The uncertainty surrounding the EU unmanufactured tobacco tax is making it increasingly difficult for logistics companies to operate with a sense of security. Photo: Taco Tuinstra
By George Gay
Shortly after Erik Van Nueten, a director of Andromeda Tobacco Forwarding and Logistics, joined the Andromeda group in 2006, Tobacco Reporter ran a story on the company’s tobacco division headlined “Outsourcing the hassle.” The heading, which sprang from a comment by Van Nueten, referenced the fact that the company’s tobacco-trader clients could concentrate on what they were good at, buying and selling tobacco, while leaving the rest—the hassle—to Andromeda, the rest being worldwide services such as handling, storage, pest control, transportation, repacking, relabeling, sampling, sample dispatch and the not-inconsiderable associated paperwork.
Unfortunately for Andromeda, and other companies working in tobacco logistics, while the hassle factor in 2006 was challenging enough, it has increased hugely during the past three years, particularly in the EU, where it might be raised to yet another level in the future.
It would be crass to describe the Covid pandemic as having been a hassle, because it was and is a tragedy that has taken the lives of millions of people worldwide, that is still taking lives and that has caused major economic damage that, for most people, has meant many and greater hardships. Nevertheless, looked at purely from the point of view of tobacco logistics, Covid has been a hassle, though one that is fading. During a telephone interview toward the end of January, Van Nueten told me, for instance, that the availability of ships and containers was improving and that shipping rates, while still relatively expensive compared with those being charged two years to three years ago, were coming down slowly to acceptable levels, albeit from the ridiculously high levels ushered in by Covid.
That seems to be the good news. The bad news is that, for various reasons, those shipping rates are unlikely to return to close to where they were.
In the EU, in parallel with the Covid pandemic but not connected with it, another issue has been brewing during the past three years and more. Van Nueten told me the European Commission was discussing whether unmanufactured tobacco (UT), which is the main tobacco commodity Andromeda deals with and the only tobacco commodity it deals with in the EU, should be subject to excise tax. No proposal has yet been put forward, nor is it known when this might happen. The commission has been reviewing the EU Tobacco Excise Directive (2011/64/EU) and was scheduled to publish proposals in December. But I was told that publication is unlikely during the first half of this year and that, given any decision would require unanimity among member states, discussions could stretch the time frame for any implementation.
As I understand things, in part at least, the commission wants to include UT within the scope of the excise directive so as to be able to include it also within the scope of its Excise Movement and Control System, which is the computerized system it uses to monitor the movement of excise goods within the EU. I am told that, to achieve such inclusion, the commission needs to create a new fiscal category for UT with a dedicated tax rate. Apparently, the commission could propose a zero percent tax rate for UT, but, even if it did, because the directive provides for only a harmonized minimum level of tobacco taxes throughout member states, individual states could choose to apply higher tax rates.
And it is at this point that these deliberations seem to collide with business reality. The sorts of uncertainties inherent in the current situation, which have already taken root in the EU, mean it is becoming increasingly difficult for Andromeda and other companies working in the field of logistics to operate with a sense of security. Although Van Nueten would prefer to see the traditional system retained with excise applied to tobacco products, he said the logistics industry could, given time, adapt to a new system. What was difficult was the present situation, which was unclear and made transporting tobacco through the EU frustrating and risky.
Although Brussels is still discussing whether to subject unmanufactured tobacco to excise tax, some states have already acted as if such a provision exists.
Although Brussels is still discussing whether to propose the inclusion of UT within the scope of the EU excise directive and thereby allow member states that wished to do so to tax UT, some states have already acted as if such a provision existed. I was told by somebody who didn’t want to be named that, during the past 18 months or so, two trucks containing UT were stolen in separate incidents while in transit within the EU and that the companies that had issued the original customs documents for the tobacco were held liable for import duties, excise and VAT, an amount thought to be in the region of €4.6 million ($4.95 million) per truck. I later learned that these were not altogether isolated cases.
These incidents, which seem quite alarming within a region that is supposed to boast a harmonized tobacco tax regime within a single market, probably have their roots in a 2017 EU Court of Justice case involving Eko-Tabak and Generalni reditelstvi cel (General Directorate of Customs, Czech Republic) in which the court was asked to consider the confiscation of goods belonging to the former, which the latter had ruled to be manufactured tobacco subject to excise duty. The case basically involved the definition of “smoking tobacco” within the EU directive, which the court ruled had to be broad and to take into account whether the tobacco could be smoked after simple processing by means of crushing or hand-cutting.
As a result of this ruling, and despite the fact that the directive applies only to manufactured products, some member states started considering some UT to come within the court’s definition and therefore be subject to excise tax. And clearly, for as long as some states continue to consider UT to be taxable and others don’t, those responsible for transporting tobacco within the EU are going to suffer. Under current arrangements, taxable goods intended for transit need to have special documentation raised by authorized entities in the country of shipment that is then cleared in the country of destination upon arrival. This seems to indicate that if UT were sent from country A, where excise was applied to such a product, to country B, where no such excise was applied, the arrival could not be cleared. And if the tobacco were to be sent in the other direction, no documents could be raised in country B though they would be required in country A.
