Federal Tax Ombudsman, former Justice Munir A Sheikh, has ruled that while the introduction of the procedure of swift clearance is commendable, the importer or his agent has a right to be present at the time of examination, or re-examination, of the goods, in case of suspicion/detention of misdeclaration.
He gave this ruling on a complaint by Asif Brothers, M A Jinnah Road, Karachi, against the Additional Collector of Customs of Model Customs Collectorate and the Station Manager, KICT, on the grounds of (i) their failure to swiftly clear the imported goods, under the CARE system, as a result of which demurrage and terminal charges had to be paid, (ii) the request for examination was denied and no action was taken by the customs for 20 days, and (iii) loss of 3 bales of bed sheets causing financial loss.
During hearing of the complaint, the complainant said that the consignment consisted of 235 bales, out which, 217 bales had been delivered, while 15 bales had not been lifted and were available with KICT, and three bales were not traceable.
Customs Deputy Collector stated that according to the examination report, the full quantity of goods declared in the GD was available and there was no report of short landing. Since the case of 15 bales was sub judice before the Appellate Tribunal, the complaint was restricted, inter alia, to the loss of three bales of bed sheets which have allegedly not been delivered to the importer.
The KICT representative stated that KICT was aware of allegation that 3 bales were missing. He, however, admitted three weeks' delay in the conduct of examination, which caused the importer to pay container charges and storage charges.
After careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding the complaint, the FTO said that following issues had not been satisfactorily explained by Customs/KICT.
a) Since the importer was not required to locate and present the container for examination under the CARE procedure, the delay of three weeks in examination of goods lay either with the customs or the KICT. Due to this delay the complainant had to pay demurrage, storage and container charges.
b) It has not been explained why the importer or his agent was denied his right to be present at the time of examination or re-examination of goods when charge of misdeclaration was framed.
The customs have also not replied to the allegation that the request of the importer to re-examine the goods was not allowed.
c) The customs have stated that no shortage of goods was found at the goods' examination but three missing bales have not been traced by the Customs/KICT.
The FTO said that since the charge of misdelcaration against the complainant was upheld at the adjudication and appeal levels, and he paid the fine and penalty besides additional duty and taxes, he has the option to seek relief through the appellate forum or the court of competent jurisdiction.
However, he asked the CBR to enquire into the reasons of delay in examination and if it is established that the importer was not responsible for the same, he should be appropriately compensated by waiver and refund of demurrage, storage and container charges.
He further instructed the Customs authorities to locate three missing bales and after verifying that these were not offending goods their delivery be handed over to the importer without any fine, penalty or storage/demurrage charges.
He concluded his findings with the observation that "in case these bales are not delivered to the importer without valid reason, the customs should refund the duty and taxes already paid on these bales and the C&F value of the bales should also be paid to the importer".