Category / International Trade

by Mike Poverello

International Shipping Federations take on Counterfeit Goods Trade

bascap

Leaders from global shipping firms, freight forwarders, brand owners whose products are counterfeited and industry organizations representing both industries signed a joint Declaration of Intent to Prevent the Maritime Transport of Counterfeit Goods in Brussels last week.

The event marked the first time the global shipping industry and brand owners have made a public commitment to work together to stop the transport of counterfeit goods on shipping vessels.

Initial signatories include the leading global shipping firms and freight forwarders and ten major multinational brand manufacturers, along with the International Federation of Freight Forwarders Associations (FIATA), and the International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC) Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP) and Commercial Crime Service (CCS).

More transporters, brand owners and their industry associations are expected to join the voluntary initiative as awareness grows.

According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, about 90 percent of all international trade is moved around the world in more than 500 million containers on 89,000 maritime vessels. While this represents approximately 90 percent of all international trade, UNODC says that less than two percent of these containers are inspected to verify their contents. This results in enormous opportunities for criminal networks to abuse this critical supply chain channel to transport huge volumes of counterfeit products affecting virtually every product sector.

According to a recent OECD/EUIPO report, $461 billion in counterfeit goods moved through international trade in 2013, with almost 10 percent being shipped on maritime vessels.

Maersk Line and CMA CGM Group, two of the largest global transport companies with approximately half of all global shipping, and Kuehne and Nagel and Expeditors, two of the leading freight forwarding and logistics companies with total revenues of more than $27 billion, were the first in their industries to sign the Declaration.

The non-binding Declaration acknowledges the “destructive impact” of counterfeits on international trade. It calls on the maritime transport industry to address it “through continuous proactive measures, and corporate social responsibility principles.” The Declaration includes a zero tolerance policy on counterfeiting, strict supply chain controls and other due diligence checks to stop business cooperation with those suspected of dealing in the counterfeit trade.

This commitment paves the way for new voluntary collaboration programs between intermediaries and brand owners to stop abuse of the global supply chain by counterfeiters.

“We are proud to be among the first in our industry to sign this historic Declaration,” said Michael Jul Hansen, Customs and Trade Compliance Lead for Maersk Line. “Maersk has been a leader in taking steps to prevent the use of our vessels for the shipment of counterfeit and other illicit goods, and this Declaration is a reaffirmation of our intent to do everything we can to ensure our ships are counterfeit free.”

The Declaration is a direct reaction to the concerns of brand owners that vessels transporting their legitimate products were also being exploited by criminal networks to transport fake versions. This phenomenon was summarized in a landmark report on the Role and Responsibilities of Intermediaries: Fighting Counterfeiting and Piracy in the Supply Chain, published in 2015 by BASCAP. Following publication of the report, BASCAP organized a working group of its members to initiate a cross-sector dialogue with the transport industry to discuss ways to work together to find voluntary solutions. Source: Maritime Executive 

by Mike Poverello

ICC – The mightiness of three capital letters

icc-2020

Who would have guessed that a collection of three-letter acronyms would have had such an impact on the development of international (and domestic) commercial transactions? A group of industrialists, financiers and traders whose determination to bring economic prosperity to a post-World War I era eventually led to the founding of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). With no global system of rules to govern trade, it was these businessmen who saw the opportunity to create an industry standard that would become known as the Incoterms rules.

To keep pace with the ever evolving global trade landscape, the latest update to the trade terms is currently in progress and is set to be unveiled in 2020. The Incoterms 2020 Drafting Group includes lawyers, traders and company representatives from around the world. The overall process will take two years as practical input on what works and what could possibly be improved will be collected from a range of Incoterms rules users worldwide and studied. For more information visit the ICC website. Source: ICC 

by Mike Poverello

BEPS Impact on Trade and Customs

Transcript of video
Todd Smith, principal in KPMG LLP’s Trade & Customs practice: We had over 350 people attend the webinar on Base Erosion and Profit Sharing (BEPS) from a Customs Perspective. I think the reason is because there hasn’t been a lot of discussion on how BEPS will impact customs.

I read all of the action items that the OECD published in October to identify where there would be crossover or an overlap on customs as it relates to BEPS. There clearly is going to be quite an impact.

