Why businesses are not permitted to re-export imported shipments?

	Which direction for enterprises during and after the Covid-19 pandemic?
	Enterprises need to implement information transparency
	HCM City Customs: Many creativitity in pandemic prevention and facilitating enterprises

Import-export activities at Cat Lai Port in Ho Chi Minh City. Photo:T.H

Five containers of imported beer are not permitted to re-export

According to Ho Chi Minh City Customs Department, at the beginning of 2020, TBL Co., Ltd sent a second complaint about Decision No. 107/QD-GQKN-KV1 dated January 9 on handling the first complaint by Sai Gon Seaport Customs Branch of Zone 1 (hereinafter referred to as the branch) because the branch did not carry out re-export procedures for five imported beer containers under Bill of Lading No. SYDHCM2911192A and Bill of Lading No. SYDHCM2911192B that the consignee (according to the bill of lading) was TBL Co., Ltd which issued a written refusal to accept the cargo as these containers were not taken to the Container Freight Station (CFS) of SP-ITC International Container Terminal.

After receiving the complaint, the branch verified and requested the company provide information, documents and explain the reason for refusing to receive and re-export the cargo to a third country, and spoke to the company. The branch realised suspicious signs about the reason for refusing to receive the goods and the re-export of previous shipments, thus, it issued a written request to ask the company to clarify suspicious signs and provide official documents of the consignor and the forwarder, but the company has not complied with the request and constantly asked the branch to receive the company’s dossier in accordance with Article 96 of Circular No. 38/2015/ TT-BTC.

According to the document sent by the company to the branch, T.B.L refused to receive goods because the five containers were not taken to the CFS of SP-ITC International Container Terminal according to the terms in the sale contract. The company submitted the sale Contract No. 2019IMTBL dated November 1, 2019 without the name of the representative of I.M Freight International Singapore and without the signature of the seller. In the printout of email that showed the content of the exchange between Raymond Loh (raymondloh@imf.com.sg) and Nguyen Thanh Tra (trant@tbl.vn). The website of www.imf.com.sg and www.i.mfreight.com or similar are not displayed online. Therefore, it is suspicious that the company's email printout is a fake.

Through verification for the shipping line and shipping documents, Customs detected many suspicious signs of the delivery of goods between T.B.L Company and T. Hanoi Company, thus, the branch issued Decision 107/QĐ-GQKN-KV1 handling the first complaint of T.B.L Company as follows: “The company’s complaint about the Sai Gon Seaport Customs Branch of Zone 1 fails to carry out re-export procedures for the shipment under the bills of lading No. SYDHCM2911192A and No. SYDHCM2911192B according to Articles 95 and 96 of Circular No. 38/2015/TT-BTC and Decree No. 08/2015/ ND-CP is baseless and inconsistent with current regulations”.

Refuse to receive 14 shipments

According to statistics from the branch, from October 2018 to the end of 2019, the company refused to receive 14 shipments with the same reason for sending incorrect goods or failing to uphold the terms stated in the sale contract. Through verification of the branch, the information and quantity of goods of the re-exported shipments are inconsistent with those of the imported shipments. These shipments all related to T. Hanoi Co., Ltd.

In addition, according to verification by the Customs at the Department of Planning and Investment of Ho Chi Minh City, from 2017 to 2019, Mr. N.T.T. was the owner of both T. Hanoi Co., Ltd. and T.B.L., Co.,Ltd. The business lines in the business certificates of the two companies are freight forwarding and shipping lines. Therefore, Mr. N.T.T and the two companies must know that the CFS is specified in Article 90 of Decree No. 08/2015/ ND-CP. Thus, the additional declaration (if any) of the CFS into the two bills of lading of the LCL shipments by the T. Hanoi Co., Ltd is not in accordance with law. The T.B.L Co., Ltd knows regulations on CFS but its requirement on goods delivery at the CFS in the sale contract is inconsistent with the law.

The branch has many suspicious signs over the authenticity of the transport documents on consolidation through verification at T. Hanoi Co.,Ltd and T.B.L Co., Ltd. that failed to provide information on the forwarder and forwarding agent signing shipping contracts with the consignor. Thus, the branch’s suspicion for refusing to receive goods of T.B.L is reasonable.

According to verification results of re-exported shipments as the previous request by the T.B.L, container shells and forwarders of the re-exported shipments were changed; the name and the quantity of goods stated in the import transport documents and export transport documents were inconsistent. Thus, the branch’s suspicion that T.B.L Co., Ltd took advantage of the re-export to tranship goods to a third country for purpose of not being able to track the history of shipping, origin of goods and using Vietnamese territory to illegally tranship goods, is grounded.

In the dialogue with Ho Chi Minh City Customs Department, the company's representative did not provide additional documents because it was only responsible for providing documents according to Article 96 of Circular No. 38/2015/TT-BTC, and the non-import of goods into the Vietnamese territory was not smuggling or trade fraud, so it did not violate Vietnamese law. However, the representative could not explain why the goods name and quantity of the previous shipments re-exported through third countries were inconsistent with the imported shipments.

Based on verification results, there are many suspicions that have not been clarified because T.B.L failed to coordinate, failed to submit dossiers and documents to the Customs; refused to receive goods and provided transport documents not in accordance with the provisions of law. It is inconsistent with the law that the company refused to receive goods but still kept the delivery order, and the consignor did not send official documents to the Customs as required.

Therefore, according to Ho Chi Minh City Customs, the second complaint of T.B.L is incorrect. Ho Chi Minh City Customs Department upheld the Decision No.107/QD-GQKN-KV1 handling complaints issued by Saigon SeaPort Customs Branch of Zone 1 to resolve the first complaint. At the same time, it requests T.B.L to submit dossiers and documents related to the refusal of receiving goods as prescribed in Article 48 of Decree No. 08/2015/ ND-CP, Clause 8, Article 52b amending and supplementing in Clause 32, Article 1 of Circular No. 39/2018/TT-BTC to the branch to clarify doubts and irrationalities in the verification results of this decision.