A license to sell alcohol would be detrimental to economic activity in the Dominican Republic


[ad_1]

Legislation to control the sale, supply and consumption of alcoholic beverages would have a very negative impact on economic activity and job creation, said the Association of Industries of the Dominican Republic (AIRD).

By opposing a bill on the subject circulating in the National Congress, the AIRD indicated that such a legal framework would create confusion and dualities of institutional roles in the fight against illicit alcoholic beverages.

The industrial guild indicated that there are effective control mechanisms for the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages without creating a law like those mentioned above..

Among these legal mechanisms, the association cited laws 17-19 for the eradication of illicit trade; 63-17 on mobility, land transport, traffic and road safety and 136-03 on the code for the protection of the rights of children and adolescents.

Likewise, he also cited general law 358-05 on the protection of consumer or user rights and tax regulations (implemented by the DGII and the DGA), among other provisions.

“The country’s economic recovery is nascent, and we need to nurture and strengthen it. The bill for the control of the sale, supply and consumption of Alcoholic beverages are a brake on this recovery, especially as regards employment, ”warned the AIRD.

He further argued that the establishment of limitations and restrictions on business activities by imposing compulsory licenses on micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (especially the more than 60,000 grocery stores and places selling alcoholic beverages) in the current situation in which the country is living would be counterproductive as it would increase operating costs and many companies would be forced to close their doors.

An incitement to illicit trade

The AIRD has indicated that these licenses constitute an incentive for the illicit alcohol trade, as has been the experience in other countries in the region, thereby punishing those who comply with the law and giving advantages to prosecute the illicit trade to the detriment of consumers, producers, importers and government collections.

“It is therefore an incentive that can be considered perverse, even if it should be specified that this is not the intention of the legislator”, concluded the association.

[ad_2]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.