MAIN POINTS Sample Clauses

MAIN POINTS. 1. Administrative and judicial rights of appeal against customs decisions related to payment of duty are defined in the Revenue Code, which provides for an independent Board of Tax Appeals to hear the appeal. No further implementing procedures, measures, instructions, guidelines or information concerning appeals have been published. There are no specific provisions concerning rights of further appeal in the event that the Board of Tax Appeals decision is delayed. 2. The draft Customs Code, if enacted, would clarify and expand rights of appeal against customs decisions. 3. The new Foreign Trade law creates a right of appeal to an independent administrative tribunal with respect to decisions of the Minister of Commerce and Industry under that law, and further appeal to a court. 4. Persons subject to decisions of other border agencies appear to have a right of appeal direct to the Circuit Court. 5. In addition to the formal right of appeal provided under the Revenue Code, it appears that Customs provides for appeal to the Commissioner and subsequently to the LRA legal office before accessing the Board of Tax Appeals. This procedure does not appear to be defined in law or otherwise published. 6. In practice, Customs and other border agencies are said to provide reasons for their decisions.

MAIN POINTS. 1. Border authorities impose a number of fees and charges on or in connection with importation and exportation of goods. In general, information concerning such fees and charges is not published in an “easily accessible” manner. 2. The legal basis for certain fees is unclear: while legislation authorizes the Ministries to prescribe by regulation fees for recovery of their costs of providing services, including fees and charges for services related to import and export of goods, generally, these regulations do not appear to have been issued. 3. With the exception of fees imposed by the MoCI under the authority of the Foreign Trade law, there are no formal legal or policy provisions that require fees and charges to be published an adequate time prior to their entry into force as required by the TFA measure. 4. There are no formal legal or policy provisions that require border authorities to periodically review their fees and charges. There is no overall government coordination to review and/or reduce the fees collected to facilitate and promote trade.

MAIN POINTS. 1. There do not appear to be at present any formal legal or policy provisions requiring border authorities to hold regular consultations with their stakeholders, or any formal procedures established by border agencies for carrying out such consultations. 2. The draft Customs Code will require that Customs hold regular consultations with persons whose activities are covered by the customs laws and other authorities. 3. In practice, the quality and frequency of stakeholder consultation is said to vary among the different border agencies: Customs (which has received WCO training on stakeholder engagement) reports that it holds regular quarterly meetings with an agenda and action items; other border agencies conduct stakeholder consultations less frequently, on an “as needed” or issue basis, or not at all.

MAIN POINTS. In March 2016, governments across Canada, including the Government of Saskatchewan, agreed to take steps to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to mitigate their effect on climate (mitigation), and to reduce the vulnerability and increase the resilience of nature and people to the effects of climate change (adaptation). These governments agreed to implement GHG reduction policies to reduce Canada’s emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030. This agreement does not hold the Saskatchewan Government to a specific provincial target. At January 2017, Saskatchewan did not have a provincial mitigation plan with provincial targets for GHG reduction. In addition, it did not have a co-ordinated provincial adaptation plan. Rather, it was at the policy development stage.

MAIN POINTS. 1. Liberia does not appear to operate a rapid alert system of the kind described in the TFA measure.

MAIN POINTS. 1. The Revenue Code authorizes the Minister to prescribe by regulation and by a widely circulated notice a customs user fee, and defines the maximum fee that the Minister can prescribe. Although it appears no regulation has been prescribed by the Minister, Customs in fact imposes the maximum allowed under the Code. 2. The customs user fee, which is based in part on a percentage of the value of the goods, is not limited to the approximate cost of service.

MAIN POINTS. 1. The new Foreign Trade law contains provisions that would appear to require MoCI to publish for comment rules, regulations or guidelines issued under the authority of that law. There appear to be no similar legal or policy provisions that would require Customs and other border authorities to publish proposed legal acts and procedures for comment by stakeholders as required by the TFA. Formal procedures have not been established to notify interested parties of proposed changes in laws and regulations or to process any comments received. 2. Consistent with the TFA measure, the draft Customs Code, if enacted, will require the Commissioner General to provide interested persons with a reasonable opportunity to comment on proposed customs rules or regulations, and to publish any such rules or regulations at least 30 days prior to the date of entry into force, subject to justified exceptions. 3. As a matter of recent practice, Customs and other border authorities have consulted with their stakeholders on legislative or policy proposals. 4. With the exception of the new Foreign Trade law, there are no legal provisions requiring publication prior to entry into force of a law or regulations, as the TFA requires; generally, it appears that legislative acts and administrative regulations enter into force immediately on publication or, possibly, after the signature of the President or relevant Minister.

MAIN POINTS. 1. There are at present no formal provisions enacted concerning an importer’s right to a second test of goods where initial test results are adverse to the importer. 2. The draft Customs Code, if enacted, would provide the right to a second test for customs purposes, authorize Customs to consider the results of such tests, and authorize the Commissioner General to accredit any laboratory for such purposes. 3. At present, Customs and Quarantine do not sample or test imported goods upon arrival for customs or SPS purposes. 4. MoCI can test and prohibit import of certain goods if found not to comply with nationally or internationally-accepted quality standards; in practice, the National Standards Laboratory is said to allow a second test on request as well as allowing testing by third-party laboratories that the NSL considers credible.

MAIN POINTS. 1. Liberia has not established a trade enquiry point of the kind required by the TFA measure, and has not yet made plans to do so. 2. There are no specific laws, formal policies or procedures yet developed for the implementation of an enquiry point of the kind described in the TFA measure. 3. In actual practice, the MoCI and LRA do operate information centers where persons can obtain copies of required forms and request information concerning import/export permits and taxes from information staff in person or by email.