Probably, I guess, there would be administrative tricks that could get around these problems in the short term, and hopefully they will disappear with the proposals put forward by the commission in revising the excise directive, which will hopefully include those aimed at reinvigorating the concept of a harmonized market, in part by tightening up the definition of UT.
Nevertheless, two major questions seem to arise. What are logistics companies expected to do in the meantime? There have to be some interim arrangements that mean they can operate efficiently, secure in the knowledge that what they are doing is within the rules.
The other question has to address why a system that seems to have been working well should be changed. Well, the answer in some people’s eyes seems to be that the court ruling provided a necessity for change—change that would ensure that member states got their cut, though they don’t put it quite like that. Such change would address the problem caused when UT is stolen during transit through the EU, taken to an illicit factory and ends up as a product in the illegal trade, without taxes having been paid on either the unmanufactured or manufactured tobacco.
In turn, such a way of looking at things raises at least a couple of interesting issues. Firstly, it seems to cast doubt on the idea that the EU, through such initiatives, is pursuing illegal traders at least partly because of health concerns for those who might smoke illicit cigarettes. At its base, the idea is about taxing the tobacco whether or not it gets into the hands of the illegal market; it is about revenue. The other issue is that applying excise to UT could be seen as partly legitimizing the activities of illicit manufacturers. If such a manufacturer steals a truck of UT on which taxes have been paid or are due and turns it into products, those products, I guess, enter the market as excise paid. Even the theft might be disputed by a smart lawyer willing to claim the tobacco fell off the back of a truck.
It seems to me that we are again being driven toward ridiculously complex reactions because of an unwillingness to trace a problem back to its cause—unfair levels of taxes being applied to combustible cigarettes. If the aim is to reduce the illegal trade in cigarettes, significantly reduce the taxes on them and remove laws requiring licit cigarettes to be unappealing while heavily promoting alternative, low-risk products.
*While acknowledging that all opinions and errors in this piece are his, the writer would like to thank the following for their help in explaining some of the background and intricacies associated with the commission’s discussions on tobacco excise: William Meyer, senior EU affairs manager, and Peter van der Mark, secretary general at the European Smoking Tobacco Association.
In the main article accompanying this sidebar, I finish with my usual rant on what I see as the absurd complexities smuggled into efforts to reduce the illegal trade in tobacco products. So, as a way of introducing some balance, in this piece I would like to contrast such efforts with those being used to combat another problem in which rogue players cause economic damage along the tobacco supply chain. It seems to me that the tobacco industry has in recent years approached the issue of tobacco losses to insects in a rational, proportionate and evolving manner.
That’s not to say everything has been fixed. It hasn’t, and new problems could arise in the future, as those who have read the companion piece might suspect. If, as seems possible, excise taxes are applied to unmanufactured tobacco in the EU, there will be an even greater incentive for protecting tobacco. Otherwise, tobacco beetles and moths will not only be eating their way through tobacco but also through the excise paid on that tobacco. And while bureaucrats seem keen on complexity, I think they will draw the line at issuing excise rebates on receipt of evidence provided in the form of well-fed beetles.
Ten years ago, it was said that tobacco worth about $800 million was being lost annually to insects, and so, in an email exchange at the end of January, I asked Rene Luyten, a director of b-Cat, whether the situation had improved or deteriorated since then. He replied that he had no idea about the value of losses but added that he knew that tobacco owners did not sit back and allow problems to overwhelm them. They were always looking to improve the way they protected their tobacco from insects, and that was irrespective of the costs of producing tobacco at any particular time.
One of the improvements that was made saw, in 2011, controlled atmosphere (CA) systems, which had been used in respect of other commodities and various products for 15 years or more, starting to gain traction with tobacco people—those involved in warehousing, shipping, trading and manufacturing tobacco. Further impetus was provided in 2012 when Coresta issued a guideline for the treatment of tobacco beetles with CA, a guideline that was revised to include the tobacco moths the following year. Used properly, CA offers enormous benefits because it kills all tobacco beetles and moths in all their life cycle stages; it can be used for all types and varieties of leaf tobacco without affecting taste and color, and it can be used for tobacco products.
Luyten told me that demand for new CA chambers was currently good around the world, as was demand for extensions of installations made previously by some of the early adopters of this technology. And demand is coming from both large and small companies because installations can be geared to the size of the business. On the modest end of the scale, b-Cat, which has been involved in the CA business for more than 50 years, has installed a system with the dimensions of a single 40-foot container while at the other end of the scale it has built a system with a capacity of 63 40-foot containers spread through nine chambers.
Of course, many leaf tobacco export countries still use chemical insect treatments, mainly because of the high volumes they need to handle and the resulting costs. But because of issues to do with insect resistance to phosphine gas treatments, which became such a huge problem before the adoption of CA systems, manufacturers tend to use CA as the final treatment adjacent to their manufacturing sites. They also tend to favor CA treatments because of issues concerned with the environment and sustainability, issues that drive the part of the continuing R&D effort at b-Cat that is aimed at automating processes so as to minimize energy usage. —G.G.
Elfbar to Rebrand as EB Design
A Never-Ending Fight
© 2024, Tobacco Reporter. All rights reserved