LAHORE: The Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) has directed the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to facilitate the delivery of an auction of an imported vehicle to the complainant (successful bidder).
This decision was issued after a complaint was lodged against the Director of Intelligence & Investigation-Customs, Quetta, alleging unwarranted delays in both vehicle delivery and issuance of an auction certificate.
Complainant, won the Daihatsu Mira during an auction held by the Directorate of Intelligence & Investigation, FBR’s Regional Office in Quetta, with an approved bid of Rs1,055,000. This auction, facilitated by government-authorized auctioneer Business Line Indicators, required him to pay 25% of the bid (Rs. 1,00,000) immediately and the remaining 75% (Rs955,000) thereafter.
The complainant asserts he made both payments as per requirements, yet the Directorate failed to issue the auction certificate or assist with registration, citing various pretexts for the delay. He argued that the Directorate’s actions were not only illegal but an abuse of power under the “How it is Where it is” rule, which mandates auctioned items be delivered in their current state. The Directorate’s response indicated procedural concerns. They acknowledged
The complainant as the highest bidder but stated he failed to follow Customs Rules, specifically Rule 67, by not depositing the required 25% earnest money immediately. They added that, although he completed payment, he requested an extension to deposit the final amount, which the Directorate rejected for lack of specific justification.
The Directorate argued that this delay warranted forfeiture of the earnest money under Rule 69, which mandates forfeiture if the full amount isn’t paid within the stipulated time or extended period.
According to them, the Rs955,000 paid was due for a refund, although complainant hadn’t yet claimed it. They recommended that the complaint be dismissed as meritless.
The FTO found that complainant had completed the payment in full, despite some procedural delays, and considered that hardship extensions were permissible under relevant customs laws.
Rule 68 of the Customs Rules, 2001, empowers the Collector of Customs to extend the deposit period for up to fifteen days in cases deemed fit. Similarly, Section 224 of the Customs Act,1969, authorizes the FBR or appropriate customs officers to extend deadlines in hardship cases if delay causes substantial difficulty or hardship to the applicant.
The FTO’s analysis emphasized the following points:
The successful bidder fulfilled his financial obligations by depositing both the earnest andremaining bid amounts.
Rule 68 allows for a discretionary extension of payment deadlines by up to fifteen days,and Section 224 grants the FBR authority to extend deadlines in hardship cases.
Given these considerations and complainant’s complete payment, the delay should be condoned
In light of these findings, the FTO directed the FBR to:
i. Condone the delay in payment as per Section 224 of the Customs Act, 1969.
ii. Instruct the Director concerned to issue the vehicle’s delivery to Naimatullah once all procedural and legal requirements are met.
The FBR has been instructed to report compliance with these recommendations within 45 days, ensuring that the case is resolved without further unnecessary delay.