For one thing, there is a lot of transparency that is being created overall by the BEPS initiatives, and customs auditors around the world are increasingly cooperating with the tax administrations around the world, so there will be a treasure trove of information for the customs auditors found within the Master File, the Local File and the CbC report, and just as tax administrators will use that information because of the information sharing, customs auditors will also use that information to identify targets for audits.

It will tell them, for example, where there is a related party transaction where they may not have had that information previously.

One of the big areas that we feel the customs function will be impacted by BEPS is where you have a situation where a company may need to convert a commissionaire to a buy-sell. When this happens, the importer of record could change, and more importantly the value that’s declared to customs under a commissionaire structure oftentimes is the third-party customer price. And when that entity converts to a buy-sell entity, the new buy-sell entity becomes the importer of record. It needs to achieve a margin, and the only way really to do that is to import that same product at a lower price.

And so the challenge is to convince the customs administration that the new price with the limited-risk distributor, for example, which is lower in its related party price, is still considered arm’s length, even though it’s less than the previous import value at the 3rd party customer price. Source: KPMG

Recommended reading

by Mike Poverello

Streamlined export clearance ‘worth billions’

trusted-trader-transparent

A new customs program aimed at bringing Australia into line with other major trading nations could substantially cut costs when exporting to Asia.

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIPB) believes that the benefits to the Australian economy of this streamlined export process could be worth up to $1.5 billion for every one per cent increase in efficiency of transport and logistics supply chains.

The pilot for the Australian Trusted Trader (ATT) program launched this month will eventually allow accredited export businesses to gain streamlined customs and security clearance in countries that have a mutual recognition agreement with Australia.

Similar programs have already been adopted by more than 58 international jurisdictions – including China, India, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea – since being introduced by the World Customs Organisation (WCO) in 2005.

Known generally as Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) schemes, they provide a framework of standards for trading partners in recognising each other’s customs and security regimes.

According to the Centre for Customs and Excise Studies (CCES) at Charles Stuart University, the goods of exporters who are accredited to the New Zealand AEO scheme are 3.5 times less likely to be inspected or held up on arrival in the US.

Professor David Widdowson, head of school at CCES, and a leading advocate and advisor on the introduction of the ATT, says that accreditation to an AEO is often an imperative for many international supply chains.

“When exporters send goods overseas and they get held up, there’s basically two ways that countries are dealing with them,” he said. “There those that come from a known secure supply chain – such those where a mutual AEO agreement is in place – and they’re treated as low-risk; and then there’s the rest, which are treated as high-risk.

“Without being part of an AEO or trusted trader agreement, Australian exporters are more often likely to fall into the latter category.

“In some jurisdictions it can be very difficult to be accepted onto an AEO scheme as an importer, so big multinationals often actively look for partners and suppliers who are already accredited to a scheme in their own country – and won’t deal with anyone who isn’t. They don’t want to run the risk of their non-accredited parts of their supply chain compromising their status on the scheme.

“So we can see how AEOs are actually now being used by commerce as a key indicator of the standard that business is looking for in terms of protecting their international supply chain.”

The aims of the ATT include expedited border clearance, reduced or priority inspections and priority access to trade services. The DIPB will also explore the possibilities for duty deferral and streamlined reporting arrangements.

Accredited trusted traders are to be assigned an account manager within the DIPB, as a single point of contact to assist with customs and export issues across all federal departments.

To apply to enter the program, Australian exporters and supply-chain businesses – including freight-forwarders, brokers and logistics firms – first need to obtain a self-assessment questionnaire from DIPB.

The information submitted by the business is then audited by the DIPB to ensure that the necessary security systems and procedures are in place, before accreditation can be given. There is no licence or application fee for the program, and Prof Widdowson expects the process to take “a few weeks if it’s a major company or it could be a few days if it’s a medium-sized company”.

The pilot phase will be completed in this current financial year, and only four companies will be taking part initially: Boeing Aerostructures Australia, Devondale Murray Goulburn, Mondelez Australia and Techwool Trading.

Teresa Conolan, assistant secretary of the Trusted Trader and Industry Branch at the DIPB, said more companies would be included in the pilot as it progresses.

“We’re hoping to have around 40 companies over the 12 months in the pilot, across a range of business sectors, so we can actually test the processes and make sure they are not too burdensome,” she said.

“Over four years we’re expecting around 1500 companies to join the scheme – so it’s certainly not going to cover all business.”

Conolan added that preliminary discussions with some countries were already underway, though negotiations on agreements were unlikely to begin until the ATT was fully launched next July.

