Dear Editor,
With reference to the current topic of the CCJ’s judgement relative to the imports and environmental tax by importer Rudisa, time after time administrative decisions are taken one way or the other which cause government, importers and consumers to suffer. Guyana still has a number of learned men and women, and if only they were consulted on this or that subject, it would make a great difference. I mention below a similar case in the days of Comptroller of Customs and Excise, Mr George Croal.
There was a shortage of several commodities including woollen piece goods for gents suits. An agent sold piece goods from Italy and the price was good, so Bookers, Forgarty’s, Ferrera & Gomes and several smaller importers in Lombard and Regent Streets purchased large quantities. The goods were deemed to be woollen and the Comptroller ruled that the highest rate of Customs duty must apply at 33 1/3%. The bigger importers went ahead, paid and cleared the shipments, and believe me, sold at great profit. After the smaller shipments arrived, I, who represented the small importers as their Customs agent, refused to pay, and, entered the shipments for 10% duty, which the Customs refused. The Comptroller called on me to explain and I did explain that it was not wool but from my research deemed a fibre, and according to law 10% duty should be paid. The Comptroller in a very vexed mood, said that he had ruled and 33 1/3% must be paid. I respectfully disagreed with him and applied for an operation according to law; the material was subsequently analysed and determined not to be wool, the rate of duty must be 10%. This was collected, the shipments cleared and offered to consumers at several dollars per yard less than the price sold by the larger importers.
Now all the larger importers started applying for refunds of 23 1/3%; the Comptroller ruled against any refunds pointing out that the goods had been sold with the duty included in the selling price, and that these had been purchased by the consumers so the importers had not lost anything.
Now, Editor, is this not the case with Rudisa which company’s selling price most certainly would have included the environmental tax that would have been passed on to consumers. This is a normal trade practice, so they have lost nothing, and those who are protesting the refund seem to have a point; surely Guyana must not be made to pay twice. I do not know how the law will apply seeing a court’s decision has already been pronounced.
Yours faithfully,
SMV Nasseer
Former President
Georgetown Chamber of Commerce & Industry
