Finance Minister’s comments contradict PM's position on Sicily imports

A comment by Finance Minister Edward Scicluna on how the European Union viewed unfair competition raised eyebrows among the business community.

While addressing a public event, Scicluna – speaking about unfair competition – said that “coming from Sicily, in the eyes of the Union, is like coming from Gozo”.

The Malta Chamber of Commerce, Enterprise and Industry however expressed disagreement, since there exists a complex structure of environmental, customs, fiscal and other regulations in the European Union that must be observed by all and sundry.

Comparing the comments given by Prime Minister Joseph Muscat with what Scicluna said, the Chamber said Muscat was unequivocal in that importation from Sicily should not be treated differently.

Muscat argued that importation from Sicily should not be treated any differently to imports from other countries via different routes. Such imports should be treated in the same way and in full adherence to European regulations.

“On the same occasion, the Prime Minister continued that Government would be taking all necessary steps to compile a new and updated package of market surveillance rules in order to ensure a level playing-field for all,” the Chamber said.

“The statements of the Prime Minister and that of the Minister of Finance are seemingly contradictory. In defense of the interests of its members, particularly those directly affected by the situation, the Malta Chamber is therefore requesting Government for a formal position on the matter.”

As a supporter of EU accession, the Malta Chamber consistently declared itself against protectionism and against unnecessary border controls, however it always called for a competitive and liberalized environment which is to be fairly and equitably regulated through market surveillance.

“The Malta Chamber has always been in favour of the right of Maltese citizens to travel by their own means and return with products for personal use. However, it believes it is unacceptable to allow abuse of this right to continue as a result of inconsistencies in definition and application of laws and legal terms between EU states, and procedures adopted at different points of the Grand Harbour which are not uniform,” the Chamber said.

In a local context which lacks a complete and effective structure of market surveillance, besides a lack of satisfactory enforcement of the Intrastat form, these anomalies are particularly detrimental to the upholding of a competitive “level playing field”.

In Malta, the definition of an accompanied vehicle has been extended to include every vehicle up to a maximum of 10 tonnes. This gives rise to abuse as a laden forty-foot trailer evidently exceeding the dimensions of a private car, is defined as “accompanied cargo”.

Commercial activity in such quantities calls for obligations that differ from those applicable to the importation of goods for personal use. Moreover, there still remains a lack of uniformity in the treatment of “accompanied cargo” depending upon which area of the Grand Harbour it lands.

The treatment of groupage cargo is also different in Malta because by virtue of the Motor Tractors Regulations (LN. 50 of 1979, as amended), this type of cargo is meant to be taken to the Container Freight Station in Ħal Far where it is unloaded under Customs supervision.

“The Malta Chamber disagrees with this regulation and in this context it recommended the commissioning of a detailed study on all import regulations, with the aim to determine exactly which regulations remain relevant and necessary in today’s realities and which need to be updated or removed completely. Until the findings of this study are made known however, the Chamber strongly insists that every regulation needs to be adhered to by everyone, in order to avoid a situation of chaos,” it said.

The Malta Chamber also pointed out that current practices and irregular enforcement, allow importers arriving in Malta via the Deep Water Quay, to use vague terminology in their declarations such as “general cargo”.

This can lead to the loss of an important audit trail whereby authorities are hindered from enforcing the law. In turn, this may lead in turn, to the evasion of Eco-Contribution amongst others, which definitely cannot be paid elsewhere as it is unique to Malta.

“In this way, and through inadequate enforcement of Intrastat regulations, dishonest traders are granted every chance of getting away with impunity,” the Chamber said.

Moreover, different procedures applied on different quays are allowing certain cargo into Malta without the necessary controls or audit trail certification.

“Such lack of control hampers the duty of the competent Authorities to carry out the necessary follow-ups and ascertain that cargo adheres to local and European laws and standards,” the Malta Chamber said, adding it was in favour of the fast release of cargo as long as the necessary checks and balances are carried out equitably in all areas of the harbor and within the market.