She said Australia’s key trading partners would be the priority, but expected the negotiations and implementation of agreements with some of them to take a further year.

The rollout of the pilot program follows years of pressure from the Australian business community to embrace AEO, after initial reluctance by the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (ACBPS).

Following an article by The Australian Financial Review on March 20, 2013, which flagged Australia’s non-participation, business leaders sponsored a research study, undertaken by the CCES, which found that the scheme could be highly beneficial. Business groups began to lobby the federal government, by which time the ACBPS had reversed its attitude and agreed to consider implementing an Australian scheme.

For more information on the Australian Trusted Trader scheme, visit – trustedtraders@borders.gov.au

Also read:

by Mike Poverello

South Africa severely affected by commodity trade misinvoicing

Raw-gold-619x413Global Trade Review reports that trade mis-invoicing is costing some developing countries two-thirds of the value of certain commodity exports.

New data gleaned from two decades of export figures emphasises the tens of billions of dollars being lost from the global economy to the under-invoicing of commodities from Africa and South America.

Between 2000 and 2014, 67% of the value of total gold exports were lost from South Africa through under-invoicing – when an invoice states a price as a lower value than is actually being paid.

Also read Maya Forestater’s blog post Misinvoicing or misunderstanding? for an alternative explanation regarding the UN’s claims in its recent report Trade Misinvoicing in Primary Commodities in Developing Countries.

This is often done to avoid paying taxes and is one of the most common methods of trade-based money laundering. The total loss in this particular commodity export amounts to US$78.2bn. More than half of this is lost on the trade of gold between South Africa and India.

From 1996 to 2014, the mis-invoicing of oil exports from Nigeria to the US was worth US$69.8bn. This is the equivalent value of one-quarter of all oil exports to the US.

The data from the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) shows that in the 20 years from 1995, more than half of Zambia’s total copper exports fell victim to misinvoicing, with US$28.9bn-worth not showing up on the books of Switzerland, the primary market.

From 1990 to 2014, Chile lost US$16bn in potential taxable revenue in the copper trade to the Netherlands, while the Netherlands did not record US$5bn in cocoa exports from Côte d’Ivoire between 1995 and 2015.

This is the first large-scale analyses of under-invoicing for specific commodities and countries,  despite the fact that the practice has been so rife for decades.

More awareness has been raised to the practice in recent years – in no small part due to the work done by not-for-profit organisations such as Global Financial Integrity (GFI) – but the lack of resources allocated to its eradication in much of the world, coupled with the culpability of many officials around the world, means that little progress has been made.

There is still no global standard against trade-based money laundering as there is against, for instance, sanctions breaching. The fact that it pre-dates most formal financial systems also means that any measures taken to stop it are difficult to enforce.

“When we talk about illicit financial flows we’re always talking about curtailing it, because there’s not going to be any situation in which any set of policies is going to entirely limit criminal behaviour. We have many, many laws on the books and folks break them all the time. But if you can make it as difficult as possible for folks to engage in this kind of thing, you’re doing what you’re supposed to do it,” Liz Confalone, policy counsel at GFI tells GTR.

The report also brings to attention the practice of over-invoicing – whereby the price of a good is fraudulently increased, allowing the exit of illegal money from an economy. Often, this money is connected to the narcotics trade, or to other criminal activity.

The UNCTAD report reads: “Puzzling results also emerge at the trading partner level. Trade with the Netherlands presents a peculiar case, with systematic and substantial export over-invoicing. It appears that primary commodities exported to the Netherlands never dock in the Netherlands.

“The question is whether this is the outcome of smuggling or incorrect reporting of the residence of the buyers. Answering this question may require an investigation at the company level.”

The authors call on a three-pronged attack on trade mis-invoicing, encompassing greater government scrutiny of particular commodity sales, an improvement in trade statistics and greater transparency in certain jurisdictions.

They write: “The results from this study highlight the need for an investigation into the role of transnational corporations involved in the exploitation, export and import of commodities, as well as the role of secrecy jurisdictions in facilitating trade mis-invoicing.

“Such an investigation may shed light on the mechanisms of export over-invoicing and import smuggling. Enhanced transparency in global trade is indispensable, especially through co-ordinated enforcement of the rules on country-by-country reporting by TNCs at the global level.”

Speaking to GTR recently, Jolyon Ellwood-Russell, a Hong Kong-based trade finance partner at law firm Simmons & Simmons, called for more joined-up thinking on an intergovernmental level if the problem is to be tackled.

Praising moves by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the Monetary Authority of Singapore to clamp down on trade-based money laundering, he said: “The issue is that the techniques and methods are very complex and don’t necessarily fit into those existing countermeasure programmes. Both banks and regulators could probably benefit from a better understanding of trade finance structures and how they are used in trade-based money laundering.” Source: Global Trade Review

by Mike Poverello

NRCS to Fast-Track Letters of Authority for Compliant Importers

nrcsThe National Regulator of Compulsory Specifications (NRCS), in its battle to protect the country from non-compliant goods whilst facilitating trade, advises that it intends rolling out a pilot programme aimed at cutting delays in the issuance of Letters of Authority (LOA).

The intention is to categorise risk, thereby ensuring that applications from compliant importers will be fast tracked i.e.: the letters of authority will be processed in 21 days or less. Companies in the ‘low risk’ category will, however, be subjected to heavy penalties should they not meet the requirements.

The proposal the NRCS intends presenting to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) will reflect three categories of risk: low, medium and high. It is expected that NRCS will rollout its pilot study in the last 6 months of the year, before officially launching the programme early next year. Companies earmarked to participate in the pilot study will be identified by mid-June. Source: Shepstone & Wylie Attorneys – Taryn Hunkin

by Mike Poverello

Law firm cautions – Multiple Contracts can be Confusing

contractLaw firm Shepstone and Wylie cautions traders to be well aware of the legal considerations to be taken into account when negotiating an international trade transaction.

When importing or exporting goods, a trader is inclined to conclude a transaction on terms that place the least possible obligations on the trader concerned.

There are a number of separate (albeit related) agreements which form part of an international trade transaction e.g.:

  • Agreement of sale
  • Agreement of carriage
  • Insurance contract
  • Letter of credit or some payment agreement

Under the contract of sale, the main obligations are the effecting of payment on the part of the importer, and delivery of the agreed thing on the part of the exporter. The manner of delivery, passing of risk, obligation of insurance and carriage depend on the terms to which the parties have agreed.

Sale agreements usually deal with the rights and obligations of the parties by reference to Incoterms. Devised and published by the International Chamber of Commerce, Incoterms are at the heart of world trade. Incoterms are standard trade definitions most commonly used in international sales contracts.

The “E” & “F” terms are most onerous for the buyer. Such terms, however, allow the buyer to control the carriage and insurance and should reflect in a lower purchase price for the goods.

The “C” and “D” terms are less onerous for the buyer, but result in a higher purchase price and the seller arranges the carriage, and in most instances, the insurance.

While it is tempting to look for the least onerous incoterm, it may not always be a wise choice if it leaves the party exposed either under the other agreements, or due to consequence that were not considered.

A few commercial benefits to concluding a sale agreement based on Incoterms that obligate a party to bear the cost of insurance and carriage are:

  • An ability to negotiate a lower price or higher purchase price for the goods, depending on whether the party is a seller or a buyer; and
  • If the party has a good relationship with or a preference for a certain service provider, the party is able to obtain insurance or carriage services on terms and conditions more acceptable to it.

A vital consideration when negotiating an international trade transaction access to legal redress if things go wrong (and they often do in trade).

It is important to ensure that a party has a proper understanding of the agreed terms, including both the legal and commercial considerations. A party’s risk must also be considered against the full suit of contractual obligations in order to ensure:

  • The rights and obligations under the different agreements are compatible; and
  • Obvious benefits under one agreement do not pose risks under another.

Legal advice is always desirable in circumstances where a trader feels he does not have a full appreciation of the legal implications of the international trade transactions he is seeking to enter in to. Source: Shepstone & Wylie Attorneys – Quintus van der Merwe

by Mike Poverello

Historic Economic Partnership Agreement between EU and SADC

EU SADC EPAThe EU has signed an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) on 10 June 2016 with the SADC EPA Group comprising Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland. Angola has an option to join the agreement in future.

The other six members of the Southern African Development Community region – the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Zambia and Zimbabwe – are negotiating Economic Partnership Agreements with the EU as part of other regional groups, namely Central Africa or Eastern and Southern Africa.

For specific details on the key envisaged benefits of the agreement click here!

