The Malta Chamber of Commerce, Enterprise and Industry today expressed surprise at a statement made by the Minister for Finance the Prof. Edward Scicluna last week, when he spoke about unfair competition and said that "Coming from Sicily, in the eyes of the Union, is like coming from Gozo".   

As far as trade in commercial quantities is concerned, the Malta Chamber firmly disagrees with this statement, because as it has frequently stated, within the European Union there exists a complex structure of environmental, customs, fiscal and other regulations that need to be observed by all and sundry. As a supporter of EU accession, the Malta Chamber has 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. 

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". 

The Malta Chamber explained where the above mentioned inconsistencies lie.  The main ones are as follows: 

A - Accompanied Cargo 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.  

B - Groupage:  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. 

C - Manifest: The Malta Chamber notes 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. 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.   

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.   

That said the Malta Chamber is 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. 

Conclusion 

In the light of the above, the Malta Chamber is surprised by the Minister's statement especially in light of another statement made by the Hon Prime Minister Dr Joseph Muscat on the 3rd July when he declared unequivocally that importation from Sicily should not be treated differently (to that from other countries, via different routes) and needs to 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 statements of the Prime Minister and that of the Minister of Finance are seemingly contradictory.  In defence 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.

Government determined to ensure a level playing field

The Ministry for Finance, meanwhile, issued a statement categorically refuting that there is a contradiction, seemingly or otherwise, between what was stated by the Minister for Finance Prof. Edward Scicluna and what was stated by the Prime Minister Joseph Muscat in connection with trade coming into Malta from Sicily.

When emphasising the European Union's stance regarding trade from Sicily, Prof. Edward Scicluna was underlining the need for well-thought out solutions which do not expose the Government to an EU infringement. 

It must be recalled that in 2008, when the Customs Department increased its controls on trade coming from Sicily by means of the Catamaran, the European Commission showed its concern through a number of questions that were sent to the Maltese Government, as well as warnings of potential infringement proceedings being issued against the Government of Malta if the situation persisted.

The Government's position on the issue is that it will remain fully committed to ensuring a level playing field when it comes to importation of goods from the EU.

The Government's position is that imports from the EU should not be treated differently according to whichever port they enter. In this regard, and in full respect of EU rules, government is currently compiling a package of measures in order to ensure a level playing-field for all.