Setting the record straight

In her article "Too dirty for the Japs, just right for us?" (November 5), the chairman of the Housing Authority has chosen to jump into the fray of the current debate on the importation of second-hand Japanese cars, evidently without, with all due respect, having properly researched and checked her facts before rushing to print. In doing so she has merely reflected, with little further original comment, the various pronouncements of Georg Sapiano, in representation of the new car importers - ACIM.

Correctness and loyalty towards our customers, as also accuracy and clarity on these issues for the benefit of both the authorities and the general public, demand from us a clear and unequivocal reply on what, really and truly, are the facts governing this entire issue.

Nowhere is a registration tax utilised as a form of taxation on the age of cars. The only measures that are applied thereafter are linked solely not to the age but to the CO2 emissions of the car. This is levied in the form of road tax and not as registration tax.

The assertion that second-hand cars imported from Japan are actually being taxed less than the equivalent new cars is absolutely untrue, as is easily verifiable, and so should not be so unjustly repeated. With the exception of one model, the tax to which such used vehicles are subject varies between Lm200 and Lm2,100 more than that applicable to the same model of new cars. The difference can even increase in higher capacity engine vehicles.

All the cars being imported by UVIA members conform strictly to the EU directives as enforced in Malta by the Malta Transport Authority - ADT and there is not one car which is presently shipped to Malta that does not conform to these directives. This is an undisputed fact. There is no "loophole" here and there is no "dumping" either. Japan exports these vehicles to over 167 countries, with export levels being earmarked this year to reach the 800,000 figure. The reason for this success lies precisely in the fact that this is not a "dumping" exercise and that the product itself is good, tried and tested, conforms to the high standards of the European Union and is consequently fully respectful, in all aspects of the environmental standards of such countries as New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Australia, Cyprus (none of which are "Mickey Mouse or second hand" countries) and Malta.

Marisa Micallef Leyson may well seek to make comparisons as to which cars cause more pollution - whether the engine capacity cars imported by UVIA members (in the majority 1500cc or less) or the over two-litre high capacity engine, widely sold by new car importers.

Contrary to Ms Micallef Leyson's assertions, many things in this debate stack up both in the government's favour and in the interest of the public. The government is the recipient of a higher tax imposed on used vehicles and the public is the direct beneficiary of a true and fair choice - it is finally able to buy not only an affordable second hand car but one which is certified, authoritatively and independently, as conforming to all applicable EU standards.

Ms Micallef Leyson's final call is to the Minister of Finance to take steps to close an inexistent "loophole" and to encourage a "level playing field" (echoing ad litteram phrases coined by Dr Sapiano et al) which is today, quite frankly, heavily levelled in favour of new car importers. Mickey Mouse country indeed!

UVIA's call is also to the Minister of Finance such that he may respectfully only take decisions based on a true, fair and correctly informed opinion, free from the influence of such gratuitous, one-sided pressure and guided by an accurate and objective appreciation of the situation for the benefit of all concerned and in order to ensure a truly just outcome to this entire issue. This call is equally made to his other fellow ministers and parliamentary secretaries, particularly those holding relevant portfolios, whose views of the matter ought no doubt give considerable assistance to the Minister of Finance in his deliberations.