The EU-SADC EPA is the first EPA signed between the EU and an African region, with an East African agreement expected to follow in a few months, but with the West African agreement having met fresh resistance. EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström stressed at the signing ceremony the developmental bias in the agreement, which extended duty- and quota-free access to all SADC EPA members, except South Africa. Africa’s most developed economy has an existing reciprocal trade framework known as the Trade and Development Cooperation Agreement, which came into force in 2000.

South Africa, meanwhile, had secured improved access to the EU market on a range of agricultural products, as well as greater policy space to introduce export taxes. EU statistics show that bilateral trade between South Africa and the EU stood at €44.8-billion in 2015, with the balance tilted in favour of European exports to South Africa, which stood at €25.4-billion. This improved access had been facilitated in large part by South Africa’s concession on so-called geographical indications (GIs) – 252 European names used to identify agricultural products based on the region from which they originate and the specific process used in their production, such as Champagne and Feta cheese. In return, the EU has agreed to recognise over 100 South African GIs, including Rooibos and Honeybush teas, Karoo lamb and various wines.Sources: EU Commission and Engineering News

 

 

by Mike Poverello

EU – UCC strengthens the case for AEO

AEO-LogoHere follows an appreciation of AEO within the context of the EU. According to KGH customs consultancy services, being an Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) already entails advantages for companies that have invested in doing the work to gain the AEO certification. With the new Union Customs Code (UCC), companies with an AEO permit will be able to gain additional advantages leading to more predictable and efficient logistics flows as well as an increased competitive edge.

Centralised clearance (being able to clear all customs declarations from one central location in the EU) and self-assessment (self-declaration of custom fees, similar to VAT reporting) are two new possibilities under UCC that will be implemented towards the end of the initial UCC implementation period from 1 May 2016 to 31 December 2020. To take advantage of these, AEO will be a prerequisite. AEO-ready businesses will therefore be well positioned to take advantage of these new possibilities when they become available.

Direct AEO benefits, including fewer physical and document-based controls, pre-notification in case of controls, easier access to customs simplifications and other customs authorisations, as well as access to mutual recognition with third countries, will continue to apply under UCC. The same is true of the soft benefits, such as better cross-functional communication and cooperation, improved customs knowledge and better risk management, which often outweigh the direct benefits as detailed by customs authorities.

With the UCC, AEO becomes a permit (authorisation) and all AEO certifications will have to be reviewed in line with the new UCC guidelines. Much is recognisable from before, but there is an additional competency requirement that is realised through either experience and/or professional qualifications. There is also likely to be more focus on ensuring that AEO applicants have robust routines that reflect their business, and that those routines are known in the business and used on a day-to-day basis.

Ever since the Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) certification was launched in 2008, many companies have been trying to evaluate whether to go for AEO or not. What are the benefits? How long does it take to become certified? Can we do it ourselves or do we need some help? What do we really gain by being AEO? This has sometimes stopped companies taking active steps to get ready for AEO.

Furthermore, some AEO-certified companies have felt that they have been exposed to more controls after AEO certification than before. In other instances the initial certification was fairly easy to achieve, but it then proved much harder to retain at a subsequent audit because routines were not being kept up to date or there had been insufficient internal controls and reviews performed in the business.

Our experience shows that companies that did a thorough job at the time of certification and that also afterwards had a genuine focus on maintaining knowledge, following routines and updating documentation as and when appropriate, have been able to benefit from improved customs management to a greater extent than they first envisaged.

KGH opines there are six situations where being AEO could be beneficial for a company:

  • Freight forwarder serving customers with logistics flows to and from the EU.
  • Strong business links with countries where the EU either has mutual recognition or is likely to have it in the not too distant future.
  • Businesses with many permits that will be reconsidered as part of the transition to UCC, where being AEO may facilitate the reconsideration process for other customs permits.
  • Large customs guarantee, which may be able to be reduced as a result of being an AEO.
  • Interested in centralised clearance and self-assessment that will be introduced towards the end of the UCC implementation period.
  • Interested in raising customs knowledge in a business, in order to better manage risks and be able to take advantage of business opportunities connected with international trade.

Here AEO can also be seen as a seal of quality. Source: kghcustoms.com

by Mike Poverello

SA Wine exports increase by more than 20 perent over four years

SA WineWhile commodity prices tanked and unemployment rose during South Africa’s worst ever drought over the last few months, wine making increased.

