RECORDER REPORT

Customs officials have refused to rectify a simple clerical error--not entering correct container number on goods declaration (GD) filed by an importer, taking the plea that there is no provision in the Customs Act 1969 to correct clerical errors.
This case of harassment by customs officials was detected by Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) Dr Muhammad Shoaib Suddle, who remained fingers crossed on customs justifications ie, non-availability of provision in the Customs Act for correction of clerical error. This is a strange kind of case as section 29 of the Customs Act do not bar correction of simple clerical errors pertaining to containers' number. However, the customs department insisted that the error can't be rectified under Customs Act. "The clerical error cannot be corrected on the ground that the Customs Act contains no provision to amend the GD," the department contested.
Through an order issued here on Monday, FTO said that the section 29 of the Customs Act only bars correction of entries regarding declared value, quantity or description. It did not bar correction of simple clerical errors pertaining to containers' numbers. The GD was done in the presence of Customs Officials. The containers were available for inspection on the ports. A simple examination must have detected the clerical error, but the error was not rectified. The attitude of the customs staff and the treatment given to the complainant were not satisfactory. In fact they were clearly obstructionist in nature causing delay and expenditure. No issue of default or collection of revenue was involved. Section 206 of the Customs Act could have been relied upon but the perverse attitude of the concerned department did not allow accommodation. This is a systemic failure of the Department which needs to be corrected. Maladministration is thus not only in the case of the complainant but generally as well, FTO added.
FTO recommended to the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to issue direction to all field formations explaining the scope of Section 29 of the Customs Act 1969 and direct the Collector Customs to waive off the container and storage charges in the instant case. The FBR should also issue instructions for the facilitation of importers who have committed no offence or default and submit compliance report within 30 days.
The complainant has sought indulgence of the FTO against refusal of the Department to correct the container number mentioned as SUDU 7346490 instead of SUDU 7436490 due to clerical error. According to the Complainant, his application for correction of container number was refused on the ground that after filing of GD there was no provision to correct such error.
According to the department, the complainant was advised to get the GD cancelled enabling the Collectorate to amend the container number in BL and thereafter file a fresh GD. This was the only option available to resolve the issue which was easy and could have been cleared within two days. But instead of acting upon the advice, the importer took delivery of 06 containers making resolution of the issue virtually impossible. Now it was a bonafide case of re-export in terms of Section 138 of the Act, read with Chapter VII of the Customs Rules 2001, department added.
Foregoing facts show that according to the Departmental view a clerical error cannot be corrected on the ground that the Customs Act contains no provision to amend the GD. A bare reading of section 29 of the Customs Act shows that it does not allow amendment of the GD when goods have been assessed for duty on declared value, quantity or description but it does not bar correction of simple clerical errors. The Department seems to have failed to differentiate between amendment of GD about value or quantity or description of goods and correction of a clerical error in case of a container number, having no impact on value, quantity or description of goods, FTO added.