Business News of 2026-09-13
'No two-phone law' – GRA reiterates
The Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) has clarified that there is no law, regulation or official policy limiting travellers to two mobile phones for duty-free entry into the country, stressing that Customs officers instead apply a long-standing legal test based on whether goods are genuinely for personal use or are, in substance, commercial imports.
Technical Advisor to the Commissioner-General of the GRA, Elsie Appau-Klu, made the clarification on Joy News on Sunday, September 13,2026, amid public debate over the Customs treatment of mobile phones and other electronic devices brought into Ghana by travellers.
She said the reference to two phones in an earlier public discussion had been misconstrued as a statutory ceiling.
According to her, the comments by the Commissioner of Customs, Mr Aaron Kanor on “two phones”, — one for yourself, one for a spouse, for instance — was an illustration of a principle, not a statutory ceiling. It was meant to help travellers understand where questions start to arise, not to announce a new tax rule.
“There is no law that says two phones and no more,” she explained, stressing that the number of phones carried by a traveller does not, by itself, determine whether Customs duty is payable. As such, the Commissioner of Customs is not announcing any new tax law,”.
The emphasis she explained, is that, Customs applies long-standing test to determine duty-free eligibility for personal effect and that there is no new law as the GRA is only using its administrative function as provided by law.
She noted that the Commissioner of Customs, Aaron Kanor is an experienced professional with a long-standing service at the GRA-Customs Division, who understands international custom rules, whose explanation on the matter was misinterpreted.
The GRA had earlier issued a public clarification on September 3, stating that travellers carrying more than two mobile phones would not automatically be required to pay duty. Rather, Customs considers the nature, condition and quantity of the items, as well as the circumstances surrounding their importation, to determine whether they are genuinely personal effects or intended for sale, distribution or other commercial purposes.
Appau-Klu said the legal principle underpinning the assessment is contained in Ghana's Customs and exemptions laws.
Under Section 107 of the Customs Act, 2015 (Act 891), removal articles and qualifying personal belongings are eligible for duty concessions, while the law defines the categories of goods that may fall within the scope of personal and household effects.
Similarly, Section 17(1) of the Exemptions Act, 2022 (Act 1083) provides the legal basis for exempting qualifying accompanying baggage brought in by travellers, subject to the conditions governing the exemption.
These provisions, according to the Technical Advisor, provides the authority and mandate that the Commissioner General has, in exercising his discretionary powers under the rules of statutes with additional clarification for persons who have been away for continuous period of twelve months.
The central consideration, she explained, is whether the goods are genuinely for the traveller's personal use or whether their nature and circumstances indicate a commercial purpose.
GRA's own published Customs guidance states that passenger baggage concessions apply to personal and household effects intended for the passenger's use and not for sale or trade. Commercial goods and items intended for other persons do not automatically fall within the passenger baggage concession.
Consequently, Customs officers may consider factors such as whether phones are used or brand-new, whether they remain in commercial packaging, the number of identical devices being carried and whether the traveller can reasonably demonstrate that the items are for personal use.
A traveller carrying a personal phone and a work device, for instance, would present a different set of circumstances from someone carrying several new and identical phones in unopened boxes.
Appau-Klu said this distinction was important because Customs was not applying a new tax or creating a numerical limit through administrative discretion.
Rather, she said, Customs was administering a legal standard established by Parliament.
She pointed to Regulation 18(2)(b) of the Exemptions Regulations, 2025 (L.I. 2514), which empowers the Commissioner-General to determine the quantity of accompanying baggage qualifying for the passenger exemption.
According to the GRA's position, this authority is an administrative power to apply the conditions established by law to the facts of individual cases and should not be interpreted as a power to create or impose a new tax.
The distinction has become particularly significant following a constitutional challenge to Regulation 18(2)(b) at the Supreme Court.
A legal practitioner has challenged the provision, arguing that the authority to determine the quantity of baggage qualifying for exemption amounts to the power to waive or vary taxes, which under Article 174(2) of the 1992 Constitution requires prior parliamentary approval. The Supreme Court is expected to determine the constitutional question.
However, Appau-Klu maintained that Parliament had already established the passenger baggage exemption and its fundamental boundary.
Under this interpretation, Customs does not decide whether an exemption should exist, nor does it grant a new tax concession to an individual traveller. Its responsibility is to determine whether the facts surrounding particular goods meet the legal conditions Parliament has already prescribed.
The Commissioner-General's role, therefore, is not a tax-writing power but an administrative and fact-finding function exercised within the framework of existing legislation.
She urged travellers who are uncertain about goods they are carrying to declare them through the appropriate Customs channel and seek clarification from officers.
The GRA, she said, would also continue efforts to provide clearer public guidance, but maintained that a fixed numerical rule for every type of personal item would not necessarily capture the different circumstances surrounding passenger baggage.
The message to travellers, she stressed, is straightforward: there is no “two-phone law”; the applicable test is whether the goods are reasonably and genuinely for personal use or amount to commercial imports being carried in personal baggage.