What’s more, South African wine exports were up a further five percent in 2015 and the industry is expecting even more growth in 2016 as South African wine continues to find new markets around the world.

While almost every farming industry is struggling in South Africa, the wine industry is going through “one of its most exciting phases in history” according to Roland Peens, director of wine retailer Winecellar.co.za.

 

The country is the seventh largest producer of wine in the world and for the 12 months preceding June 2015, wine production was at 959 million liters, with 423 million liters sold for export and 395 million liters sold domestically.

Not only is South Africa producing some fantastic wines, but the struggling rand is actually helping wineries as it offers a lucrative export market. The UK is by far the biggest receiver of South African wines with 109 million liters exported here. Germany is second with 79 million while Sweden, France, Netherlands and Denmark all take between 20 to 25 million litres of South African wine.

Canada (18 million litres), USA (11 million liters), Belgium and China (9 million litres each) and Japan and Switzerland (6 million litres each) make up the other big export markets.
Source: www.thesouthafrican.com

by Mike Poverello

Transnet Seeks Private Sector Participation for new Inland Terminal

Tambo SpringsSouth Africa’s freight and logistics company Transnet this week launched its massive drive to bring private sector operators into the country’s freight system.

The company has issued a request for proposals inviting suitably qualified global logistics service providers to design, build, operate, maintain and eventually hand over its proposed inland container terminal in Tambo Springs, East of Johannesburg – a 630ha site located on land originally known as Tamboekiesfontein farm.

The concession will be over a 20-year period and will be Transnet’s biggest private sector participation project to date.

The proposed terminal is in line with Transnet’s drive to migrate rail friendly cargo off the country’s road network.

The terminal is expected to be in operation by 2019 and will have an initial capacity of 144 000 TEUs per annum, with an option to ramp it up to 560 000 TEUs, depending on demand.

The project entails the following:

  • Arrival and departure yard for handling cargo trains
  • Terminal infrastructure;
  • Terminal equipment;
  • Stacking area;
  • Warehousing space
  • Distribution centre
  • Inland Reefer facilities

Transnet Freight Rail will be responsible for the operation of the arrival and departure yard required to service the terminal.

The operator will be responsible for loading and offloading of containers and marketing of the facility. The winning bidder is expected to introduce new entrants – particularly black players – must have demonstrated technical expertise, a minimum of level 4 BBBEE status with a commitment to reach level 2 by the third year of operation.

Transnet currently operates 5 inland terminals in Gauteng, including the City Deep Container Terminal in Johannesburg, Africa’s largest inland port.

The proposed terminal is an integral part of the Presidential Infrastructure Co-ordinating Committee’s SIP 2, aimed at unlocking the country’s industrial development while boosting export capability. It is designed to complement Transnet’s container-handling capacity in the province.

This is the culmination of years of hard work and a demonstration of cooperative governance between Transnet, representing the national competence, and both the Gauteng Provincial Government and the Ekurhuleni Municipality.

The Tambo Springs terminal is one of three mega terminals that Transnet is planning to build in Gauteng over the next 20 years. It will be located in Ekurhuleni along the N3, just off the Natal Corridor.

The project is expected to create 50 000 jobs, and has stringent requirements for supplier development and skills transfer. Source: Transnet

by Mike Poverello

UNODC-WCO Container Control Programme – 2015 Annual Report online

Container Control ProgrammeThe year 2015 has been the most active one ever for this joint WCO – UNODC initiative, which tackles illicit trade in containerized transport.

A number of new countries joined the Container Control Programme (CCP), more than 130 training events, private sector meetings and study visits were implemented and significant seizures of drugs, counterfeit goods, cigarettes etc. were made by the Port Control Units established in the framework of this programme.

The 2015 CCP Annual Report also contains interviews with the Directors General of Georgia and Azerbaijan Customs as well as several statements by Customs’ and Private Sector stakeholders. Source: WCO

by Mike Poverello

US goes its own way on container weighing

World Cargo News reports  – While the Coast Guard maintains the US will be compliant with the SOLAS amendment on container weighing, US Shippers are interpreting guidance from US Coast Guard Rear Admiral Paul Thomas as confirmation they can continue with existing practice to declare the weight of their goods rather than weigh containers.

Following to the fallout over his comments at the Trans Pacific Maritime conference in Long Beach this month, Rear Admiral’s Thomas issued further guidance on the SOLAS amendment that requires containers to have a Verified Gross Mass before they are loaded on a vessel from 1 July.

