The Customs Department at Piarco International Airport unjustifiably seized pieces of my non-military-styled, simulated camouflage-patterned apparel, purportedly under the purview of the law under Legal Notice No 33, Section 38, of the Customs Ordinance, Ch 32, No 2. The law reads:
"...Whereas it is provided by Section 38 of the Customs Ordinance, Ch 32, No 2, that the President may, from time to time, by proclamation prohibit the importation, carriage coastwise or exportation of any goods whatso- ever; "And whereas it is deemed expedient that the importation of camouflage pattern material be prohibited; "Now, therefore, I, Ellis Emmanuel Innocent Clarke, President as aforesaid, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 38 of the said ordinance, do hereby prohibit the importation of camouflage pattern materials unless the Minister of Na- tional Security certifies that the importation thereof is for the use of the Trinidad and Tobago Defence Force..."
That law is imprecise, stupid, and whimsical, and being construed and exercised by the Customs Department as such. Ac- cording to Bumble, in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist, "the law is an a--." It needs to be amended, or abolished. In T&T, people wear and use military-styled camouflage accessories and clothing, boldly infringing the law with impunity.
My brother and I arrived in Trinidad from Miami last year for the Carnival celebrations. He was wearing a pair of cargo shorts, made out of washed-out, non-military-styled, simulated camouflage-patterned fabric, and shredded at the knees. While standing in the "no declarations" Green Line, a female Customs officer told my brother that he should change his pants to avoid having it seized by Customs.
I had some pieces of non-military, simulated camouflage-patterned clothing and accessories in my suitcase and asked the officer whether I would not be able to wear them in Trinidad. Another burly female officer appeared and ordered my brother to change his pants and go to the Red Line. She then turned to me and asked, "Yuh have dem here?" I answered affirmatively. She then said, "Go in de Red Line too. Is yuh husban' way put yuh in dat."
I went to the Red Line as ordered. A serious-faced, young, female officer brusquely command- ed me to open my suitcases. She proceeded to ravage the items with incredible ferocity, as though searching for concealed contraband. I stood stoically while the officer assailed my dignity, and my luggage. She removed five items-a cold-shoulder top, a short skirt (about four inches above the knee), a scarf, a cap, and a pair of tapered Donna Karan jeans. She came upon my Kathy Van Zeeland designer handbag, made of gold, purple, brown, and grey tinsel fabric, against a pewter-coloured background, in a simulated camouflage design. That handbag looked nothing like a military accessory.
The officer pulled out the handbag and shouted, "Em'ty de bag!" I refused. She boisterously repeated her demand. I deliberately began wailing vociferously to assuage my suppressed, seething anger. Security personnel rushed to see what was causing the commotion. One of them took over the search. He placed the Kathy Van Zeeland handbag back in the suitcase, which he returned to me. That preposterous pursuit of my handbag was thwarted.
Another young female Customs officer came by and told me that in order to commit crime "bandits" were using camouflage outfits to pass as members of the Defence Force. The seized items were to be sent to the force. I then inquired why the law was not publicised to forewarn visitors. She showed me a missive on 8" x 10" paper, at one of the officers' stations, which looked more like an interoffice memo than a warning notice.
Section 38 of the Customs Ordinance must be re-examined. It is unevenly and illogically applied. Currently, it enables Customs to decipher and apply it subjectively. Two recent examples illustrate how this law is laughable. In a media address to the public during last year's state of emergency, Capt Alexander of the Defence Force announced that cam- ouflage-patterned items must be turned in to the force. Non-compliance would result in their seizure, a fine of $1,000, or 18 months' imprisonment.
Hours after Alexander's edict, I saw a store on Queen Street open-ly selling military-styled camouflage backpacks. Before my de- parture in December, the items were still being sold. I returned in February, and up to a few days before Carnival, they were on sale.
It is angering when I recall how the Customs officer had tried to appropriate my Kathy Van Zeeland handbag which in no way resembles a military-styled bag. At this year's Calypso Fiesta, each of the back-up singers for Contender was dressed in some form of military-styled camouflage apparel or accessory. Why was Section 38 of the Customs Ordinance not being imposed at Skinner Park?
Another problem with that law is that it is written in language fraught with ambiguities, and devoid of specificities. For example, the terms "importation" and "materials" should be clarified and exemplified. Does "importation" mean bringing in personal clothing, used or unused, meant to be worn or used by the owner, or does it mean items being brought into T&T for commercial purposes?
Does "materials" mean raw fabric, new apparel made out of camouflage-patterned fabric, or per- sonal, camoulfage-patterned items or accessories in simulated designs, such as the items seized from my brother and me? The law needs to clarify what constitutes "importation" and "materials" with specifics and examples
Presently, Section 38 of the Customs Ordinance opens the door for abuse and unfair application at the impulses of Customs officers. The nebulousness of the language is problematical and therefore subject to haphazard interpretation. That law "is an a--" -the quintessence of irrationality. It must be revisited and be either abolished or rewritten with more clarity and preciseness for proper application.
Dr Lynette M Lashley
Via e-mail