DTI and Sars look into implications ALAN PEAT COMPLAINTS FROM the exclusive clothing retailing industry about the immeasurable difficulties in complying with the new clothes labelling laws have met with a co-operative stance from the department of trade and industry (DTI). This followed retailer Phillip Abelheim releasing details to FTW (July 1, 2005) of the difficulties for these small importers arising from notice 657 of 2005 of the Merchants Marks Act 17 0f 1941. He specifically referred to clause (a) number 2 – which reads: “there shall be permanently applied to them in a conspicuous and easily legible manner words stating clearly the SA Revenue Service (Sars) importer registration code for imported goods....” The reasoning behind this section of the notice was that there was a crisis in the local manufacturing industry and that more people were for than against the act, according to Shareen Osman, director of textiles, clothing, leather and footwear for the DTI. But, she added, the department is now aware that section (a) 2 is at issue. “There will be an internal discussion and a workshop will then be called,” she said. According to Stoffel van Rensburg from Sars the request for section (a) 2 came from customs, and was designed to control audit checks and link points of sale to importers. When Abelheim stated his concern about the propensity for identity theft if a company’s importer code became publicly available, and the possibility of illegal trafficking being done on a stolen importer’s code, Van Rensburg said he considered this a valid point and undertook to look into it. Osman also said that her department was aware that certain leather products might be problematic – but that each situation would be evaluated individually. Stating the case for this specialised retail sector to the meeting attended by three representatives of the DTI two from Sars, one each from Sacob and the SA Association of Freight Forwarders (Saaff), and 10 from the retailers’ sector, Linda Korck of Nina Roche International Shoe Collection said that the products imported by them were prestige label-orientated merchandise for a specific niche market. “These,” she added, “do not in any way replace or compete with locally produced merchandise. “In order to comply with this act, specific action from suppliers will be necessary during a certain stage in production,” she said. After a detailed submission she asked for a delay in the implementation of this act until the minister had had the opportunity to study the negative effect that this act would have on fair trade for small importers of high-end merchandise. Korck also called for the minister to study the effect of prohibiting the importation of non-complying items into the country, to consider the implications for state and airport warehouses, and to look carefully at the possibility that customs might not be in a position to monitor the labelling act on a consistent and fair basis.
