Displaying items by tag: Tax

Mozambique: Cement imported illegally from South Africa has been seized at the border town of Ressano Garcia. Customs impounded 36 railway wagons containing an estimated 29,000 bags of cement being imported by Kawena, according to the O Pais newspaper. Due to a lack of proper documentation the customs office is treating the case as fraud. The shipment is valued at US$0.12m and duties of US$74,500 should have been paid on it. Kawena says it has the documentation for the consignment, according to the Mozambique News Agency.

Saudi Arabia: Sinoma International Engineering has agreed to pay an outstanding tax bill of US$3.5m to the Saudi tax bureau. The bill relates to a dispute in 2009 and 2010. The settlement includes delay charges and further charges are applicable if the bill is not paid by the end of June 2018. In 2016 the subsidiary of China national Building Materials (CNBM) was appealing against a charge of US$18m for unpaid tax in the mid 2000s.

The old saying goes that nothing is certain except for death and taxes. But maybe that should be cement and taxes. Paying your taxes is something most people and companies just get on with, perhaps with some grumbling or perhaps not, but certainly with little press. So two news stories popping up in the same week about cement plants with tax issues is out of the ordinary.

The first concerned Lucky Cement’s battle in Pakistan to keep one of its plants open following accusations of underpaying its taxes. The local tax office tried to shut the Pezu plant down for not paying its property tax. The cement producer hit back with a restraining order from the provincial high court. The second detailed efforts by the Ethiopian authorities efforts to claw back US$10m from a local cement producer accused of deliberately understating its profits. In both cases it’s hard to tell if there is an obvious right or wrong party. Yet if these kinds of stories are hitting the local press headlines then either something has gone wrong or both parties are digging in for a fight.

Looking over a longer time frame two major stories about tax have been doing the rounds over the last year in the industry news. India’s Goods and Services Tax (GST) is a classic example of how cement producers sometimes have to deal with changes to existing regulations. It received another outing this week in the form of the credit agency ICRA’s latest forecast. It explained how the introduction of the new tax, a consolidation of other existing indirect taxes, had slowed production in the second quarter of the Indian financial year in 2017 - 2018.

The other example from a large cement producing country was US President Donald Trump’s cut to federal corporate tax in December 2017. The tax cut was expected to particularly benefit companies that produce materials, like building materials manufacturers. It prompted HeidelbergCement to say in early January 2018 that it expected to see a boost to its profits in 2019. Warren Buffet, the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway and owner of insulation producer Johns Manville amongst other companies, put it bluntly when he said in his 2017 annual report that nearly half the gain of his company’s net worth came from the changes to the US tax system.

Multinational companies, including some cement producers, face issues when dealing with different rules and regulations between the various countries that they operate in. However, sometimes unfairly, sometimes not, large companies also hold a reputation for trying to avoid paying tax.

In this context it’s interesting to look at how LafargeHolcim says it approaches the issue. The company published its tax principles in 2016 where it talks about being responsible and that it, “…accepts tax as a necessary and required contribution to society.” It then talks about the necessity of transparency and good relationships with tax authorities. The same year it declared a total tax bill of Euro726m versus total sales revenue of Euro23bn. By contrast Cemex UK in its tax strategy talks about how it follows the US Sarbanes Oxley Act 2002, which applies a more stringent international accounting and auditing standard. It feels far more honest when it says that it aims to minimise the tax burden upon its shareholders by using methods outlined by the UK government. Taxes may be a certainty but nobody wants to pay a penny more in taxes than they have to.

Ethiopia: The Ethiopian Revenues & Customs Authority (ERCA) says that Chinese company Inchini Bedrock Cement owes it US$10m for alleged tax evasion. The cement producer has declared a loss for five of the seven years it has been in operation, according to the Addis Fortune newspaper. However, ERCA’s Large Taxpayers Office (LTO) has refuted these claims and, following an audit, says that Inchini Bedrock had failed to keep records of the raw materials and finished products in stock. The investigation was triggered following the discovery of documents relating to Inchini Bedrock whilst ECRA was looking at another case.

