Study ana­lyzes the first five of the 15 in which MCNet was awar­‐

ded to imple­ment and man­age the Elec­tronic Single Win­dow. The

invest­ig­a­tion reveals sev­eral irreg­u­lar­it­ies from the con­ces­sion
pro­cess to the man­age­ment of the com­pany whose share­hold­ers
are

O Pais - Economico · 25 nov. 2016

The Cen­ter for Pub­lic Integ­rity (CIP) denounced yes­ter­day that the pro­cess of choos­ing the
com­pany that is man­aging the single elec­tronic win­dow ( JUE) - elec­tronic cus­toms clear­-
ance sys­tem - was fraud­u­lent and that the com­pany was chosen three years before the
launch of the pub­lic tender. “Before the pub­lic tender was launched, an agree­ment was
signed between the rep­res­ent­at­ive of Mozam­bi­que Cus­toms, the rep­res­ent­at­ive of CTA and
the Swiss com­pany SGS, we have doc­u­mented this. This agree­ment was signed in 2006,
that is, three years before the tender for the imple­ment­a­tion of the JUE was launched,
which allowed SGS to make all the sur­vey of the needs of the JUE, since it would be gran­ted
the man­age­ment of the sys­tem,” said Borges Nhamire, CIP researcher who said that when
the time came, the Min­istry of Fin­ance made the tender, but that it was noth­ing more than
a facade. “The tender was fic­ti­tious, because the com­pany already had a secret and con­fid­-
en­tial agree­ment with the min­istry. This is not fair, as it did not allow other altern­at­ive
sys­tems to be presen­ted. There are other sys­tems that are used at the regional level, but
due to this situ­ation have not been eval­u­ated. Another anom­al­ous situ­ation is that it was an
inter­na­tional tender, but that it was only pub­lished in the news­pa­per Notícias in its prin­ted
format, how could a com­pany that is in Lon­don sub­mit its pro­posal ”, ques­tioned Nhamire.
Imple­men­ted since 2011 with the aim of com­pu­ter­iz­ing the goods clear­ance pro­cess,
ensur­ing speed, con­veni­ence and pre­vent­ing the pos­sib­il­ity of cor­rup­tion schemes, for CIP
a JUE is far from achiev­ing such feats. "It is true that the clear­ance time has reduced from
the pre­vi­ous two weeks, now it is two days, but there are flaws. One of which the JUE sys­-
tem is con­stantly down, which does not allow for speed. Another issue is that clear­ance
costs have increased, fees have been insti­tuted. In other words, the eco­nomic agent has to
pay about one per­cent of the cost of the goods on Thu and we find that absurd. These fees
are applied for profit by MCNet, and are con­trib­ut­ing to the price of products in the mar­ket.
In 2014 alone, that com­pany received more than 215 mil­lion met­i­cais of dividends res­ult­ing
from the col­lec­tion of these fees. This is divided by the SGCS, which has 60%, the CTA,
with 20% and the Tax Author­ity, also with 20%. If these val­ues were dis­coun­ted for the
state, it would be under­stand­able”, he defen­ded. Another irreg­u­lar­ity advanced by the CIP
is that five years after the imple­ment­a­tion of the JUE, the old sys­tem, the TIMS (Trade
Inform­a­tion and man­age­ment Sys­tem) is still being used, which pro­motes cor­rup­tion.
"TIMS is the pre­vi­ous sys­tem that jus­ti­fied the entry of JUE, but five years after the con­-
ces­sion, it is still used in par­al­lel and is not under­stood. The JUE mod­ules are not all imple­-
men­ted yet and we do not under­stand why. This opens up space for cor­rup­tion, because
JUE is the elec­ tronic sys­
PressReader tem that allows when a declar­a­tion is sub­mit­ted, the inform­a­tion
App
× Read 7,000+ newspapers and magazines with one app.
reaches many people. Whereas TIMS is manual, and this makes it pos­sible for influ­en­tial
★★★★☆ ★
Install
people not to pay fees for choos­ing this sys­tem, " he described. The CIP also denounced
that there is a con­flict of interest in the man­age­ment of MCNet, since the con­tract­ing
entity, the state, is also a share­holder in the com­pany with a 20% stake. “The Tax Author­-
ity sends its employ­ees there-it happened with the last two former dir­ect­ors gen­eral of
Cus­toms-to rep­res­ent them. If that dir­ector is a high offi­cial of the state with due salary
and other perks and sim­ul­tan­eously rep­res­ents the state in MCNet, and also has perks, to
what extent is he Inde­pend­ent to defend the interests of the state and not to defend his
own interests,” he asked. The study also found that there was a viol­a­tion of the law of pub­-
lic prob­ity. "At this time, it is not known who the admin­is­trat­ors of MCNet are and in the
research we have done we have not been provided with this inform­a­tion, because it is not
on the com­pany's web­site. The inform­a­tion is that the exon­er­ated CEO, less than a year
away, is at MCNet as an admin­is­trator. This viol­ates the law of pub­lic prob­ity. It is writ­ten
in the law that a pub­lic offi­cial may not, within two years of his dis­missal, go to work for