[Vantage Point] The insensitivity of Customs’ ITAMSS push: Why pay if you can get it free?

2026-03-28 - 00:01

The proposal of the Bureau of Customs to push for a digital tracking system to be installed on every empty shipping container is a troubling misalignment. It is totally egregious at a time when the economy could least afford it. The Bureau is vigorously pitching ITAMMS under the banner of modernization, yet the structure of the system tells a different story. Rather than easing the burden on trade, it introduces new layers of cost and compliance, anchored by a fee that aggregates to a staggering P2.6 billion annually. In an environment already strained by soaring fuel prices, disrupted supply chains, and rising import costs, this is not reform — it is additional weight placed on an already burdened economy. Most of us will never see a shipping container up close. But almost everything we buy — fuel, food, appliances, construction materials — has passed through one. That is why a seemingly technical proposal from the Bureau of Customs (BoC) deserves far more attention than it is getting. The BoC is proposing a new digital tracking system called ITAMSS — short for the In-Transit Asset Management and Supervision System. Put simply, it is a platform where each empty shipping container must be fitted with a GPS-enabled electronic seal and be observed along its route, back to the container yard or port after delivering its cargo. Movements should be booked, tracked in real time, and validated using a centralized system run by an accredited private provider. A minimum fee of P850 is charged for every container passing through this process. That may sound small, but it is not. Across the thousands of containers moving through the country, that fee quickly scales into roughly P2.6 billion a year in additional logistics costs — costs that do not remain within the shipping industry, but ripple outward into the broader economy. In supply chains, nothing is absorbed indefinitely. Every added peso eventually surfaces — quietly yet persistently — in the prices paid by businesses and ultimately by consumers. So why should the public care about how empty containers are returned? Simply put, it is because logistics is the invisible backbone of prices. When you make it more expensive or more complicated to move goods — even after they have been delivered — you increase the cost of doing business. In an economy already navigating elevated fuel prices, geopolitical shocks, and currency pressure, even marginal inefficiencies can compound into something much larger. What looks like a technical reform at the port level can, over time, translate into real pressure on household budgets. Modernization The BoC portrays ITAMSS as a modernization initiative, one intended to improve the way it tracks containers and enforce compliance with rules that determine how long they stay in the country. But the design reveals a more complicated reality. The system starts tracking only after a container has already left the port and been delivered to the importer. At that point, much of the time that regulators are attempting to monitor — the so-called “dwell time” — has already passed. What ITAMSS is monitoring is not the entirety of the container’s lifecycle, but a later stage in the process: the return of empty containers. That distinction matters. If the goal is to measure how long containers stay in the country, then a system that gets started late can’t fully capture the problem. It addresses a segment of the chain, not the chain itself. And when policy rests on partial visibility, the risk is not just inefficiency, but misalignment. There is also an uncomfortable sense of familiarity in the structure. Industry stakeholders have pointed out that ITAMSS closely resembles an earlier proposal known as TOP-CRMS, which stands for Trusted Operator Program–Container Registry and Monitoring System. That system likewise sought to introduce centralized tracking and monitoring of container movements through accredited service providers, with additional compliance layers embedded into routine logistics operations. It was presented at the time as a modernization initiative. [Vantage Point] Tempest at the ports (Part 1) [Vantage Point] Tempest at the ports (Part 2) It was also met with strong resistance. TOP-CRMS was eventually pushed into indefinite suspension after former Transportation secretary Jaime Bautista — after rigorous studies and consultations with industry stakeholders — concluded that it duplicated existing systems, imposed unnecessary costs, and created operational friction without clearly solving a regulatory gap. It became, in effect, a cautionary example of how questionable policies can falter when it overreaches into functioning commercial systems. But in recent times TOP-CRMS is being resurrected. Jay Santiago, general manager of the Philippine Ports Authority is saying that now is the time to do it because the Department of Transportation (DOTR) under Giovanni G. Lopez is more receptive to the idea. The similarities today are unmistakable. For instance, similar to TOP-CRMS, ITAMSS adds a paid third-party layer to an ecosystem where the coordination of shipping lines, depots, and truckers is already managed through existing systems. It adds cost where cost already exists, and process where process is already optimized. The objections brought up today — higher costs, extra steps, questionable necessity — are not new. They resonate with those same worries that froze the old system. It would be dishonest to categorize the two as the same. But it would be hard to ignore the structural resemblance. At the very least, it raises a valid policy inquiry into whether ITAMSS is a real improvement, or simply a re-organization of a model the industry has already proved should be rejected. Credibility under scrutiny Credibility of regulatory design lies not just in intent, but in an understanding of past results. When a well-established framework shows up again in a different guise, scrutiny is not only expected but warranted. The issue of the return of empty containers itself is hardly new. Shipping lines, depots, and trucking companies already tend to it in systems designed around efficiency and global coordination. What ITAMSS does is build an extra layer on top of what already exists — requiring new bookings, new procedures, and new equipment before a container can even be moved. In theory, it implies more control. In practice, it involves more steps. And in logistics, more steps mean more time, extra waiting, added cost. Even slight delays — a supplementary verification, a missed slot, a flagged route — can ripple through the system. Trucks wait longer. Containers return more slowly. Yard space tightens. Schedules slip. What starts as a regulatory layer can progress to operational drag, and in logistics, drag is always paid for somewhere in the chain. But the most striking part of this story isn’t the system itself. It is the alternative sitting beside it. Why pay if you can get it free? In a dialogue with members of the Monday Circle Club on March 23, Patrick Ronas — president/CEO of Mstar Ship Agencies Inc. and Container Bridge Philippines Inc. (CBPI/CBPi Group), and concurrent president of the Association of International Shipping Lines (AISL) — underscored that the association had already developed and discussed with the BoC as early as 2023 an alternative, cost-free monitoring system known as the Automated Container Movement Monitoring System. Unlike ITAMSS, the system tracks containers from the moment they are discharged from the vessel until they are re-exported, directly addressing the regulatory objective of monitoring dwell time. And unlike ITAMSS, it is free of charge to the government and the public. The contrast is difficult to ignore. On one side, a system that adds billions in cost, introduces new procedures, and monitors only part of the process. On the other, a system that covers the full lifecycle of container movement and does so without imposing additional fees. One creates friction, while the other seeks to remove it. At this point, the discussion transitions from policy to judgment. Selecting a more costly option — even when a zero-cost and functionally aligned solution is available, to me is simply insensitively mind boggling, for lack of a better description. This should be flagged and should prompt inquiry regarding basic policy logic. Why bring a system that adds cost when another avoids it? Why choose complexity when simplicity is possible? Why prioritize a partial solution over a more comprehensive one that is already on the table? These questions are important because the implications are not conceptual. As logistics costs rise, prices rise. If systems slow down movement, goods take longer to arrive. If inefficiencies accumulate, they show up in inflation, in business margins, and in the purchasing power of households. The potential effect might not be immediate, but it accumulates — and over time, it becomes visible. The GPS seals and the booking platforms may never become visible to the public, but we will definitely feel the impact. Here is the relevance. This is not only a matter of tracking containers. It’s about how policy decisions — quiet, technical, and often overlooked — influence the cost of living in a way that is anything but invisible. The numbers tell a simple story: P2.6 billion versus zero. What remains is the decision to be made — and the accountability that comes with it. – Rappler.com Must Read [ANALYSIS] International shipping lines seek relief from Philippines’ costly harbor pilot services Click here for more Vantage Point articles.