The Association of Off-Dock CFS Operators of the Philippines (ACOP) has filed with the Bureau of Customs (BOC) complaints against Goldwin CFS, Inc., accusing the latter of overcharging clients and breaching customs regulations.
In four letters and a position paper to BOC, the group, represented by president Alexander Ong, claimed Goldwin made excessive charges in violation of Customs Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 41-2015. The CMO provides revised rates charged by off-dock container yard/container freight station (CY/CFS) operators effective January 1, 2016. ACOP said the “order was issued to put an end to the system of rebates destroying the CY/CFS industry.”
READ: PH off-dock CY/CFS operators to end rebate practice as new rates take effect
Before the CMO was promulgated, the practice of CY/CFS operators giving rebates to clients (usually consolidators) in exchange for continuous use of their CY/CFS was prevalent, leading to cutthroat competition. Right after the CMO was issued, ACOP advised clients its members will no longer issue rebates for fear of stiff penalties on non-compliance to CMO 41-2015.
In a position paper dated February 18 and received by the BOC-Port of Manila Law Division on the same day, the association said it received reports on January 19 that Goldwin, which operates a CY/CFS warehouse in Port Area, had overcharged Manila Rubber Corp. (MRC). Documents provided by MRC’s customs broker showed that Goldwin collected from MRC P6,221.28 more than what was prescribed under CMO 41-2015, ACOP claimed.
The following day, January 20, ACOP filed a letter of complaint with BOC about the supposed overcharging incident, receiving an acknowledgment letter from the Office of the Commissioner on January 21.
On the same day, too, ACOP said, it received another complaint from the customs broker of another Goldwin client, Wu Kong Singapore Pte. Ltd., also for alleged overpricing, this time with Goldwin charging P3,861 more than the correct CFS rate. This prompted ACOP to file another complaint on January 26, receiving a notice of hearing on February 4.
On January 22, ACOP once again complained to the BOC that Bay Sports Mfg. was overcharged by Goldwin by P5,452.47.
A final complaint was lodged on Feb 11, with ACOP claiming Goldwin charged Royal Exporters Corp P7,473.92 more than what was prescribed under CMO 41-2015.
The last two complaints involving Bay Sports and Royal Exporters, however, were not included in the ACOP Feb 18 position paper.
For the first overcharging offense against MRC, ACOP is asking Goldwin to pay the BOC P300,000 and refund MRC 100% of the overcharge (P6,221.28).
For the second case involving Wu Kong Singapore, the association wants Goldwin’s permit to operate suspended for six months.
Hearing at BOC
At the BOC hearing on Feb 11 presided over by BOC’s Atty. Jorge Bacani, ACOP said its members, as well as a representative from the Chamber of Customs Brokers, Inc. and Goldwin, were in attendance. ACOP said records of the hearing would show Goldwin “admitted in open court that it did overcharge its clients as complained by complainant ACOP.”
According to ACOP, Goldwin reasoned they “were only informed of the new CMO on December 9, 2015,” and that they “allegedly did not have sufficient time to change their system and address their clients of the said new rates.”
Goldwin, ACOP noted, also claimed it was not invited to the public hearing and consultation on the new CMO.
ACOP countered its other members also received copies of the new CMO on the same date Goldwin received its copy. It added that some members also saw representatives of Goldwin attending the public hearing.
Goldwin further questioned the authority of ACOP to file complaints regarding the CMO.
ACOP, in its position paper, asserted it had the legal standing to do so, citing Section 4, Subsection 4.1 of CMO 41-2015 that specifically provides that ACOP, any off-dock CY/CFS operator, or any importer of its authorized customs representative or broker “may file a complaint supported by official receipt of payment which indicates a violation of this Order such as overcharging on the part of the OCC beyond the approved charges under this Order.”
Moreover, ACOP said Goldwin’s assertion that it was not invited or was able to attend the public hearing and consultation conducted by the BOC was “bereft of any legal and evidentiary value.”
The association noted that the alleged failure to invite and alleged non-attendance of Goldwin “does not invalidate CMO 41-2015.” It added “it is not the duty of the BOC and the Commissioner of Customs to present the exact rates they will eventually promulgate during the hearing and consultation.”
Officials of Goldwin were not available for comments when PortCalls tried to reach them on Feb 19. – Roumina Pablo
Image courtesy of joesive47 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
