December competition 2023

[FosseWay]

^^ I agree with the above, but - and this applies to the Swedish postal service above all - most countries have strict rules governing the concept of universal postal delivery which makes interfering with the official postal service in various ways a crime.

I would argue that the postal service's most important duty is to ensure that postal consignments reach their destination as efficiently as possible (as well as intact, obviously). Bureaucratic procedures that significantly degrade this service provision should simply be regarded as illegal. If I were a postal worker who delayed mail delivery by storing it up for a couple of weeks and then delivering it all in one batch - with no intention of stealing or defrauding, just laziness - I would be guilty of a crime (at least I would in Sweden and the UK). The rules should be the same for the administrative and official end of the process too.

If the postal service or customs authorities have a problem with material that should attract duty coming through the system undetected, then they need to put more resources on dealing with it, such that items are not delayed. They must make the judgement: is it better to let them through and forego a small amount of duty, or pay the expenses involved in improving the procedure to ensure that more people who should pay duty do? They can't have it both ways.

And no postal or customs service ever seems to address the fundamental inconsistency that exists, whereby it is permissible to import goods up to a specified limit if you cross the border in person, but this limit ceases to apply if the goods travel on their own (i.e. by post). This is illogical. Either we accept the idea of de minimis on this or we don't.

[velind]

In India, if a person is involved in a criminal case (like murder, arson, theft,....) then the person is innocent until proven guilty. The onus of proving the guilt is on the state.
But if the person is involved in financial issues like Income Tax or Customs, then the person is guilty until proven innocent. The onus of proving innocence is on the affected person only.

Civil servants are often caught in a web of rules, but often there is some wriggle room also where it becomes the task of the civil servant to do what is right. It is their task because it is tax payers who pay their salaries, so tax payers have a claim on servants displaying correct behaviour. Although, I am scratching my head on the entry "NOT DECLARED GIFT" when I can see on the customs declaration that it was, it's the end result that counts and that is a zero.

That end result is correct. It is good that it was achieved. It is not a great concession or effort by the assessor, but his task, since the evidence in this thread is overwhelming.

That leaves one more thing. It is decidedly uncommon to assume fraud from the beginning; it may even be against a legal principle in many countries and one that India may well have adopted also: people are innocent until they have been proven guilty. That's of course a question to be remedied at a higher level in the organisation than the assessor.

Peter