By Dolly Yasa
BACOLOD CITY—Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) Administrator Pablo Luis Azcona refuted claims by the Sugar Council that the agency plans to reduce the proposed PHP 10 fee per 50-kilo bag on sugar alternatives under Tariff Line 1702.
Azcona labeled the Sugar Council as “misinformed” in a statement provided to the Daily Guardian recently.
He clarified that imports under HS1702, which include glucose, fructose, and dextrose but exclude artificial sweeteners like sucralose and aspartame, currently enter the country without fees or import clearance requirements from the SRA.
Azcona explained that high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is the only item under HS1702 requiring import clearance. He noted that under the current administration, fees for HFCS have increased from PHP 1.50 to PHP 30 per bag.
Other items under HS1702, such as glucose and fructose, have never been subject to import clearance or fees, a practice that Azcona attributed to previous SRA administrations tied to the Sugar Council.
Artificial sweeteners cited by the Sugar Council fall under a separate tariff code and are not covered by the current Sugar Order. According to Azcona, previous administrations also failed to regulate or charge fees for artificial sweeteners under this separate code.
“Now that someone is addressing the issue to protect our farmers, they raise complaints. Why didn’t they act during their time? Who were they protecting?” Azcona questioned.
During discussions, the SRA initially proposed a PHP 10 fee per bag. However, other agencies raised concerns about potential inflationary effects, prompting a counterproposal for a lower fee.
Azcona reiterated that artificial sweeteners mentioned by the Sugar Council are not classified as “other sugars” under HS1702 and do not fall within the scope of Sugar Order No. 6.
He dismissed claims by the Sugar Council and the National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of the Philippines (NACUSIP) that Sugar Order No. 6 resulted from their August 16 letter. Instead, Azcona said the order stemmed from an August 6 meeting attended by various agricultural stakeholders, including Unifed, Luzonfed, Mindanao Farmers, PSMA, and PASRI. Neither the Sugar Council nor NACUSIP attended this meeting.
“Their August 16 letter addressed the importation of 1,100 tons of artificial sweeteners, an issue already discussed on August 6. These fall under a different tariff code, and the Department of Agriculture (DA) tasked the SRA to study the matter separately,” Azcona explained.
He emphasized that the introduction of fees and clearance requirements under the current administration adds protection for sugar farmers, a measure unprecedented in previous SRA administrations.
“It is unfortunate they continue to mislead the public about this initiative while sugar prices are recovering,” Azcona said, questioning the Sugar Council’s intentions.
“Are they genuinely helping sugar farmers, or are they trying to discredit government efforts and create scenarios leading to lower sugar prices?” he added.
Azcona stressed that requiring fees and import clearance for sugar alternatives does not encourage the use of sweeteners over locally produced sugar.
“From zero fees and no clearance to mandatory fees and clearance—how is that encouragement? This Council is clearly misinforming the public,” he concluded.
Earlier, sugar planters voiced concerns that lowering proposed import fees on sugar substitutes could trigger an influx of alternative sweeteners, further reducing mill-gate sugar prices.
The Sugar Council and NACUSIP raised this issue over the weekend, citing reports of SRA plans to lower the PHP 10 fee for sugar alternatives under Tariff Line 1702, which includes glucose, fructose, artificial honey, palm sugar, and maltose.
