Dear Editor,
I noted in your newspaper, an article published on October 27, 2014 captioned `GRA Head says bought salvaged Prado at auction’, for which a similar article was previously carried by another newspaper captioned `Auditor General should investigate Sattaur’s vehicle…GRA boss imports Prado for $1.5M’. I wish to express my appreciation that you have carried such an article and thank you for doing same since it has given greater exposure to the truth regarding my wrecked Toyota Prado Motor Vehicle acquired through an auction and for which tax exemption was obtained as a Public Officer. The other newspaper is suggesting that the value of the vehicle was grossly understated without knowing the facts.
In a recent article in another newspaper, it was reported that the Legal Affairs Minister imported one used 2010 Toyota Jeep Land Cruiser acquired at a cost of $7.2 million. It was also reported that an identical vehicle was imported by Kwame Gilbert, a Member of Parliament. The report stated that it was a 2011 model which was declared at a cost of $7.4 million while claiming that my vehicle (a 2010 model) had a declared value of just under $1.5 million.
It was as a result of the publication of these articles that I wrote to clear the air on the gross inaccuracies and my letter was to an extent used in the article which you published although I noted disappointingly that in publishing same, you failed to include the critical calculation which would have allowed for a better understanding of how my salvaged vehicle would have attracted a highly reduced cost.
Then, lo and behold, I noticed that on October 28, 2014, you carried a cartoon concerning my vehicle which suggests that you are not only giving credence to the false reports regarding my vehicle but also seemingly making a mockery of my explanation, an explanation which you, ironically, did not carry in its entirety in the first place.
It is ridiculous that the Stabroek News would choose to take the same path of the other newspaper with its scandalous reporting. It would also appear that your newspaper might be in collusion with the other newspaper since, like the other newspaper, you omitted certain information submitted to you, including the calculation of the tax payable on same. The calculation clearly explained the economic reason for purchasing a salvaged vehicle.
As such, I am therefore resubmitting this information (please see attached my previous email to you) for publication so that the apparent mischief being created by the other newspaper can be remedied.
I wish to provide you with a photograph of my vehicle when same was purchased. I believe this photograph was not submitted to you previously but should aid in alleviating some of the damage both newspapers have already created and continue to create through scandalous reports.
It should be noted that before carrying such reports, researchers at media houses (proper research is necessary prior to publishing any report) need to take into consideration the fact that Parliamentarians pay no taxes in their capacity and therefore have the liberty of importing any vehicle of their choice. As it relates to Re-migrants, these persons pay a 10% Duty upon importation while for Public Officers, this varies depending on the year and engine capacity of the said vehicle. It is, therefore, unfair to make a comparison of the vehicles imported by these individuals with the salvaged one.
I sought to import the damaged vehicle (because I could not afford a new, expensive vehicle) and entered into the deal with Mr. Danny Persaud (who provided his response as well). It is mind boggling why it would be so difficult for the newspapers to understand this process or whether (because of the current sinister motives to create continuous mischief) the critical information (calculation) provided was deliberately left out so that the public would be robbed of being able to judge for themselves while room would be left simultaneously for more
mischievous reports to continue on the same topic, whenever necessary.
I wish to thank you, however, for including aspects of the email from the auto dealer containing the details on the extent of the repairs carried out to make the vehicle roadworthy again.
Please see attached a picture of the vehicle showing a comparison with vehicles imported by other Public Officers and re-migrants.
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the inaccuracies being reported on the taxes paid on my vehicle and I kindly request that you publish the information submitted by me lest you be considered to be just as biased in your reporting as the other newspaper.
Yours faithfully,
Khurshid Sattaur
Commissioner-General
Guyana Revenue Authority
Editor’s note:
Mr Sattaur should be aware that cartoonists have freedom in this newspaper to express themselves subject to libel and taste. They are not limited or shaped by the editorial content or line of the newspaper. It is therefore a fallacy on the part of Mr Sattaur to state that the newspaper was trying to give credence to a certain position on the reports about his vehicle by the publishing of the cartoon.
Mr Sattaur has complained about the omission of a calculation which he believed was germane to the completeness of his argument. The calculation was quite elementary and the newspaper did not think it was crucial considering that it had constructed a detailed report using a letter which Mr Sattaur had sent to Kaieteur News on a report that it had carried. Stabroek News was therefore not obligated to treat with Mr Sattaur’s letter but did so in the interest of the wider public. Nevertheless, as a result of his concern, the calculation that was not published follows: “The Economic reason for purchasing a salvage vehicle:
Suppose A spent 7 M on a show room vehicle and paid taxes at 30 %. In total A would have paid 9.1m
Suppose the same vehicle was acquired by B at an auction for 1.5 M but it was in need of major repairs. The taxes when B brought it in to the country is the same 30% or 450,000 instead of 2.1m
At this point of removing the vehicle at the Customs, B would have paid 1,950,00
However B spent a further 4 m to bring vehicle into good repair. As such the total cost to B is now $5,950,000.
A comparison between A and B vehicles shows a difference or savings of 3.15m”