There have been accusations and counter-accusations in the furore surrounding the contentious customs bills, with some accusing the SA Association of Freight Forwarders (Saaff) of having sold the opposition down the river on one of the vital points in their argument – an accusation Saaff has strongly contested. According to Pat Corbin, the heavyweight in the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce and Industry (JCCI) resistance team, the Saaff agreement with the SA Revenue Service (Sars) legal and policy team on the status of inland ports vetoed a main argument against the bills. This primary opposition argument was that the loss of the inland ports like City Deep removed what had been a main player in the effective movement of SA trade for 37 years. Corbin also pointed out that Sars was moving contrary to the global trend on inland ports, with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) December agreement on trade facilitation actually encouraging the expansion of the inland port concept as a valuable trade tool. But Saaff had come to an agreement with Sars, well before last week’s decision that the customs bills would go through for promulgation this parliamentary term, that accepted the removal of the “inland ports” designation for the likes of City Deep. This agreement, recorded by Sars L&P, read: “Consensus was reached that City Deep and other similar facilities are not inland ports, but licensed inland container terminals. There is thus no need to include a provision in the Control Bill providing for inland ports.” That, according to Corbin, yanked the mat from under the feet of the opposition’s main argument against the issue of clearance at the first port of entry included in the Customs Control Bill – and more or less guaranteed that the bill would go through unchanged. But this argument about Saaff ’s betrayal was rejected by another body in the opposition camp. Dr Laurraine Lotter, director of Business Unity SA (Busa), suggested that all the bodies affected by the new bills had to fight for the best deal for their members. And that, she added, was exactly what Saaff had done. “Their agreement with Sars doesn’t give it exclusivity (among the arguments about the Customs Control Bill),” she told FTW. “It still has to go through the National Assembly, and they may not agree with it.” Dave Watts, Saaff ’s maritime adviser, but speaking only in his own capacity, told FTW that this was not the association selling the opposition down the river. “Rather,” he said, “Saaff only accepted what was inevitable. In my opinion there was no way that customs was not going to insist on a pre-declaration for goods going inland.” This also doesn’t interfere with the inland movement of goods either, he added. Watts made it clear that he was among those who felt that section 90 (4) of the Customs Control Bill (which requires mandatory clearance at the port of entry) was a retrogressive step for this country’s freight supply chains. “However,” he added, “I believe that the various improvements negotiated by Saaff and others with Sars’ legal team provide a means for inland importers to continue making final clearance declarations at licensed inland container terminals such as City Deep.” Among the changes now included in the bill is the introduction of a ‘pre-clearance declaration’ for containerised cargo consigned to a licensed inland container terminal. This declaration – which will provide full details regarding tariff, value and origin etc – must be submitted three calendar days before the vessel’s arrival. “The declaration, apart from customs duty and VAT payment,” said Watts, “will be a mirror image of the final submission to be processed for release at the inland terminal. Assuming customs’ risk management system does not identify any reason to detain the container at the coast, a provisional release for on-forwarding only to the nominated inland terminal will be granted before the vessel’s arrival. This will allow agents and carriers to plan the supply chain. “The provisional clearance and release, as well as final submission and release, are all electronic messages. It follows that importers or agents preparing such clearance declarations will simply need to resubmit an identical entry on arrival inland – with only the relevant duty and VAT included.” Whether inland importers will choose this process or simply decide to clear finally at the coast remains to be seen, according to Watts. “Whether this additional declaration will materially increase costs is also an open question. “Other matters requiring clarity are whether transport by road will be allowed, and, if so, under what conditions. A clear definition of ‘vessels arrival’ – which often does not correspond with published estimated times of arrival (ETAs) – will be required.” Watts noted that a delay of 12 months in the implementation of section 90(4) to allow trade to prepare appropriately has been included in the Control Bill. He also pointed out that the standing committee on finance clearly understood the caveats which Saaff and various industry stakeholders had outlined at the two meetings. “As a result,” he added, “they have required a ‘fall back’ provision to be included in the Act. This will allow for a return to the current customs control system should this new policy fail.” INSERT The various improvements provide a means for inland importers to continue making final clearance declarations at licensed inland container terminals such as City Deep. – Dave Watts
