Analyst: There are different voices within the government regarding the bill of Rp97.49 billion which causes public confusion.

Illustration. (Photo: Dok. Antara)

JAKARTA - The steps of the Directorate General of Customs and Excise (DJBC) who submitted a bill for the lack of payment of import duties, import taxes, and administrative sanctions worth Rp. 97.49 billion to Tiffany & Co by giving different explanations in the government are considered to be able to cause public confusion. The government is now urged to provide transparent and consecutive explanations, considering that the billing process of this giant emerged after the yellow seal had already been installed at a number of luxury jewelry outlets.

For information, the installation of seals at the Tiffany & Co outlet was actually carried out by DJBC since last February. However, a comprehensive explanation of this case has only recently come to light, precisely after the official post-import audit results were published. The time lag and the lack of information at the beginning is what is considered to have triggered confusion in the community.

"The public caught on as if there were two voices from one state body. On the one hand, questions arise about the basis for sealing before the audit is completed, on the other hand, it is explained that the audit has been completed and the bill has been issued," said R. Gautama Wiranegara, Specialist in Counter Intelligence Analysis, in his statement. quoted Monday, June 8.

Gautama assessed that the sealing action was a very serious step in customs practice because it was a strong indication of tight security or supervision of the object being examined. Therefore, the government is obliged to disclose in detail the series of handling this case, starting from the initial findings, the legal basis for the installation of the seal, the audit process that is running, until finally the billing amount is issued.

"The problem is, the public first sees the seal rather than hearing the legal explanation. When the chronology is not explained in full, the question will arise whether the sealing is carried out as a security measure, seizure, or a form of administrative pressure," he added.

Based on data released by DJBC, the total bill of IDR 97.49 billion is the accumulation of the shortfall in payment of import duties and taxes which reached IDR 18.99 billion, coupled with administrative sanctions or fines which swelled to IDR 78.5 billion.

Although the nominal is fantastic, Gautama reminded all parties to be vigilant in seeing the matter. He emphasized that the case that entangled Tiffany & Co is so far still within the realm of administrative violations and cannot be immediately dragged into the realm of criminal law.

"It is not appropriate to call it a customs crime or a corruption crime without additional evidence regarding the elements of intention, forgery of documents, smuggling, or the involvement of other parties," explained Gautama.

Through the Tiffany & Co case, Gautama hopes that the government can make it a valuable momentum to strengthen the governance of import supervision. On the other hand, the pattern of public communication between institutions must also be improved so as not to create wild perceptions in the community. He closed his statement by emphasizing that the state is allowed to be firm with business actors, but that firmness must go hand in hand with the collapse of legal procedures.