Domestic regulatory authorities are inventing new ways to create problems for business, sometimes very creative.
I’ll tell you about the recent precedent in the interaction of the owner of a large cargo with the State Environmental Inspection of Ukraine.
Imagine that you are the owner of quite a serious cargo, in our case it was a corn grain. Your consignment is already waiting for your cargo on another continent.
According to the current legislation, this type of cargo is not a subject to environmental control at customs, if there are complexes of automated control over the movement of radioactive substances and nuclear materials at checkpoints. Radiological control of such goods is carried out only in the event that they begin to “ring”, passing the “frame”.
If you successfully passed the complex of automated control in the port – the “frame”, then your product is not radioactive and, therefore, no claims can be brought against it, at least on this issue. So, the cargo on the ship and you are calmly waiting for the shipment.
And then, the State Ecological Inspection in shipping documents for cargo (manifest) suddenly makes a note about the negative results of radiological control, puts the stamp “radiological control of import / export is prohibited.” Customs, in it`s turn, refuses for this reason in the forming up of the goods.
The cargo owner does not understand where the note on the prohibition of the export of the cargo took place on the manifest in connection with the lack of radiological control, since it passed it during loading. Among other things, the owner of the ship begins to make claims for compensation for losses associated with the idling of the floating craft, and counterparties write formidable claims in connection with violations of the deadlines for the delivery of corn.
Only after the official request of the owner of the cargo to with a request, on the basis of which a stamp was stamped on the non-passage of cargo of radiological control, the history began to clear up. It turned out that the State Environmental Inspection in fact did not have any claims to the cargo, and the stamp prohibiting exportation was made on the grounds that the vessel with our goods violated environmental legislation. According to the version of the supervisory authority, the ship polluted the country’s inland sea waters. In short, “the inspection does not have any claims to the cargo, they concern the environmental control of the vessel, and therefore this stamp was affixed.”
This issue was made by the State Ecological Inspection on the claims of the ship-owner to the owner of the cargo, but did not solve the main problem – the ship continued to stand in the port, and the owner of the cargo, as well as the ship-owner suffered enormous losses.
It is worth paying tribute to the “ingenuity” of the the “ingenuity” of the Inspection. In order to. In order to stop the ship, it very skillfully substituted the notion that the customs simply did not have the right to release cargo from Ukraine.
“Creative” substitution of concepts
In Ukraine, there are several types of control that the Environmental Inspection performs. The first one is radiological. Formally, it was held in our case and concerned the cargo directly. The second is the environmental control of the vessel, which has nothing to do with the radiological control of the cargo. And its non-passage should in no way be represented in the form of a stamp “radiological control of import / export is prohibited” in the manifest of the owner of the corn.
According to the current legislation, the State Eco Inspection has the right to check the territorial and marine waters for compliance with the maximum permissible concentrations of pollutants. Such verification is possible only if, during the discharge from the vessel of isolated ballast, visible floating parts are thrown out together with it or visible traces of oil, oily or other pollutants appear in the discharge area.
In our case, for the purpose of blocking the shipment of the cargo, the Eco-Inspector conducts an inspection of the ballast discharge in the area of our vessel for no apparent reason. After the inspectors, in the presence of the representative of the port, make up the act of sampling water. By the way, the representative of the port in the act indicated that he did not observe the visible floating parts of oil, or its tracks, and therefore the very drafting of this document is groundless and illegal.
On the basis of the above act, the state officials compiled a protocol of measurements of the composition and water characteristics, and in the selected water samples, exceedance of the boundary norms of iron and oil products was found. Since the above question is rather controversial both in the validity of the inspection and in the presence of emissions. The final point in this issue, of course, will be put by the court.
But the fact remains, the act was drawn up and nothing could be done about it in the near future. However, this act is inherently only evidence of violation by the ship of environmental legislation. In this connection, the employees of the State Ecological Inspection had only the right to draw up a protocol on administrative violation, as well as calculate the losses caused by the ship to the environment. But – without stamps or bans on the export of cargo.
It is clear that in our situation, the goal of the State Environmental Inspection was not to compensate the state for damages caused by pollution of the environment. The goal was to stop the ship and drive all sides of the conflict into losses. About the other obvious, but not voiced purposes – all so guessed.
Realizing that our main enemy is time, we thought for a long time which tools would solve the issue of ship dispatch in the shortest possible time. And we found it. I can not disclose the details, but I will say that we did not go to court, because it would not be effective. Any trial would have delayed this conflict for months.
Although we managed to ship the ship in three days, however, even during these few days of its idle time in the port, the customer’s losses were enormous. It is highly doubtful that the customs officials did not know about this “Barbarossa plan”, and, refusing the customs clearance of the cargo, simply carried out their duties. All indicated that the actions of the above bodies were agreed upon. Unfortunately, we have to state the fact that the system of work of the controlling bodies has not changed, and is still directed against business. And the personal interests of individuals continue to stand above the economic development of the country and attract investment.
«S&P Investment Risk Management Agency» owns the exclusive copyright of the information in this article. The author has the sole right to control the use of this material. It means the prohibition of using this information without our consent. The term “information” means texts, comments, photos, images, and other materials. Any use of the information or any part of this article without the written permission of the author is prohibited. The term “use” means copying, adaptation, re-writing, modifications, etc. In the case the irregularities are detected, the author has the right to copyright protection in accordance with the procedure established in Article 50-53 of the Law of Ukraine «On Copyright and Related Rights».