Rs54 billion embezzled in ISAF container case: SC told
Supreme Court expresses its disappointment over the non-compliance of the FBR in implementing previous court orders.
The supplies sent to ISAF forces in Afghanistan via Pakistan are facing corruption scandals and court hearings PHOTO: isaf.nato.int
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court was informed on Monday that an amount of Rs 54.73 billion had been embezzled in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) containers' case and the people involved in looting money have got stay orders from High Court.
Earlier reports had said that about 28,000 originally meant for international forces in Afghanistan under the Afghan Transit Trade (ATT) agreement, had gone missing from the Karachi port.
These containers were carrying supplies for the international forces in Afghanistan.
The counsel for the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) Rana Shamim made these remarks to a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Azmat Saeed during the hearing of theimplementation of ISAF containers scandal. During the proceeding, Shamim apprised the court regarding the hurdles in recovering the amount as almost all of the transporters involved in the case were Afghans and they work as bonded labourers.
Justice Azmat said that the FBR should have recovered the embezzled money, upon which the counsel stated that the said persons had taken a stay order from the high court. The counsel further stated so far 11,589 show cause notices had been issued against 32,460 containers.
Justice Azmat remarked that out of 11,589 show cause notices, only 96 contained orders which was a very small number.
Justice Gulzar stated that the matter was very serious, despite thatit was handled in a very casual manner. The CJ remarked, "It is only the tip of an iceberg, still there are more things to come out."
Justice Gulzar questioned that if action was taken against anyone and if anyone was dismissed, replying to which the counsel replied in the negative, saying that such actions were not possible at the time because the case was still a sub-judicial matter.
Justice Chaudhry remarked that the first orders were sent to the FBR in 2011 and even after one and a half year, the FBR was not complying with them.
The bench was of the view that complete documents were sent to the FBR and even yet no recovery was made.
Later, the bench stated that relevant judgements would be passed in a couple of days.
The Supreme Court was informed on Monday that an amount of Rs 54.73 billion had been embezzled in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) containers' case and the people involved in looting money have got stay orders from High Court.
Earlier reports had said that about 28,000 originally meant for international forces in Afghanistan under the Afghan Transit Trade (ATT) agreement, had gone missing from the Karachi port.
These containers were carrying supplies for the international forces in Afghanistan.
The counsel for the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) Rana Shamim made these remarks to a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Azmat Saeed during the hearing of theimplementation of ISAF containers scandal. During the proceeding, Shamim apprised the court regarding the hurdles in recovering the amount as almost all of the transporters involved in the case were Afghans and they work as bonded labourers.
Justice Azmat said that the FBR should have recovered the embezzled money, upon which the counsel stated that the said persons had taken a stay order from the high court. The counsel further stated so far 11,589 show cause notices had been issued against 32,460 containers.
Justice Azmat remarked that out of 11,589 show cause notices, only 96 contained orders which was a very small number.
Justice Gulzar stated that the matter was very serious, despite thatit was handled in a very casual manner. The CJ remarked, "It is only the tip of an iceberg, still there are more things to come out."
Justice Gulzar questioned that if action was taken against anyone and if anyone was dismissed, replying to which the counsel replied in the negative, saying that such actions were not possible at the time because the case was still a sub-judicial matter.
Justice Chaudhry remarked that the first orders were sent to the FBR in 2011 and even after one and a half year, the FBR was not complying with them.
The bench was of the view that complete documents were sent to the FBR and even yet no recovery was made.
Later, the bench stated that relevant judgements would be passed in a couple of days.