Nepal asking India to drop additional lock
KATHMANDU, May 31:
The government is soon requesting India to drop its proposal for introducing additional lock on containers ferrying third country import consignments, bringing and end to the long-running practice of one-time-lock system, via Kolkata port.
It is also proposing to the southern neighbor to sign a new Letter of Exchange (LoE) between the two countries so that India does not raise the issue in the future as well.
India had pushed for double-lock system, which allows Indian authority to seal off containers ferrying third country imports via Kolkata port, during the Inter-Governmental Sub-Committee (IGSC) meeting held in New Delhi in February.
The proposal, if came into effect, will create new hassles and generate additional transportation cost for importers, apart from delaying the delivery of goods to Nepal. “The proposal in itself goes against the spirit of bilateral transit agreement in which India has committed for easy movement of third country cargoes for Nepal,” said an official at the Ministry of Commerce and Supplies (MoCS).
The MoCS decided to request India to sign a categorical LoE to end double-lock row after India responded coldly to its earlier requests for not enforcing the system. The ministry has argued that there was no need to impose the additional lock as most of goods from Kalkata port are transported to Nepal via container train.
“More than 70 percent of the imports are delivered to Nepal by container train where it is impossible to manipulate goods,” said the source.
Officials agree that a small chunk of imports transported via trucks might have been transshipped to India. “But it will not be reasonable to generalize the case in all means of transportation and impose additional lock,” the source added.
Indian officials have been blaming Nepali traders of diverting goods meant for consumption in Nepal into the Indian market. They have also been complaining against lack of action by the Nepali government against traders involved in such illicit activities.
India had pushed for additional lock on containers ferrying goods from Kolkata port mainly after Nepal agreed for additional lock on movement of goods through the proposed Vishakapatnam port.
“We accepted the Indian proposal of introducing additional lock on a trail basis in a bid to ensure early utilization of Vishakapatnam port for third country trade. But India has chosen to extend such arrangement in Kolkata port as well. This is unfair,” said the official.
India does not impose additional lock system on its own imports from overseas countries, whereas on exports it practices two to three lock system as that expedites clearance through the ports in transit.
Multiple lock cannot facilitate our imports as traders need to pass through at least 33 different steps to complete customs clearance at Kolkata port, said the source.
“Add to it administrative hassles, over-congestion and low water level at the port that obstructs entry of mother vessels. Together these will raise our transit-transportation cost sharply,” said the source.
Source: Republica
The government is soon requesting India to drop its proposal for introducing additional lock on containers ferrying third country import consignments, bringing and end to the long-running practice of one-time-lock system, via Kolkata port.
It is also proposing to the southern neighbor to sign a new Letter of Exchange (LoE) between the two countries so that India does not raise the issue in the future as well.
India had pushed for double-lock system, which allows Indian authority to seal off containers ferrying third country imports via Kolkata port, during the Inter-Governmental Sub-Committee (IGSC) meeting held in New Delhi in February.
The proposal, if came into effect, will create new hassles and generate additional transportation cost for importers, apart from delaying the delivery of goods to Nepal. “The proposal in itself goes against the spirit of bilateral transit agreement in which India has committed for easy movement of third country cargoes for Nepal,” said an official at the Ministry of Commerce and Supplies (MoCS).
The MoCS decided to request India to sign a categorical LoE to end double-lock row after India responded coldly to its earlier requests for not enforcing the system. The ministry has argued that there was no need to impose the additional lock as most of goods from Kalkata port are transported to Nepal via container train.
“More than 70 percent of the imports are delivered to Nepal by container train where it is impossible to manipulate goods,” said the source.
Officials agree that a small chunk of imports transported via trucks might have been transshipped to India. “But it will not be reasonable to generalize the case in all means of transportation and impose additional lock,” the source added.
Indian officials have been blaming Nepali traders of diverting goods meant for consumption in Nepal into the Indian market. They have also been complaining against lack of action by the Nepali government against traders involved in such illicit activities.
India had pushed for additional lock on containers ferrying goods from Kolkata port mainly after Nepal agreed for additional lock on movement of goods through the proposed Vishakapatnam port.
“We accepted the Indian proposal of introducing additional lock on a trail basis in a bid to ensure early utilization of Vishakapatnam port for third country trade. But India has chosen to extend such arrangement in Kolkata port as well. This is unfair,” said the official.
India does not impose additional lock system on its own imports from overseas countries, whereas on exports it practices two to three lock system as that expedites clearance through the ports in transit.
Multiple lock cannot facilitate our imports as traders need to pass through at least 33 different steps to complete customs clearance at Kolkata port, said the source.
“Add to it administrative hassles, over-congestion and low water level at the port that obstructs entry of mother vessels. Together these will raise our transit-transportation cost sharply,” said the source.
Source: Republica
