ISLAMABAD: Collector Customs Adjudication Islamabad Ihsan Ali Shah has said we are not revenue collectors, our duty is to provide justice to everyone without discrimination and we are doing it well. The Adjudication Department needs more resources including staff for excellent performance. Though adjudication collectorate part of the Federal Board of Revenue yet we decide cases impartially and on merit. We took several decisions against the Federal Board of Revenue therefore people believe and trust us. We take decisions on facts and according to the law, no matter who are the beneficiaries. If FBR concentrates to improve and promote this department, litigation rate should be reduced. He stated this while giving an exclusive interview to Customs Today.
He mentioned that customs officers never make fake cases against anyone as they know that they will have to face the department. More than 85 percent cases are true and based on facts. He said sometimes people complain that customs staff partially behaves with them. In the same type of cases they never touch some parties and their point of view may be right but this matter is not related to my jurisdiction. It’s the reason that more than 80 percent cases are decided in favour of the Federal Board of Revenue.
The adjudicating officers should contribute to writing concise and speaking judgments and orders. The reason is very important in every Order-In-Originals. There should be no ambiguity if adjudicating officer explains it well then both parties will be satisfied. It will be enough for the FBR to lay down clear job description of the officers working at different levels in the case-making formations. Presently, the case-making and case-contesting is something which seems to have fallen mainly in the hands of superintendents, intelligence officers, appraisers and inspectors.
The FBR needs to break this practice. The quality of case-making should not be compromised. The case-making formations must ensure that the cases they make are supported by calculation sheets and all documentary evidence to substantiate the assertions made in the case. There must be someone in the case-making formations to take stock of how effectively their cases are followed up before the adjudicating officers.
He said that in many cases, the basis of determination of liability remains shrouded in mystery. The documents in support of the allegations are many a time missing. The follow-up officials miss the hearing dates. The investigation or prosecution officers need to change this attitude and practice.
