LETTER: Consumers pay for questionable trade rulings
Trade policy is inconsistent, inefficiently carried out and often poorly conceived
01 July 2021 - 15:29
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
This comedy of errors culminated, at least temporarily, in a successful challenge by Macsteel to a very questionable extension of a safeguard duty, which terminated when the minister offered a settlement. Suffice to say, import tariffs of some sort have been implemented and amended with great regularity by the International Trade Administration Commission (Itac) of SA, with the support of trade, industry & competition minister Ebrahim Patel, in an attempt to manipulate the steel industry in favour of dominant player ArcelorMittal SA (Amsa).
The inefficiency in implementation and administration of the raft of tariffs, as well as the failure to adhere to requirements and timelines as stipulated in the relevant acts, would have done justice to a Keystone Cops series.
Those in charge of our inconsistent and often poorly conceived trade policies are the same people who have ridden roughshod over imported chicken products for years. There has been no consistency in interpretation and application of rules and regulations applied in nine different tariff, dumping and safeguard duty investigations spanning the last decade.
Ultimately, whether the product is steel, chicken or something entirely different, most of these questionable rulings are inflationary and financed by the end user, the consumer, who is very possibly poor and unemployed. Trade policies are serious and should always be carefully crafted and sensibly and sensitively implemented, and certainly not amended annually.
After all, they are our economic mirror to the world, which at times must wonder whether we actually think before we act. You couldn’t make this stuff up. But that’s the problem — in SA we actually do.
David Wolpert Rivonia
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your says. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Send your letter by email to letters@businesslive.co.za. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
LETTER: Consumers pay for questionable trade rulings
Trade policy is inconsistent, inefficiently carried out and often poorly conceived
Donald Mackay’s excellent article on the imposition of steel import duties refers (“Downstream steel sector owes Macsteel a very expensive bottle of whisky”, June 29).
This comedy of errors culminated, at least temporarily, in a successful challenge by Macsteel to a very questionable extension of a safeguard duty, which terminated when the minister offered a settlement. Suffice to say, import tariffs of some sort have been implemented and amended with great regularity by the International Trade Administration Commission (Itac) of SA, with the support of trade, industry & competition minister Ebrahim Patel, in an attempt to manipulate the steel industry in favour of dominant player ArcelorMittal SA (Amsa).
The inefficiency in implementation and administration of the raft of tariffs, as well as the failure to adhere to requirements and timelines as stipulated in the relevant acts, would have done justice to a Keystone Cops series.
Those in charge of our inconsistent and often poorly conceived trade policies are the same people who have ridden roughshod over imported chicken products for years. There has been no consistency in interpretation and application of rules and regulations applied in nine different tariff, dumping and safeguard duty investigations spanning the last decade.
Ultimately, whether the product is steel, chicken or something entirely different, most of these questionable rulings are inflationary and financed by the end user, the consumer, who is very possibly poor and unemployed. Trade policies are serious and should always be carefully crafted and sensibly and sensitively implemented, and certainly not amended annually.
After all, they are our economic mirror to the world, which at times must wonder whether we actually think before we act. You couldn’t make this stuff up. But that’s the problem — in SA we actually do.
David Wolpert
Rivonia
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your says. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Send your letter by email to letters@businesslive.co.za. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
GRACELIN BASKARAN: Boosting Africa’s renewable energy capacity can cut reliance of US and EU on China
MAT CUTHBERT: Minister must enable the steel industry, not regulate it
Sasol appoints Hanré Rossouw as new finance chief
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Most Read
Related Articles
Established antitrust approach is preferable to that of revisionists
Vaccines and co-operation top agenda at first face-to-face G20 meeting in two ...
Time to rejig supply chain to promote production localisation and job creation
Published by Arena Holdings and distributed with the Financial Mail on the last Thursday of every month except December and January.