Monopoly in importing mobile phones; Legal loophole or weak supervision?

The report of the National Court of Accounts regarding the creation of a monopoly in the import of mobile phones and the registration of an order of more than 96 million dollars outside of the declared criteria, in addition to raising questions about the performance of the Ministry of Industry, Mines and Trade, raises the need to review the role of existing laws and regulations, how to monitor their implementation, and the responsibility of the parliament in correcting possible loopholes. Post monopoly in the import of mobile phones; Legal loophole or weak supervision? It first appeared in Safir Arjan.

According to Ambassador Arjan, the country's D&N has announced in a report that since 1403, the application of exceptions without clear rules in the Ministry of Privacy has provided the basis for creating a monopoly in the process of importing mobile phones and concentrating it in the hands of four specific companies.

According to this report, in one case, custom registration worth more than 96 million dollars, equivalent to more than a quarter of the allowed quota, was assigned without complying with the legal limit and without including the eight-digit basic identifier and code of the goods, and only based on the commitment to build an agricultural and industrial complex; Meanwhile, according to the Court of Accounts, the said project lacked physical progress.

This regulatory body has found the way of applying exceptions to be contrary to the law, causes discrimination among importers and disrupts the principle of competition, and has announced the pursuit of reforming the relevant mechanisms. Now the question is, in addition to handling this case, what mechanism exists to prevent the repetition of such decisions, and which institutions are responsible for monitoring the implementation of the regulations and their possible modification?

How do exceptions become privileges?

The first axis of investigation is the way of decision-making in the Ministry of Privacy. If the registration of orders is done outside of the general criteria and using exceptions, it is necessary to specify on what legal basis these exceptions are defined, which authority or unit has the authority to apply them, and the requests subject to this privilege are evaluated based on what criteria.

In the mentioned case, the reference to the obligation to build an agricultural and industrial complex to assign a significant capacity of mobile phone order registration raises questions about the suitability of the obligation provided with the concession granted. The Ministry of Security should explain what mechanism exists to verify such obligations and how it has been ensured that the legal ceilings are met and that the applicants have equal opportunities to import.

Of course, to determine the responsibility of individuals, decision-making documents and the results of legal proceedings should be reviewed. The report of a regulatory body can be the basis for demanding an answer, but the determination of the responsibility of each person requires the investigation of his role in the decision-making process and the determination of the violation by the competent authority.

Are existing laws enough to prevent monopoly?

In addition to the responsibility of the executive body, the issue can also be examined from a legislative point of view. If the existing regulations have made it possible to apply wide exceptions or make decisions without clear criteria, it should be clear that the problem was caused by a flaw in the law, ambiguity in the regulations, weak monitoring of the implementation of the regulations, or deviation from the existing regulations.

This distinction is important; Because in case of violation of clear regulations, the main focus should be on the performance of the executive body and the implementation of legal guarantees. But if there are loopholes in the laws or executive regulations that allow the granting of non-transparent points, then the correction of those loopholes can also be put on the agenda.

From this point of view, the mobile phone import case is an opportunity to examine the question of whether the rules related to quota allocation, order registration and application of exceptions are sufficiently transparent, assessable and monitorable? Also, are the criteria for enjoying special privileges defined in such a way that the possibility of discrimination among economic operators is minimized?

What is the responsibility of the parliament against the monitoring reports?

The Islamic Council can pursue this issue through two ways: legislation and supervision. In the field of supervision, the Parliament's Industries and Mines Commission can, within the framework of its legal authority, request an explanation from the Ministry of Security about the way import quotas are allocated, the basis for applying exceptions, and the measures taken to eliminate monopoly areas.

In the legislative field as well, if the investigations show that the existing regulations do not have enough transparency or there is ambiguity in determining the limits of the powers of the executive body, the representatives can review the amendment of the related laws or pursue the amendment of the executive regulations; Of course, provided that the source of the problem is clearly identified first, and the amendment of the law does not replace the investigation of possible violations of the current regulations.

In the meantime, the important question is whether the parliament will be satisfied with the case-by-case follow-up of the Court of Accounts report, or will it turn the review of allocation and order registration mechanisms into an opportunity to evaluate the rules governing competition in this market? The answer to this question can clarify how parliamentary oversight goes from demanding an explanation about a specific case to pursuing the correction of problematic procedures.

Of course, until the official position of the Commission of Industries and Mines or other relevant authorities on this case is announced, it is not possible to announce the definite entry of the parliament into it or the decision to amend the laws.

From identifying the violation to determining responsibility

Another issue is the fate of the case and the result of regulatory measures. Declaring a mechanism in violation of the law, although it is a step to clarify the issue, but it does not answer the questions related to the responsibility of the decision makers, the effects of the decision made and how to prevent its repetition.

The Court of Accounts should explain about the latest status of the proceedings, measures taken to determine possible responsibilities and how to pursue the reformation of the mentioned mechanism. The Ministry of Privacy must also determine whether the registration of the order in question is still valid, what action has been taken to review the commitment provided, and whether the procedures related to the application of exceptions have been revised or not.

It is also necessary to clarify whether other similar points have been assigned with the same mechanism and if there are similar cases, what measures have been taken to review them.

Finally, the mobile phone import case is not just a matter of how to grant an order registration; This case raises a broader question about the ratio between the authority of the executive body, the transparency of regulations, the supervision of responsible institutions and the role of the legislator in preventing the formation of non-competitive privileges. Now we have to see what will be the explanation of the ministry of privacy, the result of the investigations of the court of accounts and the position of the parliament on this case, and whether these investigations will lead to the assignment of possible responsibilities, the correction of problematic procedures and the strengthening of transparency in the import process or not.