Last Wednesday, this paper revealed how Ghana Customs was colluding with La Bianca Company Limited to fleece Ghana off much revenue running into billions of cedis. The company is owned by Madam Eunice Hinneh, a Member of the Council of State.
She is also a Member of the Board of Directors of the Ghana Ports & Harbours Authority (GPHA). After our publication, our phone lines have been inundated with calls from Ghanaians incensed by the rip-off demanding to know more about how customs was shirking its responsibilities to the state by aiding Labianca to pay far less in import duties compared to others.
While the document of the collusion between the two intercepted and published by this paper on Wednesday is dated 21st October, 2012, there is another document that shows the same fraudulent collusion between the two had taken place earlier. This earlier document is dated April 20, 2021, and is from Customs to LaBianaca in response to a letter dated April 6, 2021, Labianca wrote to Customs.
Interesting, the April 6 letter from Customs to Labianca is no different from the second which we published in our Wednesday issue. This means before the illegal discount was granted her last month as we published on Wednesday, an earlier one, also illegal, had been granted her in April this year to cover a number of frozen food items she had imported into the country.
On Wednesday, we published that documents intercepted by this paper which indicate Customs is once more colluding with La Bianca, to dupe the nation of billions of cedis of much needed revenue by illegally reducing amount she has to pay as import duties. This is to enable her unfairly pay less tax on products she imports into the country and sells.
Intel gathered by this paper indicated the collusion is the latest after many between the two (La Bianca and customs) which has seen the later paying far less duties unlike other frozen foods importers, leading to their (La Bianca) lowering the price of their products, making them cheaper and thus pricing their competitors out of the business. As a result, some of the competitors, who are not given the illegal privileges of paying lower duties have winded up business and sent their employees home.
In the latest fraudulent collusion between La Bianca and customs aimed at making the former maximizing profits illegally at the expense of the state, La Bianca, in a letter dated 21at October, 2021 requested for consideration on import values on various frozen products they had imported into the country.
In response, Customs, while saying it cannot grant them the request wrote back to them in a letter dated October 26, 2021, saying it had refused their request but in line with Section 12 of Act 891 of 2015 was granting them a mark down of 10% of benchmark values for chicken Leg quarters, hen leg quarters, chicken backs, chicken franks, chicken gizzards, chicken drumsticks, chicken MDM, whole hen, whole chicken, hen wings, chicken wings, mackerel, horse mackerel, herrings, hake, sprat and dentex she imports.
The others covered by the marked down of 10% of benchmark values are beef mask, beef snout, beef glottis, lamb breast, beef feet, beef sinews, beef tripes, pork mask, pork haki head, pork feet, turkey wing tips, turkey wings, yellow tail scad fish and sardinella eba aurita.
The letter from Customs granting La Bianca 10% reduce benchmark is illegal because Section 12 of Act 891, 2015 which pertains to advance ruling by the Commissioner General, has nothing to do with the discount granted her. It is also a clear abuse of the discretionary power by the Commissioner General because other importers are not given the same treatment, an unfair market practice which gives La bianca an unjust advantage over her competitors and the local poultry industry.
More importantly, intel gathered by this paper indicates the claims La Bianca made on the basis of which this discount was granted are all false and not supported by any evidence. While Customs quoted Section 12 of Act 891, 2015 to back the discount they were giving her, they decided to conveniently ignore the fact that she did not comply with Subsection 6 of Section 12 of Act 891, 2015 which directs that
(6) A request for customs ruling in relation to tariff classification of goods shall include, in addition to the requirement in subsection (5)
(a) a complete description of the merchandise including
(i) the packing weight
(ii) the chemical analysis
(iii) the description of the goods
(iv) the production and expiry dates
(v) the name and brand of the goods
(vi) the physical description
(vii) function of the goods
(ix) composition of the goods
(x) characteristics of components
b. the commercial and technical description of the goods
c where the goods consist of more than one material, the composition of the goods by weight, volume and value of each component
More Anon