The US Coast Guard (USCG) has since confirmed that SOLAS is binding on US shippers, but stated that how shippers work with carriers to obtain and report a VGM is a commercial matter for those parties to determine.

Some US shippers, including the US Agriculture Transport Coalition (ATC), have made it known it is not practical for them to supply, and be responsible for anything other than the weight of the cargo, as they do today. The Coast Guard appears to be facilitating this approach, and the ATC last month told its members it “received confirmation” from USCG that shippers can continue to verify the weight of the goods they own, while lines remain responsible for the weight of the container.

On March 14 some 49 groups and associations representing US primary producers, manufacturers, importers and shipper groups wrote to Coast Guard Commandant Paul Zukunft saying they support its “interpretation” of the SOLAS amendment, as presented by Rear Admiral Tomas in his blog.

“Specifically, we support the Admiral’s view that if the shipper provides the cargo mass weight, to which the carrier adds the weight of the container, then the intent of SOLAS is achieved. In fact, several ocean carrier executives have advised that such a process would be practical.”

Some carriers, however, have rightly pointed out that this does not meet the SOLAS requirement, as the letter then notes: “The reason for our concern, and appreciation of Admiral Thomas’ guidance, is that some ocean carriers, citing this SOLAS amendment, are demanding that the shipper certify both the cargo and the carrier’s container. This is contrary to the practical realities of our US export maritime commerce and fundamentally flawed conceptually. (It would be similar to demanding that a soybean shipper certify to the railroad the weight of the railcar itself.)”

The groups maintain that they “fully understand our responsibility to accurately disclose the weights of cargo tendered to the ocean carriers. In fact, advance submission of accurate gross cargo weight is a well-established practice mandated by US Customs and Border Protection, by numerous intermodal (trucking and rail) weight requirements, and presently found in Shipper’s Instructions to carriers to meet so-called “no doc, no load” cargo cutoffs for entry into marine terminals. In addition, an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Rule, in place since 1983, assures that the accurate weight of combined cargo and container be known to the carrier prior to loading.”

Despite SOLAS, the shipper groups do not see a need to weigh individual containers and suggest other solutions can be found: “for instance, shippers are willing to provide to their carriers an annual written confirmation in the service contract (or other mutually-agreed document) that our cargo weights are accurate”.

One of the major concerns is liability, in particular the requirement that someone now sign a VGM document. Shippers say carrier demands for this are being rejected. Many US Corporations will not allow their employee to certify the weight of and assume liability for equipment that the corporation does not own, manage, control and in fact may not even see.”

The Coast Guard, for its part, does not appear to be pushing the issue of current practice not meeting the new SOLAS requirements.

In his testimony at the US House Committee on Transport and Infrastructure’s hearing for the Coast Guard’s 2017 Budget request Admiral Paul F. Zukunft, Commandant, USG made the following statement: “Foreign carriers are pretty much all in compliance today. When I was at the container terminal in Long Beach a month and half ago all the containers that come on to that yard are already weighed before they go in. So I am not seeing a sky is falling panacea playing out around us, but we need to make sure that there aren’t unintended consequences. That is why we are continuing to reach out with the many exporters…that container shows up on a manifest before it is loaded on a ship. What is needed is that final weight, but by and large most of these manifests already have that weight filled in in that column.”

The US, it appears, intends to continue to follow current practice where the shipper provides a declared weight of the cargo, leaving it to the carrier to determine the final weight of the container. Source: World Cargo News

by Mike Poverello

Africa to Get First Automated Container Terminal

MarEx APM Tangier 2016Maritime Executive reports that the world’s third largest port operator APM Terminals said it will invest 758 million euros ($858.3 million) in a new transhipment terminal in Tangier, Morocco, that will be the first automated terminal in Africa.

APM Terminals, a unit of Denmark’s shipping and oil group A.P. Moller-Maersk, has been named as the operator of the new container transshipment terminal at the Tanger Med 2 port complex. The group already operates the APM Terminals Tangier facility at Tanger Med 1 port, which started operations in July of 2007 and handled 1.7 million TEUs in 2015. The new terminal will have annual capacity of five million TEUs.

Maersk Line, also a part A.P. Moller-Maersk, will be an important customer of the new terminal. The new terminal is scheduled to open in 2019, under the terms of a 30-year concession agreement with the Tanger Med Special Agency (TMSA), which has responsibility for the development and management of the Tanger Med port complex.

