APPENDIX 10
Memorandum submitted by Goodwin Air Plasma
Further to your letter and our telephone conversation,
I enclose some of the relevant parts of our complaint to the Parliamentary
Ombudsman, and correspondence with the DTI in January this year.
***.
Following this first case, we received a further
order from Pakistan from a private company, for two of the same
model. *** so we manufactured the machines and shipped them, as
we had done many times previously. This resulted in the goods
being seized by customs, the arrest of myself and my export administrator
Barry Hales, and much legal expense and time wasted in consequence.
When it became clear that we considered this a totally separate
enquiry and we were not "attempting to evade export controls"
no further action was taken, but we were made to apply for a licence
in this case (which was refused) and were effectively told that
we should contact the DTI before shipping any equipment to Pakistan.
Subsequently we have had two orders for spares
from existing customers and on each occasion have had to wait
many months before receiving notification that "no licence
is required". The most recent case has been going on for
six months before my threat of the ombudsman produced a result
within 24 hours.
During this period, I would strongly suspect
that some of our equipment has found its way to Pakistan though
third parties (distributors) to whom we have sold quite legally,
but over whom we have no control of sales, and to whom no restrictions
are applied.
I hope the enclosed gives some measure of our
dissatisfaction and frustration, and I would be pleased to contribute
further if this might lead to some clarification or easing of
the position regarding export of our equipment to Pakistan and
other markets to which, historically, we have had some small but
significant success.
17 February 2000
4B. WHAT ARE
WE COMPLAINING
ABOUT?
Despite our products being freely available
goods throughout the world, we have been requested to apply for
export licences when shipping to Pakistan. To the best of our
knowledge we are the only manufacturer in Europe so restricted.
Having made an application in August 1999, being told that it
should be cleared in time for shipment at the end of September,
we are still waiting at the end of January 2000.
Throughout this period, I have frequently tried
to progress the application by telephone. On each occasion I have
been given a different story and timescale, many of which have
been contradictory and therefore could not be true. I have made
notes on some of these calls separately.
Because of this, I recently decided to put my
enquiries in writing (by fax). I received no response at all prior
to initiating this complaint, or to the date of submission. Copies
of my faxes are enclosed.
This shipment is spares for an existing customer
to whom we freely exported the machine a few years ago.
Our goods are of a type available from many
manufacturers and distributors around the world. Spares for our
equipment are also manufactured by companies who copy such parts
(without authority!). According to our information, end user controls
apply to Dual Use Goods, which are listed in regulations and do
not include goods of the type we manufacture.
In spite of the above, we are requested to consult
the Department about any shipment to Pakistan (and potentially
elsewhere). My enquiries amongst other manufacturers in our industry
have revealed no others subject to such restraint of trade, indeed
most are freely exporting to Pakistan.
Our complaint is therefore in two parts,
(1) We are being subject to controls that
should not be applied to our goods, are not being applied to other
manufacturers of similar goods, and in any case are demonstrably
ineffective.
(2) That the handling of our application
is not being dealt with in a proper manner, on a reasonable timescale,
or with honesty.
4C. HOW HAS
IT AFFECTED
YOU?
We have so far lost the value of this order
(£4,609.40), incurred the interest charges thereon since
July 1999, and spent much time and telephone/fax cost in pursuing
the application. It has also interfered with other potential business
in Pakistan and elsewhere to the detriment of this company relative
to our competitors.
It has also impacted on our cashflow, causing
much time to be spent on dealing with these matters and personal
stress to myself and other employees.
Potentially, the customer could decide that
if he cannot get spares for our machine, he will buy a machine
from a different manufacturer, or would advise others wishing
to cut metal to do so. Thus, there is the potential for loss of
business in the future.
I think the situation regarding the need to
apply for export licences needs to be clarified, since our goods
are not classified as Dual-use, and these restraints of trade
are not being applied to others supplying similar goods. Once
clarified, if they still are deemed to apply to our goods, they
must be seen to apply to all such goods. Since welding and cutting
equipment is so freely available worldwide, the only effective
situation, in my view, is an official embargo.
I think that if an application is necessary,
it should be dealt with properly, on the timescale specified and
with honesty.
