The expectation was that by now, the Nigeria Customs Service would have taken-over the process of cargo inspection and other things connected to it from the service providers, but that is not to be, at least for now.
In the last couple of weeks, the lobby has reached a crescendo and the industry is divided along the line of those who want the Customs to take over and those opposed to it.
The expectation was that by now, the Nigeria Customs Service would have taken-over the process of cargo inspection and other things connected to it from the service providers, but that is not to be, at least for now.
In the last couple of weeks, the lobby has reached a crescendo and the industry is divided along the line of those who want the Customs to take over and those opposed to it.
We recall that at the flag-off destination inspection scheme in 2006, the nation’s entry points were farmed out to the three such that, Cotecna was given Lagos seaports, Jibya and Banki land borders in Katsina and Borno states respectively. SGS won the contract to inspect imports coming into the country through Onne port (Rivers state), Idiroko land border (Ogun state) and Port Harcourt airport. Lastly, Global Scan got the deal for Warri and Calabar seaports, Seme land border in Lagos state and Murtala Mohammed International airport and the PTML port in Lagos.
The idea of the scheme called destination inspection of imports was first mooted in 2001, with July of the same year fixed as its commencement date, but that was not to be as the federal government through the then- minister of finance, Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala announced a new take-off date of 2004. But these dates kept changing, until 2006 when it finally took-off.
At the beginning, Cotecna was given the contract for destination of all imports into Nigeria; a development which was resisted by some interest groups. This delayed the take-off date.
But on account of the myriads of disagreements and opposition to Cotecna’s exclusive contract, government eventually agreed to split the deal among the three destination inspection agents, hence, the commencement on January 1, 2006.
Certainly, expectations have been very high as to whether or not the scheme could correct the shortcomings of many years of pre-shipment inspection of imports, which we are told, was fraught with many problems such as: discrepancies in value, quantity and delay in issuance of the all-important Clean Report of Inspection (CRI) by the pre-shipment inspection agents. There were also allegations of discovery of large-scale importation of prohibited items upon physical examinations by the Nigeria Customs Service personnel.
It’s alternative, that is, the Destination Inspection scheme is hinged on two principles, which are: risk profiling and scanning. Upon its introduction in 2006, government had stated that it was dropping pre-shipment inspection system in order to enhance trade facilitation, protect the nation’s security and increase customs revenue collection capability.
Opinions may be divided as to the extent to which these objectives are being met, but we are sure of certain facts. One is that the revenue profile of the Customs has been on the rise since destination inspection scheme was embraced, so also has the incidence of interception of contraband been on the rise.
We recall that a few months after destination inspection came on stream, the then-Comptroller General of Customs, Alhaji Hamman Bello Ahmed, at a meeting with the Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN) alluded that many years of pre-shipment inspection had eroded the capability of Customs to perform its statutory roles which include collection of revenue accruable from imports through accurate valuation and classification.
We are convinced that since 2006 when destination inspection came up, the Nigeria Customs Service has become more professional.
If Nigeria were to hold on to pre-shipment inspection, we doubt if the Customs will today be talking of Automated System for Customs Data (ASYCUDA), Direct Traders Input (DTI), e- payment method, fast track, single window and other innovations which the Customs has either witnessed or which the import duty collection process has witnessed.
Perhaps, the greatest challenge to destination inspection remains the quest to clear cargo within 48 hours of arrival in the ports. It is the need to achieve this that has given rise to DTI, fast track, e-payment and other innovations that the nation’s cargo clearance procedure has witnessed in the last couple of years.
But, the successes that have so far been recorded wouldn’t have been without the professionalism that the three destination inspection agents have brought to bear on their assignment.
We may not yet have a perfect and iron-cast system, but the average importer or freight forwarder will agree that the abuses to which cargo clearance was being subjected to have largely reduced. Incidences of under declaration, falsification, concealment and outright abuses of the system have been on the decline.
As much as we agree that the service providers have done well in the execution of the contract, we are saddened by what is now coming to the fore and which indicates that the three destination inspection agents are reluctant to leave, even after as the July handover date approaches.
On the surface, one is tempted to pitch tent with either of the camps, but we think that their cases need to be isolated and treated as such.
While both Cotecna and SGS have no complaints about the take-off of the assignment, the same can not be said of Globalscan whose argument has been that it was frustrated and that it lost ample time before it could start. The case at Seme border where fixed scanners are just being installed, due to no fault of theirs, probably justifies the company’s plea for extension.
The manner in which the Customs is going about its quest to upstage the service providers is becoming too cheap and appearing desperate.
The fact is that the final say on the future of the three service providers rests with the supervisory finance ministry with which the three destination inspection agents signed the contract. It is saddening that the agents are alleging that the Customs is starving them of containers and that often the Risk Assessment Report (RAR) that they issue are rejected by Customs.
Rather than bring itself to the level of its agents, the leadership of Customs should be more mature and calculative in its quest to wrestle the responsibility from the three agents.
The recent exchange of words on the pages of newspapers between the Nigeria Customs Service and one of the destination inspection agents; Globalscan is most unfortunate.
There is no justification for the submission of the service providers that the Nigeria Customs Service is not ready to take over, it is certainly not part of the contract that the service providers should appraise the preparedness of the Nigeria Custom Service.
It is certainly uncharitable on the part of Customs to suddenly begin to condemn the destination inspection agents, having worked with then for these years.
The ministry of finance should be patriotic in its judgment on the vexed issue of the future of the service providers.
Discussion about this post