Policy & Compliance
BIFA comments on the latest NAO report O n 20 May, the National Audit Of fi ce (NAO) released its report on the state of the UK’s post-EU exit border ambitions. Having read the report, Robert Windsor, Member Policy & Compliance Director, said: “In December 2020, when the government announced its intentions to develop the world’s most effective border by 2025, eyebrows were raised by many who manage the supply chains that underpin the UK’s visible international trade. Over the intervening period, BIFA has expressed its concerns about many of the issues that are now included in the NAO Report, as our Members experience and try to overcome the practical difficulties associated with many of the new procedures associated with achieving that goal. The most effective border in the world is a worthy aspiration, but the NAO Report indicates that it is an aspiration that is a long way off. Timetables for various programmes have repeatedly changed and goalposts have
the consignment to: a) Destroy the consignment; b) Re-dispatch the consignment outside [F241Great Britain] in accordance with Article 72(1) and (2); or c) Subject the consignment to special treatment in accordance with Article 71(1) and (2), or to any other measure necessary to ensure compliance with the rules referred to in Article 1(2), and, where appropriate, allocate the consignment for purposes other than those for which it was originally intended. Additionally, agents need to remember that IPAFFS is not the only system they may need to use. PHILIS, a system well known to some already, also needs to be used in certain cases to arrange for PHA charges. Conclusions Moving goods subject to SPS controls has always been associated with additional administrative requirements. Freight forwarders and Customs agents, however, usually experienced those requirements on an operational level without being legally liable for the SPS side of moving food stuffs. This is changing now but the legal territory still seems to be uncharted in this regard, so BIFA Members are encouraged to make careful consideration before they engage in this new role. BIFA will be monitoring further developments, both legal and operational, and will keep updating members accordingly. Legislation: • England: SI 2019/1517: The Official Controls (Plant Health and Genetically Modified Organisms) (England) Regulations 2019; • Scotland: SSI 2019/421: The Plant Health (Official Controls and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Regulations 2019; • Wales: WSI 2020/206: The Official Controls (Plant Health (and Genetically Modified Organisms) (Wales) Regulations 2020.
compliance when importing plants and/or plant products, BIFA was told by DEFRA that “liability will vary depending upon the type of non- compliance, but this may include action against breaches of the regulatory requirements by the importer its agent/the BCP/the port operator”. What is not clear is how the liability will vary and the legislation itself is rather unspecific in this regard. When it comes to import or transit of animal products into/via Great Britain, the operator responsible for the consignment – named in Box I.8 of the Common Health Import Document (CHED) import notification – will be deemed to be liable for all associated SPS charges and non- compliance enforcement action, but not necessarily for the CUC. For animal products, agents acting as the PRFL on another company’s behalf also need to submit notifications from their own account in IPAFFS as the system does not currently offer an intermediary functionality. They can obviously add the importer’s details in IPAFFS, but the fact that the intermediary functionality is missing is another reason for concern. Implications for agents What this means for agents becoming PRFL is that they will need to consider their position carefully and arrange for a specific contractual agreement between themselves and the importer. Additionally, as DEFRA expects the person lodging an IPAFFS declaration to be established in the UK, special consideration should be given to imports of goods by non- established traders usually, but not exclusively, associated with DDP movements. When it comes to non- compliance, agents assuming the role of the PRFL will need to bear in mind that the authorities will direct any corrective or punitive measures at them. For instance, Article 66.3 Regulation (EU) 2017/625 reads as follows: The competent authority shall, as regards the consignment referred to in paragraph 1 order, without delay, the operator responsible for
“ A particular point that BIFA has made on behalf of its Members is the lack of detailed guidance issued by some government departments, which has adversely affected trade flows.
repeatedly moved, often to the dismay and cost of those businesses that are responsible for managing international trade crossing the UK border. A particular point that BIFA has made on behalf of its Members is the lack of detailed guidance issued by some government departments, which has
adversely affected trade flows. As yet there are no clear policies beyond a Single Trade Window, use of which is voluntary, and currently offers nothing to any users handling more than a very small number of shipments. The government needs to take on board the comments contained within the NAO report and provide clarity for business on all the details of how it intends to deliver the world’s most effective border, with a realistic and workable timeline which will allow sufficient planning and implementation time to provide workable solutions to enable the existing or revised border and trading arrangements to be implemented. In light of the comments made in the NAO’s report, it is not surprising that BIFA Members are losing confidence in the government’s ability to deliver that clarity, without which the UK’s international supply chains remain at risk.”
The full report can be seen here: www.nao.org.uk/reports/the-uk-border- implementing-an-effective-trade-border/
June 2024 | 13
www.bifa.org
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker