logo
Textile industry slams EFS changes

Textile industry slams EFS changes

Express Tribune2 days ago
Listen to article
The Pakistan Textile Council (PTC) has strongly criticised the Federal Board of Revenue's (FBR) recent amendments to the Export Facilitation Scheme (EFS), warning that the changes pose a direct threat to the survival of the country's textile and apparel exports.
PTC, which accounts for over 30% of the country's textile and apparel exports, has submitted a formal set of objections and recommendations to the FBR in response to SRO 1359(1)/2025 dated July 29, 2025. The PTC's submission, in line with the five-day window provided for feedback, strongly criticises the recent amendments to the EFS, warning that the changes could paralyse Pakistan's value-added export sector at a time of heightened global economic uncertainty.
It stressed that the EFS ensures competitiveness for textile and apparel exporters. However, the amendments have not only overlooked recommendations of a high-level government committee, led by Planning Minister Ahsan Iqbal, but have also introduced restrictive and impractical conditions that threaten the sector's survival.
One of the most damaging provisions, according to the PTC, is the exclusion of cotton, cotton yarn and grey cloth from the scope of the EFS. "This clause must be immediately withdrawn," the council stated, as it was never agreed that those materials would be excluded. At most, a refundable general sales tax (GST) on cotton yarn above a certain count was under discussion. "Their blanket removal from the scheme is unjustified and economically reckless."
PTC Chairman Fawad Anwar termed the move a "tax on exports," saying that it would impose a severe financial burden on exporters already grappling with global protectionism, rising input costs and new trade barriers, including the recently imposed reciprocal duties by the United States. "The timing could not be worse. Exporters are under stress and instead of supporting them, the government is pushing policies that increase costs and complicate operations," he said.
The PTC's policy note recommended that input utilisation period should remain at 18 months, with the possibility of a six-month extension by the regulatory authority. Any extension beyond that should be subject to approval by an FBR-appointed committee. Additionally, the council suggests that unused input materials should be allowed to be carried forward into the following year upon submission of a reconciliation statement.
The authorisation mechanism for input acquisition should be more flexible. For new EFS users, the regulatory authority may approve provisional authorisation up to 50% of the claimed production capacity, with the remainder granted upon capacity verification by the Input Output Coefficient Organisation (IOCO).
Furthermore, annual authorisation should be automatically triggered following submission of reconciliation statements via the Web Based One Customs (WeBOC) or Pakistan Single Window (PSW) system, subject to post-audit adjustments.
The council urged the FBR to shift from bank guarantees to insurance guarantees, noting that the latter would significantly reduce the compliance burden and financial stress for exporters.
It highlighted the operational impracticality of new vendor restrictions in toll manufacturing. Under the current amendment, goods sent for outside processing must be returned within 60 days, vendor details must be pre-recorded and any subsequent changes require prior collectorate approval. The PTC argued that these requirements are unnecessarily rigid and disrupt operational flexibility and negotiations with sub-contractors. It urged the removal of excessive data requirements, such as vehicle numbers, and called for the extension of toll manufacturing duration.
The council rejected the proposed rule mandating physical sampling to verify the utilisation of imported inputs. It called for the reinstatement of the original examination-marked sampling provisions, emphasising that the new rule would delay exports and create bottlenecks in the verification process. Finally, and most critically, the PTC demanded the immediate reversal of the exclusion of cotton, cotton yarn and grey cloth from the EFS. These materials are fundamental to the textile value chain and excluding them will force exporters to bear upfront import duties and taxes despite being net foreign exchange earners.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘Same-day tax recovery from banks after notice issuance is unlawful'
‘Same-day tax recovery from banks after notice issuance is unlawful'

Business Recorder

time12 minutes ago

  • Business Recorder

‘Same-day tax recovery from banks after notice issuance is unlawful'

LAHORE: Tax recovery from banks on behalf of taxpayers on same day after issuance of a notice is unlawful, said tax practitioners. They said the department was legally not empowered to affect immediate recovery from a taxpayer's bank or third party on the same day notice under Section 140, particularly where such notice follows the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) Inland Revenue. It is a common practice that department amends tax returns to raise demands worth billions of rupees and issue notices on that same day under Section 140 to recover the amount from the taxpayer's bank accounts within less than 30 minutes after uploading the decision on the FBR web portal. In some cases, a similar course of action occurs even late at night on the same day. The departmental sources said Section 140 of the ITO authorizes the Commissioner Inland Revenue to effectuate recovery of outstanding tax dues. Additionally, Rule 210c(3) of the Income Tax Recovery Rules, 2002 states that the amount mentioned in the notice is to be paid on the day the notice is served. However, the tax practitioners have pointed out that Section 140(1) clearly requires the commissioner to fix a specific future date in the notice for payment. In most of cases, recovery is initiated within hours of the appellate order, denying them any meaningful opportunity to comply or challenge the demand. This conduct violates the procedural safeguards built into the Ordinance and breached constitutional rights of taxpayers. Issuing recovery notices on the same day when the appellate orders were uploaded, and attaching bank accounts within minutes or hours, violated the principle of fair notice and procedural justice, they stressed. According to these circles, the tax recovery is not a grab-and-go process. Even coercive measures must adhere to proper legal procedures. Tax authorities are not punitive agencies, but institutions responsible for promoting compliance through fairness and clarity. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

