Illegal Cigarette Sales and Tax Evasion in Magelang, Indonesia

Regulations by 2FIRSTS.ai
Jan.11.2024
Illegal Cigarette Sales and Tax Evasion in Magelang, Indonesia
Illegal cigarette sales continue in Magelang City, Central Java, Indonesia, despite the government's increasing tobacco taxes.

According to a January 9 report by the Indonesian newspaper "KOMPAS," despite the government's ongoing efforts to increase cigarette taxes, there is still illegal sale of cigarettes occurring in Magelang City, located in Central Java Province. In these locations, some illegal cigarettes are using counterfeit tax stamps.

 

Since January 2024, the government has implemented an upgraded tobacco tax rate policy. According to Regulation No. 191 issued by the Ministry of Finance in 2022, the tobacco tax for traditional cigarettes has increased on average by 10%, while the tax rate for e-cigarettes has risen by an average of 15%. Additionally, the average tax rate for other tobacco products has increased to 6%.

 

This policy has prompted some smokers to reconsider their expenses, such as 33-year-old Fajar Dharmawan. He stated that due to the increase in tobacco taxes in 2021, he has turned to the relatively more affordable option of e-cigarettes.

 

Although this tax policy may seem to swiftly restrain user behavior, its objective is not only to control health issues caused by cigarettes but also to increase government revenue.

 

The Indonesian tobacco industry aims to achieve a tax revenue target of 230.4 trillion rupees in 2023, accounting for 95% of the total tobacco tax revenues for that year.

 

We welcome news tips, article submissions, interview requests, or comments on this piece.

Please contact us at info@2firsts.com, or reach out to Alan Zhao, CEO of 2Firsts, on LinkedIn


Notice

1.  This article is intended solely for professional research purposes related to industry, technology, and policy. Any references to brands or products are made purely for objective description and do not constitute any form of endorsement, recommendation, or promotion by 2Firsts.

2.  The use of nicotine-containing products — including, but not limited to, cigarettes, e-cigarettes, nicotine pouchand heated tobacco products — carries significant health risks. Users are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions.

3.  This article is not intended to serve as the basis for any investment decisions or financial advice. 2Firsts assumes no direct or indirect liability for any inaccuracies or errors in the content.

4.  Access to this article is strictly prohibited for individuals below the legal age in their jurisdiction.

 

Copyright

 

This article is either an original work created by 2Firsts or a reproduction from third-party sources with proper attribution. All copyrights and usage rights belong to 2Firsts or the original content provider. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or any other form of unauthorized use by any individual or organization is strictly prohibited. Violators will be held legally accountable.

For copyright-related inquiries, please contact: info@2firsts.com

 

AI Assistance Disclaimer

 

This article may have been enhanced using AI tools to improve translation and editorial efficiency. However, due to technical limitations, inaccuracies may occur. Readers are encouraged to refer to the cited sources for the most accurate information.

We welcome any corrections or feedback. Please contact us at: info@2firsts.com

Juul Sublicense Reshapes Vuse Alto Patent Bill as Court Ends R.J. Reynolds’ 5.25% Royalty Obligation to Altria
Juul Sublicense Reshapes Vuse Alto Patent Bill as Court Ends R.J. Reynolds’ 5.25% Royalty Obligation to Altria
According to Law360 on August 31, 2026, a federal judge in North Carolina ruled that a patent sublicense between R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. and Juul Labs Inc. relieves Reynolds of its obligation to continue paying royalties to Altria Client Services LLC over Vuse Alto. A jury had previously found that Vuse Alto infringed three Altria patents and awarded approximately $95.2 million in past damages, after which Reynolds was ordered to pay an ongoing royalty equal to 5.25% of positive net sales. The new ruling finds that a valid sublicense can eliminate future infringement, potentially ending what Altria described as hundreds of millions of dollars in future royalties.
Sep.01
UK-Listed Consumer Goods Group Supreme Sees Vape Duty as Potential Consolidation Opportunity, Holds FY27 Outlook
UK-Listed Consumer Goods Group Supreme Sees Vape Duty as Potential Consolidation Opportunity, Holds FY27 Outlook
UK-listed consumer goods group Supreme plc says it continues to expect FY27 trading to meet market expectations as the Vaping Products Duty takes effect on October 1, while maintaining a comparatively positive view of the new tax and compliance regime. Supreme has said the framework could increase compliance complexity for smaller operators and contribute to market consolidation, while its manufacturing, compliance and distribution scale may allow it to gain share. Its 88Vape brand will retain its value positioning.
Sep.18
Australia Brings in Deloitte to Support Illicit Tobacco and Vape Enforcement Across Data, Processes and Project Delivery
Australia Brings in Deloitte to Support Illicit Tobacco and Vape Enforcement Across Data, Processes and Project Delivery
Australia’s Department of Home Affairs has hired Deloitte to provide data analytics, business-process, communications and project-delivery support to the Office of the Illicit Tobacco and E-Cigarette Commissioner. The government says Deloitte personnel do not provide policy advice to the Commissioner or the Australian government, with policy development and decision-making remaining with public officials. The arrangement has nevertheless drawn scrutiny because Deloitte has previously provided professional services to several tobacco and vaping companies.
Sep.03
Wisconsin Vape Directory One Year On: Retailer Reports Four Store Closures and 70% Staff Cuts
Wisconsin Vape Directory One Year On: Retailer Reports Four Store Closures and 70% Staff Cuts
Wisconsin's electronic vaping device directory has been fully enforced for more than a year, and local vape retailers say the reduced range of eligible products has contributed to declining sales, store closures and layoffs. Johnny Vapes owner Ben Hall said he has closed four of seven locations and cut about 70% of his staff. State law bars the sale of vaping devices not listed on the Wisconsin Department of Revenue directory and allows penalties of $1,000 per day for each unlisted device sold or offered for sale. In April 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit allowed enforcement of the law to continue.
Regulations
Oct.10
Product | Juul Labs Launches Upgraded JUUL2 Kit in UK With Four Pods at £9.99 and USB-C Charging
Product | Juul Labs Launches Upgraded JUUL2 Kit in UK With Four Pods at £9.99 and USB-C Charging
Juul Labs UK has introduced an upgraded JUUL2 Starter Kit for the UK market in October 2026, retaining a recommended retail price of £9.99 while doubling the number of included pods from two to four. The kit contains Crisp Menthol, Virginia Tobacco, Mango and Watermelon pods. The updated device replaces the previous proprietary charging dock with a USB-C port and offers longer battery life. The kit also features reduced packaging and retains a two-year limited warranty. Distribution is scheduled through major UK retailers, wholesalers, convenience stores and the JUUL UK website.
product
Oct.15
U.S. Fifth Circuit Vacates NicQuid Vape MDO, Says FDA Comparative-Efficacy Standard Violated APA Procedures
U.S. Fifth Circuit Vacates NicQuid Vape MDO, Says FDA Comparative-Efficacy Standard Violated APA Procedures
According to VitalLaw on August 27, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated an FDA marketing denial order (MDO) against NicQuid LLC, ruling that the agency’s comparative-efficacy standard for electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) applications had become a substantive rule requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court did not reject FDA’s authority to compare the public health benefits and risks of flavored vapes, but held that the agency could not establish a broadly binding standard through informal adjudications. The case was remanded to FDA for further proceedings.
Aug.28