Friday Jul 05, 2024
Friday Jul 05, 2024
Thursday, 30 January 2014 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
(ICS), on the new rules by Government to protect the domestic industries, exporters and consumers against anti-competitive practices by some service providers, it is quite hilarious that a responsible organisation now comes into the fray to protect some unscrupulous service providers after keeping silent for 18 years, when importers and exporters continuously requested and looked for assistance to stop such actions.
Thanks to the President and the Finance Ministry, our importers and exporters are now protected from wolves in sheep’s clothing.
The question remains, is this ICS representation or an individual using ICS as a front end to cover a small freight forwarding company and a section of the informal forwarding community which has been draining the lifeblood out of our importers, exporters and playing out Government revenue? The so-called professional who has written on behalf of ICS has never made any attempt to talk the industry for the past 18 years, now requires the Government to consult them to legitimise various surcharges and a non-transparent elements such as THC being collected from a party who has not come into a shipping contract with a carrier or nominated cargo forwarders…
It is the learned ICS of UK which teaches liner terms, where the Colombo Port is considered one where loading and unloading is the responsibility of the carrier and as the port has extended the services to Container Yard (CY) with its development as a modern port, it is the still the responsibility of the carrier to provide stevedoring services and charge the same to the party paying the freight. The attempt by the local ICS representative to manipulate and show another story and to discredit the Government is another attempt by certain individuals to put Government and this country in difficulty the in eyes of the international community.
It is known to us in the shipping community through an email how some individuals have recommended highhanded measures to put pressure on the Government to stop this law and in order to protect anti-competitive practices, even going to the extent of requesting its members to create an artificial space crunch on vessels in order they could pressurise the importer/exporter and the Government to revert to the old wrongful ways in which the shipping industry was operating.
The Hague-Visby rules have nothing to do with the sales contract. The cost division in the sales contract is guided by INCOTERMS. That does not mean the party negotiating the freight cannot negotiate full freight. Once a full freight is negotiated from origin to destination, the buyer and the seller can decide if they are to share the costs 50-50, 80-20 or one party bearing the whole cost. It is sad that a professional body’s name is used to protect oneself and to justify market manipulation and anticompetitive practices.
Last week over 400 industry personnel participated at a workshop to discuss the new gazette. Professionals from the top shipping lines, logistics companies and exporters and importers including many ICS qualified persons were present, including lecturers for ICS. They wholeheartedly agreed that they would abide by the new rules and acknowledged that the intention of the Government was not to regulate prices or components, but to put a process write which is transparent and accountable. We must question the ICS professional who writes to the Ministry now as to why they did not inform the Government of the serious negative impact on revenue to Customs when some of the members of the logistics community introduced zero and minus freighting, at the same time draining out foreign exchange to pay suppliers various commissions. This fraud had been protected by these members of ICS who are now talking of consultation.
It is clear that the intention of the writer is to find faults or loopholes to continue to do the wrong thing and obtain Government sanctions for it.
He questions the Clean B/L clause, which is a requirement for Government and banks when L/Cs are opened; that does not mean in common sense for a person with business acumen to understand that if a shipper gives an indemnity or a written instruction to the service provider or the carrier, then they can give a clause B/L as per the instruction which would be considered as a contractual amendment. After all under HV rules the B/L has to be issued to the party contracting with the carrier as a shipper.
These are excuses to move away from the question of giving all inclusive freight rates and to take away the attention from anti-competitive practices.
Why isn’t ICS worried about shipping being not fully liberalised in Sri Lanka (40:60 rules) as we are thriving to become a hub to attract more shipping lines; shouldn’t they canvas on this on behalf of the ship owners? Isn’t this policy of India, Singapore and many more regional hubs including Dubai where there is only a sleeping partner? Suddenly awakening to protect, such unlawful acts like knights in shining armour is disgraceful to say the least.
The Government and the President as the Finance Minister must now take action to appoint an independent committee to investigate what took place during the last 18 years – how our valuable foreign exchange was taken out of the country violating exchange control regulations and our exporters and importers were made pay for surcharges and inflate real freight. We are also ready to support such a committee with documentary proof of such actions from lines and forwarders which have violated the country’s laws for over 18 years.
We are ready to enter into dialogue with any individual or organisation and challenge these anticompetitive practices. The Government is there to protect national interest and one must remember domestic law supersedes any other.
(The writer is the Vice Chairman of Sri Lanka Shippers’ Council, Convenor for the South Asia region for the Asian Shippers’ Council and a member of the JAAF Logistics Committee.)