FBR eases key Finance Act provisions
FBR eases key Finance Act provisions

Business Recorder

timean hour ago

  • Business Recorder

FBR eases key Finance Act provisions

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has relaxed some major enforcement provisions of the Finance Act 2025 including provisions of arrest in tax fraud cases and cash deposits in the bank account of the seller would now be considered through banking channels. The FBR has also announced that the withholding tax rate on profit on debt derived from sources such as National Saving Schemes or post office Savings Account etc. remains unchanged for 2025-26. The FBR has relaxed these conditions through issuance of income and sales tax budget explanatory circulars issued on Monday. FBR delays Finance Act steps, eases importers declarations The income tax circular stated that for the purposes of section 21(s), it is clarified that when a person, whether an NTN holder or otherwise, deposits the cash against invoices in the bank account of the seller, the payment shall be treated as having taken place through banking channel and no disallowance of the expenditure will be made in this regard under this clause. The FBR has further clarified that the tax rate on profit on debt derived from deposits in banking companies, financial institutions and investment in government securities, except the profit derived by individuals from government securities, have been increased from 15% to 20%. The tax rate on profit on debt derived from sources such as National Saving Schemes or Post office Savings Account etc. remains unchanged. Necessary changes in this regard have been incorporated in Division lA of Part lll of the First Schedule. Prior to Finance Act, 2025 in Tenth Schedule the rate for non-filer persons were specified at 35% on profit on debt. Now this entry has been omitted and for tax year 2026 and onwards hundred percent increases in tax rates for non-filers persons deriving income from profit on debt will apply. The new section 175AA of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 envisages secure exchange of information allowing Board to share particulars of a taxpayer declared in its income tax/sales tax return as well as financial/wealth statement with scheduled banks through database algorithms for cross matching. After needful has been performed, the scheduled banks will provide to the Board data of such bank transactions which is at variance with the given input of the Board. The implementation of this provision will be helpful in compliance risk management. The information will be kept confidential and only be used for tax purposes. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Curbs on economic transactions of ‘ineligible persons': FBR explains Section 114C of Finance Act
Curbs on economic transactions of ‘ineligible persons': FBR explains Section 114C of Finance Act

Business Recorder

timean hour ago

  • Business Recorder

Curbs on economic transactions of ‘ineligible persons': FBR explains Section 114C of Finance Act

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) will notify a date for imposing restrictions on the economic transactions of 'ineligible persons', who would fail to declare sources of income/investments in their wealth statements. Explaining the Finance Act 2025, the FBR has issued income tax circular (1 of 2025) here on Monday. According to the circular, section 114C has been introduced through Finance Act, 2025. This provision introduces a concept of eligible and ineligible person based upon the financial capacity of a person to conduct an economic transaction in terms of cash or cash equivalent assets declared in the wealth statement filed for the latest tax year or an evidentiary source reflected in investment and expenditure statement filed as justification for availability of funding for conducting an economic transaction during the year. FBR delays Finance Act steps, eases importers declarations To be qualified as an eligible person for carrying out specified economic transaction, sufficient resources must be available either in the wealth statement or in the financial statement for the tax year immediately preceding the year of transaction; or in a statement of source of investment and expenditure filed during the year of transaction showing sufficient resources. Sufficient resources have been defined as one hundred and thirty percent of cash and cash equivalent assets comprising cash denominated in local or foreign currency, fair market value of gold, net realizable value of stocks, bonds, receivables; or any other cash equivalent asset as may be prescribed. Moreover, an economic transaction involving exchange of already declared capital assets as consideration has been treated as part of cash and cash equivalent assets to the extent of the value mentioned in the transaction agreement. In case of an individual, the term 'eligible person' includes his immediate family members i.e. parents, spouse and dependent children. Under this new regime, an ineligible person has been barred from purchase of motor vehicle with an invoice value exceeding Rs 7 million; acquisition or transfer of immoveable property having fair market value exceeding Rs 100 million; investment in securities, unit of mutual funds or similar investment having its cost of acquisition exceeding Rs 50 million subject to the condition that the investment up to fifty million rupees must be a new investment in any financial year excluding reinvestment out of liquidation or profit of already held investment. It is highlighted that the sufficient resources declared in source of expenditure statement will not constitute as nature or sources of income for the purposes of section 111 of the Ordinance. Cash withdrawal from any of his bank account exceeding an amount Rs 100 million is also prohibited under this section. The provision of this section will not apply on transactions made by a non-resident person or a public company except the transaction of withdrawal of cash. Moreover, the provisions of this section will come into force from such date as may be notified by the Federal Government through notification in the official Gazette, FBR added. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store