The Tanger-Med port complex is strategically located on Africa’s northwest coast near the mouth of the Mediterranean Sea on the Strait of Gibraltar, where the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea meet. Tanger-Med is the second-busiest container port on the African continent after Port Said, Egypt. The new APM Terminals MedPort Tangier terminal will increase the port’s total annual throughput capacity to over nine million TEUs.

APM Terminals MedPort Tangier will have up to 2,000 meters of quay length and will feature the technology pioneered at the APM Terminals Maasvlakte II Rotterdam terminal which opened in 2015.

For APM Terminals the Western Mediterranean is an important market. APM Terminals Algeciras, on the Spanish side of the Strait of Gibraltar, operates in tandem with APM Terminals Tangier as an integrated Western Mediterranean transshipment hub. APM Terminals Algeciras handled more than 3.5 million TEUs in 2015, and has completed a major upgrading of its cranes and quay infrastructure to accommodate ultra-large container Ships of 18,000 TEU capacity and above.

The location of the Tangier and Algeciras facilities provide a natural transshipment location for cargoes moving on vessels to and from Africa from Europe and the Far East on the primary East/West shipping route through the Mediterranean Sea; over 200 cargo vessels pass through the Strait of Gibraltar daily on major liner services linking Asia, Europe, the Americas and Africa.

While African ports at present account for only 4.5 percent of global port throughput (including transshipment cargoes), the United Nations 2015 World Population Prospects Report projects that more than half of the world’s population growth between 2015 and 2050 will occur in Africa, with the African population more than doubling from 1.1 billion to 2.4 billion over the next three and a half decades.

Significant investment in port and transportation infrastructure will be required to meet the anticipated needs of the expanding African population and corresponding economic growth.

APM Terminals is the largest port and terminal operating company in Africa by equity-weighted container volume, with 12 facilities operating in 10 countries and three more terminals under construction. Source: Maritime Executive

by Mike Poverello

SA – New Bills discouraging trade and investment

containeryardSouth Africa is moving away from a policy promoting trade and investment to one that contradicts this, a roundtable on SA-European Union (EU) trade relations heard on Tuesday.

This comes as global foreign direct investment (FDI) flows jumped 36% last year to their highest level since the global economic and financial crisis began in late 2008, but plummeted in emerging markets, especially SA.

The most recent United Nations (UN) Conference on Trade and Development global investment trends monitor shows FDI into SA fell 74% to $1.5bn last year, while FDI inflows to Africa fell 31% to about $38bn.

Central Africa and Southern Africa saw the largest declines in FDI. The end of the commodity “supercycle” and the plunge in oil prices affected new project developments drastically, the UN body said. This had also affected Brazil, Russia and China, but not India, whose economy had surged ahead of late.

Peter Draper, MD of Tutwa Consulting, which researches policy and regulatory matters in emerging markets, said the promulgation of legislation such as the private security bill and the expropriation bill, created an impression that SA was not an attractive investment destination.

“What lies behind all of that, I think, is an ideological agenda, which is not favourable to business,” he said. “Geopolitically there is no love between SA and the US and SA and the EU. (But) There is lots of love for the Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China, SA).”

South African and international business have raised the alarm over the quiet signing into law of SA’s Promotion and Protection of Investment Bill late last year, after the government had acknowledged that it would do little to promote trade.

Meanwhile, the Department of Trade and Industry said last week that the African National Congress had directed its economic transformation subcommittee to review the trade agreements signed by SA since 1999.

It said SA’s goal in “negotiating” trade agreements was to support national development objectives, promote intra-African trade and the integration of SA into global markets. This is likely to be highly controversial after the government from 2013 unilaterally cancelled about 13 bilateral investment treaties with major EU countries, drawing warnings from the bloc that this could damage trade relations.

Investors fear the Protection of Investment Bill has diluted recourse to international arbitration over trade disputes, and enhances the possibility of expropriation. Critics also say it contradicts SA’s obligations under the Southern African Development Community’s finance and investment protocol, by undermining equitable treatment between foreign and domestic investors.

John Purchase, CE of agribusiness association Agbiz, which with Tutwa Consulting organised yesterday’s roundtable, said the bill had not answered “all those questions around the bilateral investment treaties”. Source: Business Day