From Business
World of 3 September 2004.
The ball is in
FM’s court
Why is it necessary to have import-export
(now renamed trade) policy? It is because India subjects certain imports to
quantitative restrictions. But did it not promise in Marrakesh that it would
abjure quantitative import restrictions (QRs)? It did. And did it not abolish
them in 2001? No; every WTO rule has an exception, especially for the so-called
developing countries, and you can push elephants through it – especially if you
find a precedent in some advanced country. For instance, the French government
was once irritated by Japanese consumer durables flooding its markets. So it
decreed that they had all to pass customs examination in a remote inland post.
Brilliant, thought Indian bureaucrats, and they subjected rubber imports to the
same inconvenience.
Most of India’s
QRs relate to exporters. India’s import duties are high, and handicap exports;
so it purports to exempt imported inputs if they go into exports. This is in
practice extremely difficult. Consider a catalyst that is used to produce
stainless steel. It does not actually get embodied in the steel; is it to get
duty rebate or not? Some of that stainless steel is exported; the rest is sold
at home. How much of the catalyst that went to produce it is to be allowed to
be imported duty-free? Suppose Larsen and Toubro buys stainless steel, makes a
centrifuge and exports it; should it get rebate on the duty paid on the
catalyst that went into the stainless steel? Complexity makes this a prime area
for rule-making, obstruction and bribery.
Suppose that to
get over the hassles customs create over such problems, L&T sets up a
factory that exports its entire production, to obviate questions on how much
went abroad and how much was sold at home. After making the centrifuge, it is
left with some scrap. Exporting it would cost more than it is worth. Should
L&T be allowed to sell the scrap within the country? If so, how much duty
should it have to pay? The machines exported by L&T will have hundreds of
components, some imported, some not. Should L&T get rebate for the taxes
paid by its domestic suppliers? Should the imported parts be imported
duty-free, or should L&T pay duty and claim rebate when it has exported the
machines? How can the customs at the port know which parts were imported and
which were not?
Some of these
questions are unanswerable, and others would require just too much paperwork
and inspection to answer. The problem of exempting exports from duty is
therefore practically insoluble. What the commerce ministry does is to give the
answers in four defined circumstances.
- Itinerant exporters: It puts out a thick book showing, for a large number of
products, what inputs it will assume to have been imported and in what
proportions. Once the customs certify that those products have been
exported, the ministry would give certificates that would entitle
exporters to refund of duty on the specified inputs if they are imported –
duty drawback. This arrangement caused such delays and such corruption
that it has been largely given up now. Instead, the exporter may either
take an export order to the ministry (actually, to its daughter, the
Directorate General of Foreign Trade [DGFT]). The clerk there will refer
to the thick book and issue advance licences which would permit duty-free
import of the inputs. This has eliminated the delay, but not the
corruption. And then there is the problem of what to do with guys who got
advance licences but then did not export. To reduce red tape, the DEPB
scheme was introduced ten years ago; under it an exporter gets a credit
whenever he exports and can use it to pay duty on the inputs specified in
the thick book whenever he imports them. The customs hate it because it
has reduced bribes, and have saddled it with onerous conditions. But exporters
still love it. They are upset that somehow, the government did not fight
EU’s attacks on it and it was declared incompatible with WTO rules.
- Exclusive exporters: If a firm exports over three-quarters of its output every
year, it is called a 100% Export-oriented Unit (EOU). Then it is treated
as a foreign island on Indian soil. It can import any inputs it likes
duty-free. But if it sells anything within the country, it is taxed on
these “imports” into the country.
- Export enclaves: The government treats all firms located in a certain area as
EOUs. Such zones are called Export Promotion Zones (EPZs) and, to create
another fashion, Special Economic Zones (SEZs).
- Lumpy imports: Some inputs – called capital goods – are used to produce other
goods over long periods. An exporter may import them, get duty drawback,
and then stop exports and use them to produce for the domestic market. For
such goods the government allows imports at a concessional duty, but takes
a promise that the exporter would export a multiple of the value of the
goods in five years. This is the EPCG scheme.
Addressing
itinerant exporters, Kamal Nath assured them that the government would not use
the term DEPB after April, but bring back a very similar scheme under some
other name. It is actually quite easy. Not just exporters, but all traders
should be asked to open an account with a bank – let us say, the Exim Bank.
They must always have a positive balance in the account. The account may be
used only to pay import duty. Whenever a product is exported, the customs
should give the exporter automatic credit for his drawback entitlement in his
account; whenever something is imported, the importer should pay duty out of
the account. In this way, rebate will always be directly related to an export;
and exporters will pay duty just like everybody. That would be the rational
arrangement, but let us see what obstacles the customs manage to create.
Now, if a
jeweler wants to import enamel or varnish, he can do so duty-free, but not over
2% of his exports. He can take back jewellery a buyer has rejected, but not
beyond 2% of his exports (why not?). He will not pay duty on a sample his
customer sends him for copying, but it had better be under Rs 100,000. He will
be allowed to import gold over 18 carats. The stupid theory was that because
major markets such as US and Japan use only 18-carat jewellery, the goldsmith
should be allowed to import only 18-carat gold. Now it has been jettisoned.
Indian
handicrafts look too indigenous. To increase their appeal abroad, craftsmen and
leather goods makers will be allowed duty-free imports of “trimmings and
embellishments” up to 5% of their exports. That will create plenty of room for
disputes with the customs over what is a trimming and what is an embellishment.
Services exports
have done very well without any help from the Commerce Ministry; no software
exporter would care to go near it. But the helping hand of the ministry is
always there even if the exporter does not want it. For services there was a
DFEC scheme like the DEPB scheme for exporters of goods. That is not a grand
enough name; it will be called Served from India Scheme. Under it, a restaurant
will get a rebate of import duty of 5% of its foreign exchange earnings if it
is inside a hotel, but 20% if it is next door. That would be a strong incentive
for hotels to hive off their restaurants.
Our banks have
lent billions to industrialists who did not pay, and for ten years the
government and the Reserve Bank have been giving carrots and sticks to end this
legacy of black borrowers. The EPCG scheme is a similar scam; thousands of
exporters have brought in capital goods and not done the necessary exports, and
they continue to be pursued by DGFT. The minister has promised them “additional
flexibility” – a vague and pretty safe promise to make. And if travel agent
imported a bus to carry foreign tourists, the central excise till now insisted
on an “installation certificate” because they wanted to be sure the travel
agent kept the bus with himself. They will no longer do so. A minister can earn
popularity simply by removing irrational harassment.
Exports have
always been exempt from excise on inputs. But since Chidambaram brought in
service tax eight years ago, the excise authorities have refused to give
service tax rebate on inputs. Now that he is back as finance minister, Kamal
Nath has finally managed to get him to overrule his excise officials and exempt
export inputs from service tax.
The commerce
minister has done other admirable things to reduce red tape. But there is an
even easier way to eliminate it, not just to reduce it. If there were no import
duty, there would be no need to rebate it. The finance minister should abolish
as many import duties on inputs as possible. He should start with engineering.
Steel and non-ferrous metals already bear very low duties. He should abolish
them, as well as duties on metal goods and machinery. That would get rid of
EPCG. Then he should abolish duties on cotton, oil, petroleum products and
petrochemicals. That would free the entire textile industry, and make it fit to
grab the huge market that will become available to it with the abolition of the
multifibre agreement next year. We have a bold finance minister; this is the
time for bold action, and there is not much time.