Inchini Bedrock Cement employs 265 employees, including 22 foreign nationals. However, it appears to have no manager or representative at present, except for the head of the expatriate department, according to sources quoted by Addis Fortune. The manager of the company left Ethiopia in late 2017 due to medical reasons. The plant had a cement production capacity of 0.3Mt/yr when it opened in 2012.

India: The credit agency ICRA forecasts that cement demand will grow by 4.5% in the 2018 – 2019 financial year due to growth in the housing sector and higher infrastructure spending. Improved rural incomes, higher rural credit and increased allocation for rural, agriculture and allied sectors are also likely to increase the demand for rural housing, according to the Press Trust of India.

Indian cement production rose by 2.7% to 217Mt in the nine months from April to December 2017 from 211Mt in the previous year. However, the first three months of this period, from April to June 2017, saw production drop due to local issues across the country such as a sand shortage, the implementation of Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) Act and a drought. The following quarter then saw a fall in production due to the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), continued sand shortages and inclement weather. ICRA predicts that cement demand will grow by 3% for the remainder of the 2017 – 2018 financial year due to a boost in production in December 2017.

Pakistan: Lucky Cement has obtained restraining orders from the Peshawar High Court to prevent its Pezu plant being closed by the Excise and Taxation Department for not paying a US$135,000 property tax bill. A team from the Excise and Taxation Department attempted to close the site on 23 February 2018, according to the News International newspaper. The cement producer says that the plant continues to produce cement and despatch its products. The tax office has launched a drive to target tax defaulters in the region. It alleges that it has been chasing Lucky Cement’s tax bill for the past six years.

Pakistan: The local cement industry has asked the government to increase the custom duty on imported clinker to support local production as export rates continue to decline. The industry has also recommended that cement importers should be registered with the Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority (PSQCA) and country of origin bodies, according to the Nation newspaper. Falling exports in Afghanistan have been blamed on Iranian competition and high local energy costs.

US: HeidelbergCement expects its profit to be negatively effected in 2017 following reforms to the US tax system. Following a change in the rules from 22 December 2017 the federal corporate tax rate has been reduced from 35% to 21% from the start of 2018. In addition, the regulations regarding the utilization of loss carryforwards were changed. This has affected deferred tax assets on losses and interest carried-forwards that are expected to reduce the group’s balance sheet by Euro200m in its annual report.

However, the company still expects a ‘significant’ increase of 2017 group share of profit before one-time effects. In addition in 2019 the major reduction of the effective tax rate in the US is anticipated to have a positive effect on group net profit and cashflow.

It’s been a pessimistic month for the Indian cement industry with Ministry of Commerce & Industry data showing that cement production has fallen year-on-year every month since December 2016. This was followed by the Cement Manufacturers Association (CMA) saying that the industry was sitting on 100Mt/yr of excess production capacity. Now, the credit ratings agency ICRA has followed the data and downgraded its forecast for cement demand growth to not more than 4% for the 2017 - 2018 financial year.

Graph 1: Annual cement production in India. Source: Ministry of Commerce & Industry.

Graph 2: Monthly cement production growth rate year-on-year in India: Source: Ministry of Commerce & Industry.

Graph 1 shows a production peak in the 2015 - 2016 financial year before falling monthly production broke the trend in the 2016 - 2017 period. Graph 2 pinpoints the month it started to go wrong, November 2016, when the government introduced its demonetisation policy. Production growth went negative the following month in December 2017 and it hasn’t managed to right itself since then and grow. It’s convenient to blame the government for the slump in production but it troughed in February 2017 before taking a lower level of decline since then.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) annual report in August 2017 suggests that the policy failed in its principal purpose of reducing the kind of corruption that a cash heavy economy can hide such as tax avoidance. People reportedly managed to find ways to bypass the bank deposit limit and may have successfully laundered large amounts of cash without being caught. However, as commentators like the Financial Times have pointed out, the longer term implications of forcing the economy towards digital payments and increasing the tax base could yet be beneficial overall.

Graph 3: Cement production capacity utilisation rates in India. Source: UltraTech Cement.

