The Bhutanese Leading the way.
The RAA report on the domestic airports found revenue mismanagement to the tune of Nu 5.74 mn by the Department of Civil Aviation.
It was found that Druk Air had not paid the monthly landing and navigation charges amounting to Nu.4, 082,789 for the month of October 2011 and March 2012. The DCA also has failed to remind the Drukair of the non-payment.
The report says DCA should collect the amount with penal interest at 24% per annum in line with the revenue norms which amounts to an interest of Nu.641, 213 and deposit into the ARA at the earliest besides succinctly justifying the non-collections.
It says that the management is reminded that the penal interest calculated herein is only up to 21/09/2012, which is not the final amount as the interest will continue to accrue till the DCA/Drukair deposits the amount with the RAA.
RAA has also pointed out at the short collecting of landing and navigation charges.
Since June 2010, the DCA had commenced the collection of landing and navigation charges from the airlines operating in Bhutan. As the rates are based on the ICAO regulations which are in terms of USD, there has been a discrepancy between the bills raised every month and bills collected, especially from the Drukair.
The DCA raised the bills by applying the dollar selling exchange rate on the day of raising the bills. However, the Drukair paid it on the dollar buying rate on the same day, thus had resulted into short collection of landing and navigation charges amounting to Nu.836, 556.
Although, the RRCO, Paro clarified on the behest of the Drukair that the government revenue if paid in terms of Ngultrum, the exchange rate used shall be dollar selling rate vide their letter dated 7th July 2011, but even then Drukair continued paying it using buying rates.
The report says that as agreed in the exit meeting the DCA should collect the amount from Drukair with penal interest of 24% per annum amounting to Nu.1,025,807, and deposit into the Audit Recoveries Account at the earliest besides justifying the non-enforcement of banker’s selling rate despite RRCO’s clarification.
