In response, the EPA said there was no miscalculation of CPC’s payments. Officials said the dispute was the result of a “misunderstanding” between the gasoline companies and their customers.
“I can confirm that we have received all payments from CPC. We have rechecked the figure,” Air Quality Protection and Noise Control head Hsieh Yein-rui (謝燕儒) said.
“[CPC hasn’t] withheld money from us,” Hsieh said.
Instead, he said the problem lay in flawed price calculation methods that failed to take into account discrepancies in the amount collected by the EPA.
The figures collected by the agency are different for three types of oil quality. Oil containing under 10 parts per million (ppm) of sulfur makes up the first level, and is subject to a tax of NT$0.03 per liter. Oil sold containing 11ppm to 30ppm and 31ppm to 50ppm are charged NT$0.075 and NT$0.19 respectively.
The oil company failed to revise updated figures despite repeated increases in oil quality, Hsieh said, adding that many customers were unknowingly charged the higher fees despite the fact the fuel contained less sulfur.
Speaking about the “two-hour” policy later in the day, Government Information Office Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) said that providing clarification on media reports was “standard operating procedure.”
“When print media misunderstand policies and government agencies fail to respond to the reports in two hours, electronic media will follow the newspaper reports and broadcast the stories the whole morning. People will thus believe the reports are true even when they are not,” Su said.
ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY SHIH HSIU-CHUAN AND VINCENT Y. CHAO
RSS