Vol. 436 No. 1
4 Mr. Cox asked the Minister for Finance if he will make a statement on the criticism in respect of export refunds in the (EU) Annual Court of Auditors report for the 1992 financial year that manual alterations by Customs officials of export forms are frequent, forms in some cases being altered three or four times.
The observations relating to alteration of documents as contained in the 1992 report of the Court of Auditors arose from the court's inspection of documents relating to one large shipment of meat. I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that contrary to what is stated in the 1992 report, none of the alterations was in fact made by Customs. Specific instructions to Customs not to alter such documents are contained in the code of operational instructions issued to Customs personnel. Any necessary alterations to correct errors in a document presented by a trader is therefore made by the trader and is then authenticated by Customs prior to final acceptance of the document by them.
Can the Minister confirm that it is stated in the report of the Court of Auditors that it has been difficult to verify the validity of the changes? While the Minister has suggested that changes are now made by Customs officials it is suggested in the report that payments were made on foot of those export forms without first verifying the validity of the changes.
The Deputy is correct. While the changes are made by the trader they are authenticated by Customs. I should point out that 50,000 forms are processed. What happened in this case was that the trader decided to cancel and replace the document because it had been altered. However, when he later presented the amended document to Customs they queried it. Apparently, 196 declarations were made in the document relating to the shipment of one product. In order to facilitate the trader Customs agreed to accept the document so long as it was stamped and endorsed by the trader to the effect that it had not been cancelled. The Revenue Commissioners have informed me that they do not accept that the alterations gave rise to confusion. When the report of the Court of Auditors is discussed by the committee in due course the Revenue Commissioners will have to explain what actually happened.
How is it that the Court of Auditors failed to understand what the Minister has now explained, that no official had any hand, act or part in this matter? It is stated in the report that in some instances the form was altered three or four times and that some of the forms were not stamped. It seems that the process has broken down as compared with what the Court of Auditors would regard as effective due process. Is any action being taken to ensure that the procedures are tightened up?
The Court of Auditors only made reference to this matter in its report but I accept that we should make sure that the changes are correct. What often happens is that export companies change the documentation to ensure the consignment complies with the licence. If they decide to do this it would be preferable to rewrite the forms and present a clean copy. What happened in this case was that an amended version was presented. As 196 declarations were made the trader crossed some things out to get the numbers to add up. It would be far better if traders started again and re-wrote the form.
Can the Minister confirm that, despite the fact that it has been difficult to verify the validity of the changes, refunds were made without raising any queries? This is the key issue.
That is the point on which the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry take issue with the Court of Auditors. While I cannot vouch for all 50,000 forms it is clear in this case that Customs asked the trader to state clearly that the form was not withdrawn or cancelled and was therefore eligible. We will have to argue this point when the report of the Court of Auditors is discussed.
