The Oil and Petroleum Derivatives Distribution Group of the Chamber of Commerce unanimously adopted a request to the Government and the Assembly to withdraw amendments to the Energy Law, which propose the introduction of a fuel marking obligation, according to Vijesti.
The Government adopted the proposed amendments on Friday without public consultation, which add an entire chapter of 14 articles to the law concerning the so-called fuel marking process. This would require markers to be added during the import of petroleum derivatives.
These costs are estimated to be between one and two cents per liter of fuel, which would be considered justified costs included in the price of fuel, meaning that end consumers would ultimately bear these costs.
The original Energy Law proposal has already passed through parliamentary committees and is on the agenda for the upcoming session starting tomorrow. The Economic Committee is expected to discuss these amendments at a later time, likely early next week.
Representatives of Jugopetrol were absent from the session, while all other members unanimously agreed to request the withdrawal of the amendments.
During the discussion, it was mentioned that the amendments should be withdrawn from the procedure due to the lack of public consultation, their conflict with EU standards, and the high costs they would impose on traders and consumers. Furthermore, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate the existence of fuel smuggling, which the measure is supposedly intended to prevent.
The group argued that the costs could amount to between seven and ten million euros and noted that there is only one laboratory in Montenegro capable of conducting the marking, raising concerns about potential favoritism. They pointed out that the Government expects a five million euro revenue from combating fuel smuggling, which is smaller than the additional costs passed on to consumers.
The marking would occur during fuel imports after importers have already paid excise duties, VAT, and the cost of marking. Therefore, the traders argue that this process is senseless, as it applies to petroleum derivatives that have already been taxed and not to fuel that might have been smuggled and then resold.
They also stated that no cases of fuel smuggling by registered traders have been recorded so far.
The discussion also highlighted that fuel marking would be logical for fuel sold in marinas and ports, which the Government has exempted from excise duties. At the same time, the Government has imposed a new fee of three cents for the creation of oil reserves and an additional fee of one or two cents for fuel marking.
It was also noted that this measure would further harm competitiveness, as it gives Jugopetrol an advantage, being the only company capable of importing petroleum derivatives via the cheaper sea route. Others are forced to buy from Jugopetrol or import by tanker from other ports. However, under the new measures, the same or similar marking costs will apply whether importing by truck with a capacity of 10 tons or by tanker with several thousand tons.
Importers using tankers will face additional challenges, as they will need to notify authorities in advance for the marking procedure and then wait for marker inspections. This could delay the entire import process by up to a day, especially during the busy season with heavy traffic at roadways and border crossings. This will significantly increase costs related to demurrage, tanker rentals, driver daily allowances, and procurement delays.
The group emphasized that there is no public interest in implementing this fuel marking process and that no reasons or evidence regarding the existence of fuel smuggling were provided in the proposal. They suspect that there may be private interests at play and believe that the Government avoided public consultation as a result.
The statement also mentioned that last year, the state saw a 12% increase in revenue from fuel duties, excise taxes, and VAT compared to 2023. Now, with the proposed changes, this growth is at risk. The group concluded that there is no valid reason for introducing this measure, other than to harm competition and allow someone to profit at the expense of the economy and citizens.