If, as a result of the Departments failure to
act as above we lose business, they should be held liable for
our losses. If they decided that by declining grant of a licence
they could frustrate this claim, we would wish the reasons to
be given full scrutiny.
SUMMARY OF SOME TELEPHONE CONTACTS WITH DTI
ETC
APPROXIMATE DATE
July 23 1999—Received L/C for spares order.
Spoke to Dave Warboys at DTI who advised a licence application
was required. Also said that I could not submit without an original
End User Statement. Said process was currently taking 4 to 6 weeks.
August 24—Finally received End User statement,
and submitted application. Spoke to Dave Warboys regarding shipment
deadline—end of September and was told that it should not
be a problem. Told to phone Mina Hatwal in middle of month.
Mid-late September—Spoke to Mina Hatwal
on a number of occasions. She said that they were just waiting
for the Foreign Office—the other two advisors had ok'ed
it. Eventually gave me the contact number for FO Spoke to Michael
Moynahan. Said the officer dealing with it would take about a
week.
October—Customer re-validated L/C to 15
December.
November 4—Our solicitor tried to ask
what was happening, but was "stonewalled".
November 22—Spoke to DTI & FO (Paul
Cleary?). FO advised that they had in fact cleared the shipment
on 4 November, but that it had been referred back to them by the
DTI for consideration following the "Lloyd Statement?".
It should not take more than three days.
November 26—Spoke to Paul at FO Said it
had just been cleared and should be with DTI that day or Monday
29. On 3 December spoke to Mina Hatwal who claimed to be still
waiting, but promised to investigate and phone back. She did not.
December 6—Much to-ing and fro-ing between
DTI (Mike Jones) and FO (Paul). FO insisting they had "signed
it off" and DTI "not received it". Eventually agreed
that it had been cleared but then said still awaiting Ministry
of Defence. This had never been mentioned before.
Contacted MP's office. They made enquiries and
were told I should hear in two or three days. Two days later,
Mina Hatwal said eight to 10 days.
December 15— Mina Hatwal would give no
information at all. When I asked if I should advise our customer
to buy through a third party she consulted a colleague and said
"two or three weeks".
Three weeks would have been 5 January. I heard
nothing, and since telephone promises seemed meaningless, I decided
to proceed by fax, commencing on 14 January (copies enclosed).
REFERENCE: EXPORT
LICENCE APPLICATION
5312
It was suggested by Mike Jones that I could
address my enquiries to you if I was not able to get a satisfactory
response from the staff in your department.
On 15 December, I was told by Mina Hatwal that
I would hear the result of this application in two to three weeks.
It is now over five weeks later.
I decided that as my contacts by telephone have
resulted in me being given conflicting stories (one might call
them lies), I should proceed in writing; hence my fax to you last
week.
I note that I have not had the courtesy of a
reply.
Please note that should we suffer losses as
the result of your inaction, then we shall take legal advice as
to the possibility of recovering such losses.
I wish to reinforce the position as I know it.
(1) Our goods are not Dual Use Goods.
(2) These goods are freely available throughout
the world, other than directly from ourselves.
(3) Other manufacturers of similar goods
are exporting freely to Pakistan.
(4) I am informed that the application was
approved on 4 November, but referred back by yourself for "re-consideration".
(5) We were initially advised (in July 1999)
that an application should take 4 to 6 weeks.
I have, today, re-established contact with my
MP and obtained the necessary information for making a complaint
to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. In the absence of any response
from your department and apparently little regard for the law
or Code of Practice on Government Information, I would appear
to have little alternative if this matter cannot be resolved in
the very near future.
Please consider this to be my formal complaint
in this regard.
20 January 2000
Letter from DTI to Mr Goodwin, 21 January
2000
EXPORT LICENCE APPLICATION 5312-PAKISTAN
Thank you for your fax of yesterday's date.
We have now received the information we were
awaiting before finalising processing of this application, and
can confirm that no licence is required in this case. A letter
is being sent to you separately formally confirming that this
is the case.
In the context of your fax of 20 January, I
should be grateful if you would confirm whether you will be taking
further action in relation to this case.
| 
