Written Answers. - Court of Auditors Report.
Austin Currie
Ceist:
135
Mr. Currie
asked the
Minister for Agriculture and Food
the action, if any, he has taken or intends to take in relation to the disclosure in the EU Court of Auditors report that 61 tonnes of meat exported to the Congo accompanied by a certificate of origin from a non-existent Lucan Chamber of Commerce defrauded the EU of £75,000; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[22197/97]
In preparation for its 1996 report, the EU Court of Auditors examined a number of export refund cases where EU beef was temporarily re-imported into the Community following rejection in Egypt, and made some criticisms of the French and Dutch authorities in this matter. This exercise was part of a general examination of the standard of EU veterinary and customs checks.
In one of the cases the court criticised the lack of re-import veterinary checks in Greece and France on 61 tonnes of beef originally shipped from Ireland to Egypt by a French company as part of a consignment of 455 tonnes. This rejected beef was stored for some time in France before being re-exported to the Congo, an alternative export refund destination. Temporary re-import in these circumstances while another market is found is not unusual and is specifically permitted by the EU.
In this case proof was provided to my Department, as paying agency, that the beef was transported, received and stored under customs control during the time it was temporarily reimported into the EU. Full proof of import and proof of payment has been provided for the Congo which demonstrates the commercial nature of the transaction. In addition, the operation was specifically verified by the French audit authorities in 1996, following a request from my Department, who found that ‘the resale transactions were financially regular'. Thus, there is no indication that the beef was not marketable and that export refunds were improperly paid.
As the court did not examine the Department's file on this, export copies of all of the above evidence is being forwarded to them and to the EU Commission for examination. My Department is also examining and will forward additional French veterinary documents which have now been submitted by the company concerned and which, if validated, would appear to be in conflict with the findings of the report.
The court also found that a certificate of origin issued against the original consignment had been issued by an unauthorised, not ‘non-existent', chamber of commerce. Certificates of origin are never submitted to my Department as they are not used to demonstrate eligibility for export refunds or to validate export refunds claims. This matter is being investigated by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which has referred the case to the Garda Síochána.
