Tax on import goods<\/p>\n
May I crave a few of your valuable column inches to finally
\nbring down the curtain on the drama of the Rp 29,680 charge on
\nthe import (via airmail) of a videocassette (cost price 8 Pounds,
\nabout Rp 27,000 at today's date rate of exchange). My reason for
\nwriting again is that on Aug. 9, 1994 I was surprised (and
\npleased) to be called upon at my office by two quite senior Post
\nOffice officials. They visited me at the behest of the Head of
\nPublic Relations at the Post Office, in connection with my recent
\nletter in The Jakarta Post, entitled Post Office levy.<\/p>\n
In that letter I had complained of the above outrageous
\ncharge, and that, when my wife had made an initial enquiry at the
\nSouth Jakarta Post Office, she had been told that it was \"in the
\ncomputer.\" A somewhat cryptic answer from a counter clerk! She
\naccordingly went to the Main Post Office to enquire further,
\nsince in my letter I had suggested that such an enormous levy
\ncould only be due to a little \"Manipulation\" (i.e. fiddling) with
\nthe computer, so that a tidy sum could find its way into the
\npocket of some needy Post Office worker.<\/p>\n
I was wrong. My visitors explained to me most courteously that
\nthe vast imposition of import duty + VAT + Luxury Tax on a
\nvideocassette (even a blank) was nothing to do with the Post
\nOffice. It seems that what happens is that any package (even a
\nsmall one, containing just one videocassette) that arrives at the
\nPost Office should be sent to Customs Excise for inspection. In
\nfact, when my wife went to raise the matter at the Main Post
\nOffice, she was referred to a very senior Customs & Excise
\nofficial, with epaulets (C & E share the Post Office building),
\nwho explained that these were indeed the taxes that had recently
\nbeen imposed on videocassettes entering this country, regardless
\nof value or content.<\/p>\n
Therefore I am happy to report that the Post Office is
\nblameless in this matter, apart from passing certain packages to
\nCustoms & Excise, which they are obliged to do. One question
\nremains unanswered, however, and I should be grateful if a
\nCustoms & Excise official could call on me to explain what was
\nnot explained to my wife by the senior official she spoke with.<\/p>\n
The question is this: How on earth can such a precise figure
\nof tax (Rp 29,680) be arrived at without reference to the
\ncost\/value of the item subjected to those three levies--import
\nduty, VAT and Luxury Tax? Would the taxes be the same if the
\narticle was worth US$ 10 or $ 100? I can hardly believe that to
\nbe so, yet from what I hear from the Post Office, that is what C
\n& E appear to be telling us. How can a boring little thing like a
\nvideocassette attract over 100 percent in taxes, irrespective of
\nits actual value? The Post Office is exonerated. Now let's hear
\nfrom Customs & Excise!<\/p>\n
RB SAWREY-COOKSON<\/p>\n
Jakarta<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/tax-on-import-goods-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }