Customs Valuation in India: Identifying Trade Facilitation related Concerns
India has introduced several trade facilitation related measures in the last couple of years. The pro-active strategy adopted by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) has helped in introducing several policy measures which have not only streamlined the role of the customs department but has also helped industry in a major way without compromising collection of revenue.
An Evaluation of the Need and Cost of Selected Trade Facilitation Measures in India: Implications for the WTO Negotiations
The study finds that in case of Article X, which basically deals with the publication and administration of trade regulations, India has already implemented most of the requirements. However comprehensive efforts are required to implement, the provision related to single inquiry point which may require software compatibility among various agencies involved apart from addressing the infrastructural constraints. In case of GATT Article VIII which deals with issues related to fees and charges and import and export formalities and documentation requirements most of the provisions are in place but efforts are required to improve the border agency coordination. In case of Articles X and VIII, the minimum cost is estimated at around Re. 2,016 million. This includes a major expenditure on equipments and infrastructure (82 per cent). The installation of electronic cargo clearance units is a major requirement at most of the leading ports in India. In Article V there is lot to be expected from India, the infrastructure requirements, especially for the physical infrastructure, deserve huge and urgent funding. This includes additional efforts required to support and strengthen the level of communication at the border points. Most of the Land Customs Stations (LCSs) require better infrastructure. There is need to attach greater priority to include various provisions of GATT Article V in the bilateral trade and transit treaties especially with land locked countries for greater facilitation of transit trade.
Livestock Aspects of Feed Grain Policy
It is a signal event that our topic should be included on this program. In recent years, the livestock and poultry economy has scarcely been considered in the making of price and income policy for feed grains. It has been disregarded by pragmatic policy makers. It has been almost equally bypassed by theoretical economists, who usually kibitz freely. Policy for support and target prices for corn, grain sorghums, and other feed grains has been made with an eye almost exclusively fixed on the producers of those crops. The target price has been set relatively high in order to protect crop farmers' income. The latest (and current) loan rate policy has been to hold the rate low. Although a low rate facilitates moving grain into livestock and poultry consumption when crops are abundant, it does nothing to provide buffer stocks for years when crops are short. In addition, a couple of years ago it became administrative policy to dispose of the stocks inherited from an earlier period, even subsidizing their sale abroad. But the foremost example of one-sidedness is the attitude toward release prices. In all the rhetoric heard recently about the peril of holding corn or sorghums in reserve, the scold has been that release prices would not be set high enough. What group can the spokesmen have had in mind? Feed producers, of course! Not feed consumers, that is, livestock and poultry men. It has been a one-sided consideration of a two-sided issue. If all groups are to have equal voice in policy making, how can livestock and poultry interests be so ostracized? The one-sidedness has more impact now that so much livestock and poultry production has become detached from feed supply on individual farms. The livestock-poultry economy is therefore more sensitive to the availability and price of feed. It is in fact a contradiction that historically, livestock and poultry got more attention when they were still closely connected with feed production on the farm. In the early years of farm programs, the "ever-normal granary" was consciously designed to level out the supply and price of feed for livestock and poultry. Now that livestock and poultry have become more commercial and more vulnerable to a volatile feed situation, feed price stabilization has been progressively removed from the councils of farm policy. And the ultimate contradiction is that the alleged price-depressing perils of a feed reserve have been proclaimed in disregard of the fact that the main defense of feed grain producers' incomes is the target price-direct payment mechanism, not support prices. If grains on reserve should cause market prices to be reduced below target level, producers would get bigger direct payments, that is, producers with a base on their farm are protected in that way. Admittedly, production outside such a base would not be eligible for payment.