Why real reform begins with the user journey: Customs-tax integration

The idea of merging Customs with the Tax Authority is often framed as a simple organisational decision: one entity instead of two. In reality, it is a policy choice with direct consequences for trade competitiveness, service quality, compliance culture and the credibility of public finance. For a country strengthening its position as a logistics and investment hub, the goal should be straightforward: protect revenue and improve compliance without slowing trade or raising the cost of doing business.
The most practical way to debate this issue is to focus less on structures and more on outcomes—starting with the “user journey” for businesses and individuals. Traders and taxpayers do not experience government as a chart of departments. They experience it through processes: how many portals they must use, how many times they submit the same documents, how predictable decisions are, and how quickly issues are resolved. Every extra step adds time, confusion and cost—costs that may not appear in government accounts but are paid daily by the economy.
It is also important to recognise that Oman’s customs ecosystem already operates at scale and at speed. Digitisation has become part of the operating model, not just a public-facing interface. That matters because the border is a live economic artery. Even small friction at clearance points can ripple across supply chains, raise storage and transport costs, disrupt delivery schedules and feed into final prices. This is why any reform that touches border operations must be designed carefully and sequenced wisely.
The strongest case for Customs–Tax integration is not the merger itself. It is the opportunity to create a single, reliable chain of information from “border to books”. Customs sees invoices at the border—value, origin, classification and quantity—while tax administration sees the same transactions later in accounts, margins, inventory and declarations. If these datasets connect in a structured, secure and timely way, the state can close gaps that enable undervaluation, misclassification and other non-compliant practices.
Crucially, this is not an argument for heavier inspection across the board. It is an argument for smarter controls. When systems share data and apply risk-based targeting, compliant traders move faster and enforcement focuses where it is most needed. That is how a modern state protects revenue while supporting growth.
The biggest risk is assuming that a formal merger is the quickest route to these gains. A rushed institutional merger can create operational uncertainty: new approval lines, unclear decision rights, overlapping responsibilities and learning curves that slow day-to-day clearance. If the border slows, the economy pays immediately. In a trade-oriented strategy, the cost of disruption can outweigh the benefit of any short-term revenue gains.
A sensible approach is to treat “integration” as a graduated path rather than a single yes-or-no decision. The first and most valuable step is integration without disruption: unify client identity across systems, enable real-time data exchange, align service pathways, and use a shared risk engine so low-risk transactions move smoothly while high-risk cases receive the necessary scrutiny. This path can deliver most of the benefits—better compliance and better service—without destabilising border operations.
The second step, if needed, is stronger governance coordination under one umbrella while keeping operational separation clear. Customs must retain its trade facilitation and border-security priorities, and tax administration must retain its compliance, audit and taxpayer service priorities. Coordination can improve consistency and reduce duplication, but it should not force border operations into an administrative model that undermines speed and predictability.
Only after data integration, service reform and governance controls mature should a full merger be considered—and even then, it should be approached as an end-state, not a starting point.
How should success be measured? Not by revenue alone. A credible reform should also improve clearance times and predictability, reduce repeated document submissions, increase automated handling for low-risk cases, reduce avoidable disputes, and shorten dispute-resolution timelines. In other words, the state should strengthen compliance and fairness while keeping trade flowing and lowering the cost of compliance for legitimate businesses.
Governance must sit at the centre of any closer integration. Concentrating authority without strong safeguards would be counterproductive. Clear separation between key functions, robust internal controls, transparent service standards and a credible appeals process are not administrative details; they are the foundation of trust and predictability.
The balanced conclusion is this: integrating Customs and Tax can deliver real gains in efficiency, compliance and fairness, but the reform must be designed around the user journey and national competitiveness—not around institutional optics. The smartest sequence is to integrate data and services first, protect border performance throughout, and then evaluate whether deeper consolidation is necessary.
Reform does not succeed because government changes its labels. It succeeds when the public and the private sector experience a simpler, faster, clearer system—one journey, one data chain, and one consistent standard of service and accountability.