A complaint relating to customs proceedings was examined under the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, concerning a request for rectification of an alleged clerical error under section 155R of the Customs Act, 1969.
The matter pertained to exports made under the Export Facilitation Scheme (EFS), where it was claimed that certain export Goods Declarations were inadvertently filed under the Commercial Exports category instead of the EFS tab. It was contended that this discrepancy occurred due to a clerical mistake and that a formal application for correction was submitted to the concerned customs authorities along with supporting documentary evidence.
The record revealed that the case was duly referred to the Revenue Division for comments in accordance with the law. In response, the customs authorities maintained that all actions, including cancellation of EFS authorization, issuance of show cause notice, audit, and recovery proceedings, were undertaken strictly in accordance with applicable legal provisions and prescribed procedures. It was further stated that the issue did not fall within the definition of maladministration under the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.
Upon examination of the case record and submissions made during the hearing, it was observed that a substantial number of export consignments were declared outside the EFS regime. The discrepancy was found to involve a large volume of export declarations, resulting in the wrongful availing of fiscal benefits.
Based on the findings, it was concluded that no maladministration could be attributed to the customs authorities, who acted in accordance with the law. The complaint was found to lack merit, and a penalty was imposed under section 22(2) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, with directions for its deposit within the stipulated time, failing which recovery proceedings may be initiated under the Customs Act, 1969.
The case was accordingly decided and consigned to record.
