Killing the Customs Service slowly

Two weeks ago, the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division delivered its judgment in Kehinde Ogunwumiju versus Nigerian Customs Service Board & Anor. In the suit, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, represented by Counsel Tunde Ahmed Adejumo, Esq had approached the Court  primarily seeking a declaration that in view of the provisions of […]

Two weeks ago, the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division delivered its judgment in Kehinde Ogunwumiju versus Nigerian Customs Service Board & Anor. In the suit, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, represented by Counsel Tunde Ahmed Adejumo, Esq had approached the Court  primarily seeking a declaration that in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the Customs, Excise Tariff, etc. (Consolidation) Act and the 2nd Schedule to the Customs, Excise Tariff, etc. (Consolidation) Act, it was unlawful for officers of the Nigerian Customs Service to have demanded and collected import duty and other related charges from him in respect of his personal effect. It was a Louis Vuitton laptop found in his baggage following a search by the officers of the Nigerian Customs Service upon his arrival at the Nnamdi Azikwe International Airport, Abuja in June, 2019.

The court in its judgment was of the view that goods exempted from import duty and other related charges under the law, include those contained in a passenger’s baggage provided that the said goods are not intended for sale, barter or exchange; as well as personal and household effects.The court ruled that the Louis Vuitton laptop found in his baggage by the officers of the Nigerian Customs Service was his personal effect and meant for his personal use.

It was the opinion of the court, that Nigeria Customs had not established “via cogent and credible evidence that the said bag was meant for sale, exchange or barter” and hence could not lawfully demand and collect import duty and other related charges in respect of the Louis Vuitton laptop. The court said there was no legal basis upon which the officers of the Nigerian Customs Service demanded and collected import duty and other related charges from the passenger and ordered the Customs to refund to him, the sum of N156, 955. 20k in import duty and other related charges. The court made Mr. Kehinde Ogunwumiju richer by N5,000,000 as awarded exemplary damages.

This development has not attracted much attention because every concern in the country now is zeroed in on fighting the coronavirus pandemic. But significant is the awesome fact that if this judgement stands, it is now unlawful for officers of the Nigerian Customs Service to demand and collect import duty and other related charges from anyone in respect of goods, personal effects found in their baggage provided that these  are not meant for sale, barter or exchange. In other words, the only instance in which officers of the Nigerian Customs Service can lawfully demand and collect import duty from anyone in respect of goods or personal effects found in their baggage is where it can be established that the said goods or personal effects are meant for sale, barter or exchange.

Customs officers have found the judgement grossly incredible and many of them believe that if this stands, then the service is as good as dead. Indeed, they reason in utter dejection, that it would be better to withdraw Customs officers from the baggage halls of International Air and have other Airport service agencies take over and perform whatever remains of Customs duties.

How are customs officers to establish the intention of a passenger on the goods he is carrying? How could the officers have erred when going by the book, they charged Mr. Kehinde Ogunwumiju duty, which has earned appropriate revenue to the federal government? How could they have been wrong in their own perception of the passenger’s excess over his entitlements against the clear provisions of Section 8 of the Customs, Excise Tariff, etc. (Consolidation) Act and the 2nd Schedule to the Customs, Excise Tariff, etc. (Consolidation) Act

This is the second time the Nigeria Customs Service is faced with this kind of embarrassing judgement. In July 2019, an Abuja Federal High Court awarded over N5.5 billion against the Customs to a firm, Maggpiy Trading TFZE for illegal detention and seizure of its containers of imported rice destined to Tinapa Free Zone, Calabar. And now this very case of assessment and collection import duty on importation via baggage with values beyond the concessions allowed to passengers (N50,000.00). The Customs Service lost the case despite the clear provisions in Section 37 (1) of the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA) CAP C45, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN), which states that, “Except as permitted by or under the Customs laws, no imported goods shall be delivered or removed on importation until the importer has paid to the proper officer any duty chargeable thereon, ….” Thus in view of the provisions of section 37 (1), the Nigeria Customs Service Board, exercising the powers conferred on it under section 4 (1) of CEMA, which granted concessions to duty payment of importation through the baggage to 2 categories of Nigerian passengers; who had been abroad for a period of less than 9 months, and allowed to take their baggage imports duty free subject to the conditions outlined in section 3 of the Baggage Code; who had been  abroad for a period of more than 9 months and also allowed to take their imported goods duty free subject to the conditions laid down in Section 4 of the Baggage Code. Section 3 of the baggage code allows passengers who had been abroad for a period less than 9 months, new personal effects and gifts with values not exceeding N50,000.00  but excluding (jewellery, photographic equipment, electronics and other luxury goods) to be delivered duty free. Duty is however to be paid on  excess of N50,000.00. The concessions are clearly spelt out. How the Customs Service lose this case begs to be answered?

For a long time now, the Nigeria Customs Service have been under the limelight, and being killed slowly.  Having twice lost their headship to appointments outside the service owing to a crisis of confidence in the professional cadre, officers have lost sight of a viable horizon for advancement. This has affected the psyche adversely. While the political leadership appreciates the colossal gains being made at the ports in terms of garnered revenue given revived transparency and accountability, officers worry that greater losses through fraudulent waivers given bills for collection and outright lethargy of discouraged and also untrained and hence incompetent officers, does not give government due and deserved advantage. Now, this legal interpretation of determining via cogent and credible evidence that goods found in a passenger’s baggage are personal effects or meant for sale, exchange or barter, has put our customs officers at ports of entry in confusion and must be addressed. As a lay man, I beg the Customs Service to sanction their legal representation, and appeal the judgements I cited here. If their spirit is still alive.