Recently, an organisation called Global Inspection Group (GIG) has advocated PSI – an import verification system – as a solution to counteract South Africa’s trade deficit. The article ‘Import verification would outlaw customs fraud’ alludes to the apparent success of these mechanisms in other African states to support quality and import standards in those countries, respectively. Because South Africa has no verification of imports system ‘it is easy to systematically under-declare goods’, the article states. Furthermore, it mentions that a Finance ministry would benefit from such a system ensuring the collection of the correct duties. [Really? how naive].
South Africa is a free country, and it follows that organisations will go to extremes to secure a business foothold in the country. The question is – to what length and to what end? If any ministry of finance were to rely on a PSI company, it would first disband its customs department, because there is evidently no trust in its frontline and post clearance capability. Most governments (if not all) are pretty much aware of the broader international customs developments championed by the WCO. In recent years, the WCO has developed several diagnostic studies and programmes – with the option of donor funding if required. There would therefore be no sense or credibility in a government that would persist in pursuance of PSI services for fiscal assurance.
Any trade practitioner and supply chain operator in South Africa will readily confirm the hectic ‘change’ programme which is being pursued under Customs Modernisation. These changes and their associated systematic innovations and efficiencies are by no means the result of government capitulating in the face of illegitimate trade. No, it’s a conscious decision to take responsibility for the problem, and together with the allied trade to improve the situation.
It is therefore high time that such organisations which front themselves with the ‘be-all and end-all’ systems in Customs’ tariff and valuation appraisal rather seek a more practical and benefit-delivering model than one which not only scams governments for service and inspection fees, but also offers no benefit to trade. Included are those BOT vehicles offering governments ‘free’ cargo scanning equipment in exchange for a lucrative inspection fee. None of this is based on risk management and is purely profit focussed. The concept forgoes most if not all, the modern customs principles and standards promoted by the WCO. The buzz word is ‘Capacity Building!’
The reality in all of this should be clear. No private sector entity can replace Customs. Outsourcing in any event would require government to set up a vehicle of its own to ‘ensure’ that the outsourcer is doing his job. If there is a dearth in knowledge and skills, then it is up to government to rectify the situation. Source: FTW Print version.
Related articles
- WCO News – October 2011 Edition (mpoverello.wordpress.com)
- Another WCO resource for the Customs and Trade Professional (mpoverello.wordpress.com)
Collection of revenue has historically been the cornerstone of a Customs administration’s responsibilities. For a number of years, Customs has been actively involved in protection of society and trade facilitation initiatives. More recently, the role of Customs has expanded; issues such as the fight against counterfeiting, counter-terrorism activities and the protection of the environment have featured high on the agenda of international Customs work programmes. Alongside these important topics, revenue collection continues to be an area of concern for Customs administrations. The global financial crisis has led to a downturn in international trade which has inevitably hit government revenues. Additionally, the global trend in the reduction of Customs duty rates, through unilateral, regional, and multilateral trade liberalizations, can potentially have the same effect.
What Happened to the Portcullis? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.