admin
Much of the public disquiet triggered by Statutory Instrument 64 of 2016 emanated from the way it was implemented — commercial importers being lumped together with individuals bringing a few items home for personal consumption.
The anger was also as a result of the prompt way in which the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (Zimra) started implementing the SI, only hours after it had been published in the Government Gazette on June 17. There was no prior warning before it was implemented and travellers were justified in criticising Zimra for “ambushing” them.
Travellers protested at the border post and refused to have their goods seized. This forced the tax collector to agree to suspend the SI. That was before the horde of political activists staged that violent protest at Beitbridge on Friday last week, supposedly against the SI resulting in the burning down of a Zimra warehouse and vehicles at the border post and wanton destruction of public property in Beitbridge town. As this happened, haulage trucks were piling up at the border post because Zimra was demanding import licences for their cargo.
For us, it was the lumping together of commercial and individual importers that left a lot to be desired. A weekend visitor to Musina needed to apply to the Ministry of Industry and Commerce for permission to bring only a satchet of Cremora or a tin of shoe polish from the neighbouring country as much as a supermarket chain seeking to bring in a 30-tonne truck full of the same products was expected to. It didn’t quite make sense to many of us, including to the travellers who justifiably protested at the border post that day.
The government needed to move in to clear the confusion, as it did yesterday as we report elsewhere on these pages today. Zimra clarified the position, giving specific items and volumes of them that can be imported without the need for individuals obtaining an import licence.
A Zimra circular clarifies the administrative arrangements on the treatment of goods imported under the following categories; personal goods for own consumption and completion of journey, inheritance goods, immigrant goods, returning residents goods and diplomatic goods.
It says goods listed under schedule “A” would continue to be cleared under the Open General Import Licence (OGIL) and thus are exempt from the requirements of import licence as required by SI 64 when imported by travellers.
One is allowed to bring in these listed goods once per calendar month; coffee creamers/Cremora 1kg, camphor creams, white petroleum jellies and body creams — not exceeding 180ml, cereals 2kg, potato crisps — 1 pack of 12 of 125g each, baked beans — 1 pack of 12 tins of 340g each, mayonnaise or salad cream — total not exceeding 2 litres, peanut butter 2kg, jams 2kg and canned fruits and vegetables – total not exceeding 2kg.
Other items are ice creams 1litre, cheese 1kg, yoghurts 1kg, shoe polish — 1 pack of 12 of 50 ml or 40g each, juice blends 4 litres, water — pack of 12 of 500ml each, hair products – 6 packets of hair products of weight not exceeding 1.5kg, washing powder 4 kg and bar soap – box of 24 bars.
The circular, however, does not cover goods for resale and these will continue to require import permits issued by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce prior to importation.
“The applicable duty and taxes must be computed and collected in terms of existing law and regulations,” said Zimra.
It was a serious oversight on the part of authorities which caused much anxiety and inconvenience among travellers. The important point is, however, that it has been addressed.
It is normal for persons to bring into the country a few items from abroad with no import duty being charged as long as Zimra officials satisfy themselves that the items are few and for personal consumption. A person who brings home a pair of new shoes, or a box of laundry soap, or a few hundred grammes of Omo washing powder cannot be expected to be out to make money selling the items thus cannot be subjected to a much tax.
Yes, Industry and Commerce Minister Mike Bimha attempted last weekend, to make the distinction between the commercial importer and the individual, but in the absence of an official document to back that position up, we remained unconvinced.
As we have argued before on this space, we support the government in controlling importation of items that our local industry is producing. We support all initiatives designed to help the domestic industry recover and grow, but we cannot achieve this if we don’t create a market for the products rolling off the lines. Our country is under sanctions, which have made it difficult for companies to retool, access cheaper long-term foreign loans and so on, thus they rely on obsolete 1940s machinery that is expensive to run and expensive short-term loans from local sources.
To help industry recover and grow, the government is justified in shielding local companies from imports from countries where their counterparts have the luxury of modern machinery and cheaper finance, which makes it cheaper for them to produce.
So, yes systematic controls are necessary for commercial importers but those import requirements are unnecessary for personal importers.
Online Reporter