Expressing serious concern over performance of customs appraisers, Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) Abdur Rauf Chaudhry questioned if the Appraises cannot detect non application of a Valuation Ruling in a Goods Declaration, then how the Appraisement staff can detect evaders indulged in avoidance of Valuation Rulings. These remarks were given by FTO while deciding a complaint against the Customs authorities at Karachi for maladministration in passing an allegedly unlawful assessment order.
The complaint was filed under Section 10(1) of the FTO Ordinance, 2000 against the Customs authorities at Karachi for maladministration in passing an allegedly unlawful assessment order dated 16.01.2010 and failing to accept the Complainant's request to reopen the Order-in-Original (O-in-O) No 276/2013 dated 23.04.2013 under which a short levy of Rs 48,476 was adjudged against the complainant.
According to the order of the FTO, non-application of the Valuation Ruling at the time of appraisement is another failure of the appraisement staff. The appraisement system followed by the Appraisement Collectorates is based on self-assessment which is cross-checked by the Customs experts known as "Appraisers" to point out any deficiency in declarations made by the importers/clearing agents to forestall post-clearance disputes of short-levies as one is involved in this case. Application of Valuation Rulings is therefore as much the obligation of importers/clearing agents as that of the Appraisement Staff. If the Appraises cannot detect non-application of a Valuation Ruling in a Goods Declaration, how can the Appraisement staff detect evaders indulged in avoidance of Valuation Rulings?
The FBR has directed Collector of Customs, MCC Appraisement (East) to reopen the case to examine the propriety and legality of the O-in-O No 276/2013 dated 23.04.2013; provide opportunity of hearing to the Complainant and decide the matter, as per law and report compliance within 45 days. In view of the facts, acts of omission and commission by the Customs staff constitute maladministration in terms of Section 2(3) of the Ordinance, FTO ruled.