In the wake of the controversy aroused by the provisions of the Supplementary Finance Act 2009, as the essential procedure was to curb the import bill, a new lock “odourless and colourless”, has just been added in order to limit the imports.

• In fact, this new element that has been introduced formally by the banks aims at deterring or rejecting every transaction for imports and goods classified as “unnecessary”.
• The information has been confirmed by bankers who said they had “received only verbal instructions to reject any file and oppose any negative response to customers who intend to import goods called unnecessary”. It is, therefore, non written instructions that the banker must apply.
• If we recognise that such decision may be motivated by goals of retuning to good economic standards that go through the imperative of discipline access to the currency. Thus, the banker finds himself in this blur and faces this “unspoken and unwritten” instruction, and sees him seriously embarrassed and thrown alone with real responsibility without a legal cover.
• In the absence of a clear definition and an official list of products known as superfluous, on what basis and what criteria will one decide that this or other product is superfluous? Who has the quality or competence to declare the superfluity of goods applying for import? Does the banker have skills and is he legally covered enough to venture to oppose for not receiving requests for clearance that would land on his desk? These questions arise for the public banks stacked “verbally” to a strict application of the measure.
• For some professionals, Kiwi, Mustards, coffee brands, honey, preserves, confectionary, chocolates and some other luxury goods, which have no strategic nature may be classified as “ superfluous products”. So now the import of such products will depend on the goodwill and exclusive discretion of the banker. This promises to create a true pattern of fraud within the banking and pass right in the sense or the temptation of corruption will cause the “service” could be coined. Indeed, within the same bank, the agencies may have different treatment for the same product.
• This shows the lack of focus and precision of a measure taken to “run” although in reality it remains totally appropriate to deal with abuses including the import of goods of very low need for economy, trade resources and consumption, but still paid dearly through the exchange reserves of the country.
• After the obligation for importers to settle only their foreign operations by documentary credit, the extension of the safeguards now extends to the nature of imported goods and degree of their usefulness to the country.
• However, simply announcing the prohibition of such product through official texts remains an impossible task, even itself… prohibited because of the commitments of Algeria on the path of an economic globalization or freedom of trade is fully dedicated and strictly…sacred.
• Already accused of protectionism, the Algerian economy can not afford to openly display all the decisions that are run as in this case flows and unnecessary, Algeria could be accused of restraint of trade.