The scanner was installed about a year ago, and is used for "non-intrusive inspection" of merchandise. In theory, this is a good idea, since it allows speedy checks on whether containers are really carrying what their owners say is inside them.
But management of the scanner was turned over to a private company, Kudumba, which appears to be using it simply to make money at the expense of the port users, all of whom are supposed to pay a scanner fee - regardless of whether their goods are actually scanned or not.
Interviewed in Friday's issue of the weekly paper "O Pais", Kekobad Patel, the official of the Confederation of Mozambican Business Associations (CTA) in charge of tax and customs reform, pointed out that scanners are a working instrument of the customs service, just like the computers in the customs offices, and their costs should therefore be borne by customs, and not passed on to the port users.
Far from operating the scanner in order to generate added efficiency in the port, it was simply a way of collecting money, which Patel regarded as dishonest.
The CTA believed that a rational use of the scanner should improve customs' inspection capacity, and reduce tax evasion. The increased customs revenue would thus mean there was no need to charge users a scanner fee.
Patel noted that the contract between customs and Kudumba has not been published, and this lack of transparency generates distrust.
Furthermore, where such fees exist in other ports they generally do not exceed 15 US dollars per container, said Patel - yet Kudumba was charging 100 dollars per imported container.
Patel feared that such fees might lead to increased prices for consumers, and would rob Maputo port of its competitive edge.
Because goods in transit must also pay a scanner fee, some foreign operators were now avoiding Maputo port, Patel claimed.
The CTA points out that no proper study was undertaken before the scanner was introduced. Such a study should have looked at the costs and benefits of operating scanners.
But the CTA believes the mistake can be corrected, and has offered to support a viability study, which would also look at good practices internationally.
In the meantime, the CTA thought it urgent to exempt Mozambican exports from the scanner fee. It made no sense to remove export duties, or exempt exports from Value Added Tax (VAT), and then slap on a disguised tax in the form of the scanner fee.
Patel argued that all goods in transit should also be exempt, in order to encourage neighbouring countries to continue using Mozambican ports.
Likewise empty containers should be exempted, and all imports intended for Mozambican industry. The CTA noted that, in 2002, the government scrapped customs duties on inputs for industrial production. Eliminating the scanner fee on such goods would be in line with this policy.
The CTA also suggested that scanner fees should only be charged on goods that really were inspected, rather than on everything that passes through the port, and that customs should adopt a proper risk management strategy to decide which containers, from which importers, are subjected to scanning.
Months ago the Maputo Corridor Logistics Initiative (MCLI), a grouping of Mozambican and South African businesses working to promote the road and rail links between South Africa and Maputo, and to boost the use of Maputo port, warned that the fees for "non-intrusive" inspection risked undoing all the work undertaken to persuade South African companies to channel their trade through Maputo.
Interviewed in February by AIM, the MCLI Chief Executive Officer, Brenda Horne pointed out that it was a complete innovation to impose scanner charges on goods in transit (such as South African exports using the port).
Horne said that the fees charged by Kudumba are far from insignificant. Margins are tight in the international freight business, "and so an extra five dollars a tonne can determine whether you're in the market or not".
SOURCE: AIM
