Simplifying customs


Editorial June 11, 2010

Pakistan’s revenue collection officers are worthy successors to Sir Humphrey Appleby, the fictional British bureaucrat portrayed in the comedy “Yes, Minister” who was able to align national interest with the interests of the bureaucracy. Officers in the Customs Service and the Federal Board of Revenue are doiang just that with the customs processing system. There may be legitimate problems with the Pakistan Customs Computerised System (PaCCS) but rather than fixing those problems – which requires technological competence – the FBR abandoned the system entirely. Only after tremendous pressure from the business community was the system restored and that too temporarily. PaCCS simplifies the processing of customs duties, with ships being able to have their paperwork processed within hours. The manual process can slow the process down by weeks, even months. How the latter can possibly be preferable to the former is baffling but the bureaucrats at the FBR make a valiant, even comical, effort to defend the indefensible.

According to them PaCCS makes it easier for importers to cheat on their taxes and results in lower revenues for the government. Yet the system replaces the 26 clearance steps, 34 signatures and 62 verifications with a simple self-assessment by tax payers which is then either paid online or through a debit at a prepaid account that the importer has with the government. The system does not eliminate physical inspections, it simply makes them less cumbersome. In fact, the government gets its money up front.

There are a lot of opportunities for graft that have been eliminated and a significant amount of bribery income that several bureaucrats will miss. That is a loss that the country is willing to live with. PaCCS should be preserved and fixed, not eliminated.

Published in the Express Tribune, June 12th, 2010.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