Moving on, the CMA has blamed production overcapacity for the current mess and Graph 3 shows the problem starkly. If anything the CMA appears to have downplayed the over capacity crisis facing India, as UltraTech Cement’s figures (using data from the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) show an overcapacity of 155Mt in the 2016 – 2017 year and this will grow to a forecast 157Mt in the next financial year, even though the utilisation rate is expected to rise slightly. UltraTech Cement’s estimates don’t see the utilisation rate topping 70% until the 2020 – 2021 financial year. Analysts quoted in the Mint business newspaper concur, although they reckoned it would the rate would bounce sooner, in 2019 - 2020. Last month when the CMA moaned about the industry's excess capacity it pinned its hopes on infrastructure schemes like the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train. This prompted an official at JK Cements to say that he didn't think that one train line was going to make much of a difference.

This is one reason why ICRA’s and the other credit agencies’ growth rate forecasts for cement demand are important, because they indicate how fast India might be able to close the gap between production capcity and demand. Unfortunately demonetisation scuppered ICRA’s growth prediciton for 2016 – 2017. It forecast a rate of 6% but it actually fell by 1.2%! So downgrading its forecast for 2017 – 2018, with fears of weather and the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in the second half of the year, is ominious. Major cement producers such as Ultratech Cement and Ambuja Cement have based their road to recovery in their latest investor presentations on a 6% growth rate or higher. Pitch it lower and the gap doesn’t close. Here’s hoping for a brisk second half.

Congratulations are due to India’s UltraTech Cement this week for finally completing its US$2.5bn asset purchase from Jaiprakash Associates. The deal has been around in some form or another since at least 2014 when UltraTech arranged to buy two cement plants in Madhya Pradesh for around US$750m. That deal, publicly at least, became a victim of the 2015 amendment to India’s Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) Act. The Bombay High Court eventually rejected it in early 2016 after a period of delays. However, the deal bounced back in a much larger form around the same time and since then everything has gone relatively smoothly.

As chairman Kumar Mangalam Birla put it in his letter to shareholders in the company’s 2016 – 2017 annual report the, “move is essentially for geographic market expansion.” He then went on to mention all the usual keywords like ‘synergy’ and ‘economies of scale’ that you expect from an acquisition. Quite rightly he finished with, “It is with great pride that I record, that UltraTech is the largest cement player in India and the fifth largest on the world stage.” On that last point he meant outside of China but UltraTech does have a small number of assets outside of India, notably in the UAE, Bahrain, Oman and Bangladesh, hinting at an international future for the cement producer.

Map 1: UltraTech Cement’s plants in India. Source: UltraTech Cement Corporate Dossier, January 2017.

To give a scale of the deal, UltraTech has increased its number of integrated cement plants in India to 18 from 12 and its cement grinding plants to 21 from 16. Its overall cement production capacity will increase by nearly 40% to 91.4Mt/yr from 66.3Mt/yr. The new assets are in Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh. The main regions that will benefit are the North, Central and South zones. In particular the Central Zone will see its capacity jump to 21.1Mt/yr from 6.2Mt/yr. This area also includes a new 3.5Mt/yr plant at Dhar in Madhya Pradesh that is scheduled for commercial production in late 2019.

The completion of the Jaiprakash Associates deal was followed by the introduction at the start of July 2017 of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), a rationalisation of some of the country’s central and state taxes. UltraTech promptly said it had reduced its product prices by 2 – 3% in light of tax reductions under the new regime. Some producers were warning of a rise in cement prices in the run-up to the introduction of the GST and the Cement Manufactures’ Association said that the new tax rate was insufficient. However, UltraTech said that the new tax rate of 28% was better than 30 – 31% previously. Other Indian producers also reduced their prices this week following the introduction of the GST.

UltraTech’s expansion and the start of the new tax scheme auger well for the Indian cement industry in 2017. Demonetisation knocked cement production at the start of the year and it may have lowered UltraTech’s capacity utilisation rate as well as reducing domestic sales by cutting housing demand. However, sector rationalisation and a simpler tax approach should help to remedy this. Not all government interaction has been helpful to the cement industry in recent years as the MMDR amendment and demonetisation show but the signs are promising.
Roll on the next set of financial reports.