Co-ordinator, Lahore Chamber of Commerce and Industry on Customs Saad M. Mukhtar Siddiqui has urged the government to remove existing lacunas in common bonded warehouse scheme to make it acceptable and attractive for exporters community.
The scheme was introduced in 2001 to facilitate the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and indirect and director exporters to procure different imported materials under one roof within the country, but because of various complications and flaws in rules notified vide sub-chapter 6, Chapter xii ( 279 to 295) and those notified under chapter xv (342 to 363), it is not being welcomed by the community, he said in a statement here on Sunday.
Apparently, he added, the scheme has been made for SMEs, indirect and director exporters, but in most of the rules the direct exporters have not been mentioned, which creates confusion in application of these rules.
Likewise, the record of input goods to be monitored by the house keeper is complicated and the licensee is required to maintain record in duplicate of consignment exported by the SMEs, indirect and direct exporters, and the same will be monitored by the customs officer in-charge on quarterly basis.
There is also no monitoring of manufacturer, indirect exporter who will procure raw material from the common bonded warehouse, he pointed out.
It is, therefore, evident that in case of violation of rules only the licensee will be held responsible and not the SMEs, indirect or direct exporters except for the cases in which they fail to export the finished goods.
In such cases, he said, the licensee will not be penalised. However, the licensee will be responsible for proper account of the input goods to the satisfaction of the collector of Customs.
He said if the government is sincere to facilitate exporters and wants to boost exports, the above hindrances and lacunas should be removed and rectified. He also proposed that record keeping should be minimised and rather computerised and linked with the main computer of Customs Department to eliminate malpractice.
Comments
Comments are closed.