- COMAC Gives Finance Ministry 14 Days to Suspend Customs Act Provision
Ghana’s oil-marketing industry has given the Ministry of Finance 14 days to suspend a new petroleum-tax arrangement, warning that its implementation could raise fuel prices, disrupt supplies and concentrate financial risk among bulk importers.
The Chamber of Oil Marketing Companies is demanding the immediate and indefinite suspension of section 136 of the Customs Act, 2026, Act 1179, which shifts responsibility for accounting for downstream petroleum taxes from oil and LPG marketing companies to Bulk Import, Distribution and Export Companies.
COMAC said it had placed its members on alert and would convene an emergency general meeting to consider administrative, regulatory and legal options if the government failed to respond within the two-week deadline.
The Chamber stopped short of threatening a disruption of petroleum supplies, stressing the essential role its members play in the economy. But its ultimatum marks a significant escalation of an industry dispute that began after it wrote to the Ghana Revenue Authority on September 23 seeking the suspension of the provision.
“COMAC considers Section 136 to be a transfer of risk, not reform,” the Chamber said.
Its central argument is that the legislation changes the point at which taxes are collected without resolving what it considers the real problem: weak enforcement of existing credit limits, guarantees and payment controls.
Under the existing arrangement, BIDECs account for import duties and port-related charges when petroleum products enter the country.
Oil marketing companies and LPG marketing companies subsequently account for taxes and levies attached to products released for sale at the pumps.
Section 136 transfers that downstream tax liability to the bulk-supply companies. Under subsection 3, a BIDEC must account for the tax when the product is sold. Subsection 5 allows the Commissioner-General of the GRA to defer payment for up to 21 days where the obligation is supported by a bank guarantee.
In theory, collecting petroleum taxes from fewer bulk suppliers could make supervision easier and reduce the number of entities the GRA must monitor.
COMAC disputes that reasoning.
The Chamber said there are about 56 licensed bulk distribution companies and no statutory limit on the number of businesses that can obtain such licences. Oil marketers could also seek BIDEC licences, potentially reproducing the same enforcement problem at a different level.
“Today, 56 BDCs exist, and there’s no statutory cap, just as there’s no cap on OMCs,” COMAC said. “That is not a remedy for what is wrong or what needs to be fixed.”
The industry body therefore wants the existing framework retained, with BIDECs accounting for import duties and port charges and retail marketers remaining responsible for taxes and levies at the ex-pump stage.
The most immediate commercial concern is liquidity.
Shifting the tax liability to BIDECs could require bulk suppliers to mobilise significantly more working capital before oil marketing companies have paid for the products supplied to them.
BIDECs may also face higher bank-guarantee, interest and financing costs. Those expenses are unlikely to be absorbed indefinitely and could eventually be incorporated into petroleum prices.
COMAC said bulk importers indicated during a September 18 meeting with the Customs Division of the GRA that they would need at least 45 days to settle the tax obligations. The legislation, however, provides for deferral of up to 21 days.
The mismatch creates a potential financing gap.
If a BIDEC sells fuel to an oil marketer on terms extending beyond the statutory tax-payment period, it may be required to remit taxes before receiving payment from the buyer. The bulk supplier must then finance both the petroleum cargo and the tax liability.
For large, well-capitalised companies, that may be manageable at a cost. Smaller BIDECs could struggle to obtain the necessary credit lines or guarantees, potentially reducing competition in the bulk-distribution market.
The policy could consequently strengthen larger operators while making market entry more difficult for smaller suppliers.
COMAC is also concerned that the arrangement could concentrate operational risk.
A single BIDEC may supply products to several oil marketing companies and hundreds of retail stations. If that bulk supplier encounters a tax dispute, liquidity crisis or restriction on product release, the effects could spread across multiple retail networks.
Under the existing system, a default by one oil marketing company is more likely to be contained within that business. Moving the tax obligation upstream may make collection easier for the state, but a failure at that level could have wider consequences for supply.
The policy choice is therefore a trade-off. The GRA may gain fewer collection points, but the industry may become more vulnerable to the financial condition of those taxpayers.
COMAC maintains that the government has not published sufficient modelling to show that the revenue benefits outweigh the risks to prices, competition and supply security.
It said the provision was introduced without adequate industry consultation, an impact assessment or a clearly communicated transition plan.
“This far-reaching change was introduced without due consultation and presents dire consequences for operators, the industry, and the national economy,” the Chamber said in its earlier correspondence.
Beyond section 136, COMAC is demanding greater transparency about how the current petroleum-control system has been administered.
The Chamber wants a written explanation of how some operators were allegedly permitted to continue lifting petroleum products after exceeding approved credit limits or payment deadlines.
It is also seeking an independent review of non-bonded status granted to three operators, which it says appears inconsistent with published qualification criteria.
COMAC has further requested a formal response concerning allegedly unaccounted petroleum products and 10 impounded diesel tankers.
These remain allegations and requests for clarification from the industry body. The Ministry of Finance and GRA must be given the opportunity to explain the transactions, exemptions and enforcement decisions involved.
Nevertheless, COMAC’s argument is that if existing controls were overridden or inconsistently applied, relocating the tax liability will not prevent similar failures.
“COMAC believes Section 136 seeks to change the tax collection point rather than address the core issue,” the Chamber said.
The government has legitimate reasons to strengthen petroleum-tax collection.
Fuel taxes and levies are an important source of public revenue, and defaults by marketers can create arrears that are difficult to recover after products have already been sold to consumers.
Moving the obligation to the bulk level could enable the GRA to secure revenue earlier in the supply chain and monitor fewer large transactions.
But revenue protection must be weighed against the cost of financing the new arrangement.
Ghana’s fuel prices are already under pressure from elevated international petroleum prices and cedi depreciation. COMAC has projected that diesel could reach GH¢19.60 per litre during the first October pricing window, despite the government’s extension of a GH¢2-per-litre intervention.
Introducing additional financing and guarantee costs at the same time could weaken the relief provided through the suspension of part of the D-Levy and reduced industry margins.
The government must therefore demonstrate whether section 136 will reduce tax leakage by more than it increases the cost of fuel distribution.
That requires publishing the policy analysis behind the provision, explaining the transitional arrangements and identifying how businesses will be prevented from passing excessive financing costs to consumers.
COMAC’s 14-day ultimatum turns what began as a technical dispute over tax administration into a broader test of regulatory consultation.
The Ministry of Finance must now decide whether to proceed, amend the implementation framework or pause the provision for further engagement.
The underlying question is not simply who should collect and remit the tax. It is whether Ghana can strengthen petroleum-revenue collection without making fuel more expensive, reducing competition or transferring supply risk to a smaller number of financially exposed companies.
