Category / South African Customs

by Mike Poverello

South African Customs and the Portcullis

Some ferreting through the archives of certain ‘aged’ customs officials resulted in success. I was able to obtain a colour rendition of the pre-SA Revenue Service customs coat of arms. Portcullis is prominently featured in the heraldry with the latin inscription – ‘Colligimus et Custodimus’. Not much has changed since then. The modern era customs division’s focus remains ‘collect and protect’, with a major emphasis on ‘collect’.

Since the amalgamation of the former Departments of Customs and Excise and the Receiver of Revenue, in 1997, revenue collection has been the primary focus of the South African Revenue Service. Customs revenue receipts from duties and taxes on imports and customs union cross border movemnts remains significantly relevant to warrant such an approach. Various trade liberalisation initiatives have seen revenue receipts under strain in recent times, and the emergence of the scourge of illicit trade – counterfeit tobacco, textile and electronic goods and narcotics now posing a greater threat the local economy.

After years of modernisation initiatives in SARS – the Customs division will soon revitalise its position and reinforce its frontline capabilities with a series of significant advances; many of these technology-driven, reinforced by a formadible and completely new legal framework, and some vigorous management support. As the portcullis is now but a distant memory of the former ‘gate-keeper’ role of Customs and Excise, the new dispensation – under the banner of modernisation – undertakes the challenge of outsmarting the modern-day sea pirates and highway men across its frontiers with an invisible tool – the multi-layered risk management approach.

by Mike Poverello

Customs & Excise and the Portcullis

A portcullis is a latticed grille or gate made of wood, metal or a combination of the two. The portcullis often appears as a device or emblem in heraldry, such as that employed as the symbol for the Palace of Westminster, London. Another example is where a portcullis formed the crest of the now defunct HM Customs and Excise. They have used the badge for some centuries. Apparently, the portcullis came to be regarded as a symbol representing the gates of the kingdom, that is, the seaports; which were, of course, the seats of operation of the Customs. In fact many Customs administrations incorporated the portcullis in their emblems prior to the 1990’s. The former Department of Customs and Excise, South Africa, likewise bore a portcullis in its coat of arms. (I will endeavour to locate a picture of it in due course).
The portcullis is the traditional symbol of Customs. It is a symbolic representation of a nation’s ports, that is, the gates through which international trade must pass. For centuries, the role of gatekeeper has fallen to Customs. The Customs Co-operation Council (now known as the World Customs Organization), was an early proponent of the need for Customs authorities to reconsider their traditional approach to international trade control, and to abandon the ‘gatekeeper’ mentality that has dominated their thinking for hundreds of years. Such a mentality often sees Customs intervene in commercial transactions simply for the sake of intervention. They have the authority to do so, and no one is keen to question that authority.

In this day and age, however, social expectations no longer accept the concept of intervention for intervention’s sake. Rather, the current approach is “intervention by exception”. Intervention when there is a legitimate need to do so. Intervention based on identified risk. 

At the same time, the trade facilitation agenda is gaining increasing momentum, as the Doha Ministerial Declaration and subsequent decisions of the General Council of the World Trade Organisation have sought to intensify international commitment to further expedite the movement, release and clearance of internationally traded goods, including goods in transit. These decisions are replicated in the World Customs Organisation’s Convention for the Simplification and harmonisation of Customs Procedures , more commonly known as the Revised Kyoto Convention. (I will discuss this in more detail in a future blog.) 

The success of implementing such agenda is heavily reliant on the ability of Customs to raise the portcullis in an effort to achieve an effective balance between trade facilitation and regulatory intervention. It requires political will of governments, which often does not readily understand the notion of give and take; especially countries where revenue derived through Customs accounts for a significant portion of its gross revenue income. 

While many, if not most Customs administrations, are undergoing radical change, it is always difficult to gauge whether the benefits and ‘step change’ anticipated at the outset are in fact attained. Often, the success stories focus on the legislative or technology innovation as opposed to the ‘real’ effects experienced on the ground and by customs officials and the trade, specifically. What of the organisational displacement which has occurred by the introduction of new technology where previous Customs activities have been rendered redundant; or, as a result of the closure of internal border offices in the case customs union or regional expansion? It seems that there will eventually be few who can raise the portcullis in the face of diminishing skills and expertise.