The Chamber of Commerce's group of oil and oil product distributors unanimously adopted a request yesterday to ask the Government and Parliament to withdraw the amendment to the Energy Law proposing the introduction of mandatory fuel labeling, "Vijesti" learned.
On Friday, the government adopted a proposed amendment without a public debate, adding an entire chapter of 19 articles to the law relating to the so-called fuel marking, or the procedure for adding markers (fine powder) to petroleum products during import.
These costs are estimated at one to two cents per liter of fuel and would be justified costs that would be included in the price of fuel, meaning that this procedure would be paid for by end consumers.
The basic draft law on energy has already passed the parliamentary committees, and is on the agenda of the session that begins tomorrow. The Committee on Economics is expected to give its opinion on these government amendments later, probably early next week.
Representatives of Jugopetrol did not attend the Group meeting, while all others were unanimous in requesting the withdrawal of these amendments.
During the discussion, it was stated that they should be withdrawn from the procedure because no public debate was held on them, because they are contrary to European Union standards, would cause large costs for traders and consumers, while the existence of fuel smuggling, which this measure is allegedly supposed to prevent, has not been established.
They stated that the costs would amount to seven to 10 million euros, and that there is only one laboratory in Montenegro that can perform this marking, which is why they suspect job-fixing. They also pointed out that the Government expects to earn five million euros from combating smuggling, and that the costs are higher than that, but have been passed on to consumers.
The marking itself would be carried out during the import of fuel, after importers pay excise duties, VAT and the cost of marking, so they believe that such a procedure does not make sense because it introduces the idea that petroleum products are resold after all duties have been paid on them, and not on fuel that is exempt from paying duties and which may be subject to smuggling. It was also pointed out that so far no case of fuel smuggling by a registered trader has been recorded.
During the discussion, it was also announced that marking would be logical for fuel sold in marinas and ports, whose owners the Government has exempted from paying the shares, while at the same time imposing a new fee of three cents for creating oil reserves and now another cent or two for marking on others.
It was also stated that this measure will further jeopardize competitiveness because it gives an advantage to Jugopetrol, which is the only company that has the possibility of importing petroleum products cheaper by sea, while the others are forced to buy from them or import in tankers from other ports. However, now the marking costs will be the same or similar for both a 25-ton tanker and tankers of several thousand tons. Thus, one marker would be used for the largest tanker, and up to three thousand markers for the same amount of fuel in tankers.
Those who import fuel by tanker will have an additional problem, as they must register in advance for the marking procedure and then wait for the marker control, which can extend the entire import procedure by up to a day, especially during the season and heavy traffic on roads and border crossings. This, they say, will significantly increase their costs for storage, tanker rental, driver's per diems, etc., but will also cause delays in procurement.
They also said that there is no public interest in the marking process in this way, that the explanation does not provide any reason or evidence of fuel smuggling, which is why they suspect the existence of private interest. They also believe that because of all this, the Government has avoided a public debate.
It was also stated that last year the state had a 12 percent increase in revenue from fuel duties, excise duties and VAT compared to 2023, and that now all of this is being put at risk. They concluded that there is no justified reason for introducing this measure, other than to jeopardize competition and for someone to profit at the expense of the economy and citizens.
Bonus video:
