Broker a solution

The fact that the Customs and Excise Division has been rubbing stakeholders the wrong way through its wayward and erratic implementation of policy and law is a signal that it is time for this department to be subject to reform.

First came confirmation in the High Court that Customs has been acting unlawfully by its arbitrary designation of sex toys as obscene under a vague and out-of-touch morality policy, then came its belated realisation that a purported $20,000 legal threshold for the bonding of goods at the port was not, in fact, legal at all—leading to an apparent shift in procedures which caught some businesses off guard, triggering widespread ire. How unnecessary.

Finance Minister Colm Imbert must make good on his promise to intervene in this matter. As the line minister with responsibility for this division, he must get to the bottom of how such an important issue, concerning the entry of goods at our border, could have happened without lawful authorisation over such a long period of time. Equally, he must be open to balancing the need to ensure adequate control and revenue collection, with the equally crucial need to foster an environment that facilitates ease of doing business.

These objectives need not be at odds. Both the High Court ruling and the $20,000 threshold issue show Customs has simply had too much room to manoeuvre outside the bounds of the law. That flexibility alone would not be so bad were it not for its distressing lack of transparency when it comes to informing the public and stakeholders as to policy settings and timelines of implementation.

On the one hand, Customs has bent over backwards to implement the archaic provisions of the colonial-era Customs Act for sex dolls, in the process violating individuals’ right to property in the pursuit of a narrow moral agenda. On the other hand, it has, apparently, turned a blind eye to the lack of legal underpinning for a government initiative dating back to 2011. That’s almost ten years ago!

The threshold relaxation for goods under $20,000 is said to have originated in the budget presentation of a former minister, though why no one noticed this measure was never included in supporting legal mechanisms is unclear. Certainly, Customs may have felt it prudent to begin implementation pending legal ratification. But in so doing, it must have realised that it would thereafter create a legitimate expectation on the part of businesses that the practice would remain in place.

As usual, the facts are contentious. Finance Minister Colm Imbert says the issue was only recently brought to his attention, while the American Chamber of Commerce CEO Nirad Tewarie says the chamber wrote the ministry last May. Whatever problems of communication occurred, all sides need to get the communication right and broker a solution.