An authorised official acting on behalf of the National Tobacco Office entered a retail premises in the Cavan/Monaghan area this week and, after identifying themselves, asked that the person behind the counter, deemed to be the Person in charge, supply them with two packs of Silk Cut Purple, receipt of which was provided (see below).
The extraordinary action, while provided for in law (PHTA 2002) and (SI 271 of 2016) had as its rationale that the packs were to be forwarded to a designated laboratory. Here they would be checked by way of an examination/analysis to ensure that the Contents of the cigarettes were in line with the permissible levels of carbon monoxide, tar and nicotine as set out in the Statutory Instrument.
We have written to the National Tobacco Office (see below) making our views known on this action and seeking there to be a protocol put in place that will not result in a financial loss to a retailer who is, in every sense of the word, innocent of any “wrongdoing”.
There is a Section in the Act which provides an option for an authorised officer to pay for products, it would be helpful if this became standard practice.
In these days of “scams” PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL STAFF ARE GIVEN SIGHT OF AUTHORISATION WARRANTS PRIOR TO PROVIDING “SAMPLES” TO PERSONS CLAIMING TO BE OFFICIALS.
Ms Ruddy , I represent a registered tobacco products retailer who had a number of packets of Silk Cut Purple taken from their shop by an authorised official.
A receipt was provided in which a number of entries were handwritten by the official.
In the Batch/Lot number column, the figures 5399 2994 have been entered, as have the words “batch unavailable”.
In the Type of Examination/Analysis column the words carbon monoxide + tar + nicotine has been entered.
Your name, your title (PEHO), the National Tobacco Office and your e-mail address were also handwritten by the official.
These products have been taken away for examination/analysis and are not, we suspect, going to be returned in a merchantable state.
A number of issues arise from this action, which, even though it is provided for by legislation, need to be clarified.
A barcode is not an identification- the unique identification is printed on the Tax Stamp and is specific to that product. You are also aware that since the advent of Track and Trace, a string of codes are placed on each pack, identifiable by way of specialised equipment that assists law and Revenue officials to detect non-compliant and contraband tobacco products. The barcode is not proof of Batch or provenance.
Ms Ruddy, I’m at a loss to understand the precise information you hope to glean from an analysis of the contents of the tobacco product you removed from our members shop that was not available from demanding samples from the authorised distributor of the Silk Cut brand, JTI.
Is it your intention to return the analysed packs after they have satisfied your professional interest as they have a value in both excise and wholesale amounts that our member will need to seek appropriate credit for.
The receipt your official supplied does not have sufficient identification to satisfy a Request for credit.
We have excellent relations with the Environmental Health Officers and would welcome a letter from either your Office or from the EHS setting out how future visits to remove samples will be conducted and how the products will be returned post-analysis, assuming they are not required as evidence of wrongdoing.
