Complainant is a successful bidder: FTO directs FBR to facilitate delivery of car – Pakistan

On November 1, 2024By Karl

ISLAMABAD: Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) has directed the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to facilitate the delivery of an imported vehicle to the complainant (successful bidder) at auction.

This decision was taken following a complaint filed against the Director of Intelligence and Investigation, Quetta, alleging undue delays in both vehicle delivery and issuance of the auction certificate.

The complainant won the Daihatsu Mira in the auction organized by the Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation, FBR’s Regional Office in Quetta, with a confirmed bid of Rs. 1,055,000. This auction, facilitated by the government’s authorized auctioneer Business Line Indicators, required payment of 25% of the bid (Rs 1,00,000) immediately and the remaining 75% (Rs 955,000) later.

The complainant alleges that he made both payments as required, but the Directorate did not issue the auction document or assist with the registration, citing various excuses for delay. He argued that the Directorate’s actions were not only illegal but also an abuse of power under the “How, Where” rule, which mandates that items up for auction be delivered in their current condition. The directorate’s response indicated procedural concerns. They accepted

Complainant stated that he failed to comply with the Customs Rules, particularly Rule 67, by being the highest bidder but not immediately depositing the required 25% earnest money. They added that although the payment was completed, an extension of time was requested for the final amount to be deposited, but the Directorate rejected this request because there was no specific reason.

The Directorate argued that this delay entails the forfeiture of earnest money under Rule 69, which mandates the imposition of penalty if the entire clause is not paid within the stipulated time or within the extended time.

According to them, the Rs 955,000 paid had to be refunded even though the complainant had not yet requested it. They recommended that the complaint be dismissed as unfounded.

The FTO found that the complainant had completed payment in full, despite some procedural delays, and considered that hardship extensions were permissible under the relevant customs laws.

Article 68 of the Customs Rules, 2001, authorizes the customs collector to extend the deposit period for up to fifteen days in cases deemed appropriate. Similarly, Section 224 of the Customs Act, 1969 empowers the FBR or the customs officers concerned to extend deadlines in difficult cases if the delay causes significant difficulty or inconvenience to the applicant.

The following points were highlighted in FTO’s analysis:

The successful bidder has fulfilled its financial obligations by depositing both the earnest and remaining bid amounts.
Rule 68 allows optional extension of payment deadlines up to fifteen days and Section 224 empowers the FBR to extend deadlines in difficult cases.
Considering these matters and the full payment of the complainant, the delay should be condoned.

In light of these findings, the FTO directed the FBR to:

I. Forgive delay in payment under Section 224 of the Customs Act, 1969.

ii. Instruct the Director concerned to arrange for the vehicle to be handed over to Naimatullah once all procedural and legal requirements are met.

The FBR was directed to report compliance with these recommendations within 45 days, so that the case could be resolved without further undue delay.