of Lahore who paid the full amount found to his dismay that it was the smuggled car which was taken by police in its custody. He too faced difficulties when tried to get back the bid price.
In both cases, it was the Federal Tax Ombudsman who came to their rescue.
Abdul Latif who bought a Toyota Land Cruiser from government auction in 2001, had paid part of the bid price.
The vehicle was found to have been auctioned earlier in 1996. Neither the possession of the vehicle was given to the complainant, nor the amount paid by him was refunded. While making the refund, the customs deducted a surcharge of five percent levied on such auctions as donation to the Motamare Alam-e-Islami.
The FTO in his order directed that the surcharge would have been deducted in the first auction, and order the refund of the surcharge. He held that it was no concern of the complainant as to which accounting arrangement is followed to refund the surcharge, wrongly deducted from the amount due to the complainant. His case was pending since 2001.
In the second case, the complainant Mohammed Shujah of Ichhra, Lahore had paid Rs 5,16,000 for a car auctioned by Dry Port Lahore in October 2003, but it was seized by the anti-car lifting cell in December, as it was said to be stolen car.
The customs conceded that the complainant had paid the full amount for the car. The complainant pointed out that after the car was handed over to him, he took it to a repair shop and spent a huge amount on its repair. When it was repaired, the police took it into its custody terming it a stolen car.
The complainant sought refund of the amount from the CBR and sent reminders. In a letter dated May 12, the Lahore Collectorate sought CBR's advice saying that the principles of natural justice demanded that the amount paid by the bidder should be refunded.
There was no immediate response from CBR. As the matter was taken to the FTO, the latter held that the complainant is not to be blamed, as he was an innocent buyer. During hearing before the FTO, the complainant conceded that he would forego the amount on repairs but the actual amount paid by him to the department may be refunded to him.
Thus, the FTO directed the refund of the amount paid by the complainant to the department within 30 days.
Comments
Comments are closed.