He said Maritime Network acted as the vessel or shipping agent for the two cargo movements and was not the cargo owner, terminal operator, laboratory, declarant or regulatory authority.
KUALA LUMPUR: Maritime industry expert Datuk Seri R. Jeyenderan has called for a written clarification from the relevant authorities on the regulatory treatment of two petroleum cargoes valued at more than RM220 million that were handled under the K8 Customs procedure at Tanjung Langsat, Johor.
Jeyenderan, chief executive officer of Maritime Network Sdn Bhd, said the company was seeking clarification to better understand the respective responsibilities of the parties involved and the requirements governing the handling and documentation of the cargoes.
He said Maritime Network acted as the vessel or shipping agent for the two cargo movements and was not the cargo owner, terminal operator, laboratory, declarant or regulatory authority.
According to a company report dated Aug 26, the two shipments involved a combined 76,954.325 tonnes of Atlanta Crude, with a stated value of RM220,253,176.38. The report said the cargo was discharged at Tanjung Langsat and was associated with tanks T-5001, T-5004 and T-5008 at Dialog Terminals Langsat (DTL).
Jeyenderan said publicly available information about the terminal’s facilities made it relevant to establish, through appropriate records, how the cargo was handled following discharge.
“The nature of the terminal facilities makes it important to establish the movement and handling of the cargo after discharge.
“DTL publicly describes its Tanjung Langsat facility as a third-party independent terminal with 67 tanks and lists services including storage, mixing, circulation, heating and additivation.
“This does not establish that any particular cargo was mixed or blended. It does, however, explain why the relevant tank, custody, testing and movement records could be useful in clarifying the handling of the cargo,” he said.
Jeyenderan said the questions raised by the company included which rules and approvals applied to the K8 cargoes, whether any mixing, blending or addition of other substances took place and, if so, what regulatory requirements applied.
He said clarification was also needed on whether any change in the cargo’s composition or handling affected its classification and how the cargo was recorded from arrival through to its subsequent movement.
“K8 is a Customs declaration used for goods brought into Malaysia temporarily for transshipment purposes. The Royal Malaysian Customs Department (RMCD), as the relevant customs authority, is the appropriate body to clarify the applicable K8 requirements, tariff treatment and Customs compliance,” he said.
Jeyenderan said the company had also sought clarification on whether any consultation with Petroliam Nasional Bhd (PETRONAS) had taken place in relation to the cargoes.
If such consultation occurred, he said it would be useful, where appropriate and subject to confidentiality requirements, to establish the nature of the consultation, the issues considered and whether any written advice or documentation was provided.
He stressed that the request for information should not be interpreted as an allegation of wrongdoing against PETRONAS, DTL or any other party.
Jeyenderan said the company was also seeking relevant operational records, where available and lawfully obtainable, including tank histories, custody records, product movement records, test results, blending or circulation instructions, applicable licence conditions and records that could assist in reconciling incoming and outgoing cargo quantities.
“These records would help establish the sequence of events and clarify the respective roles and responsibilities of the parties involved,” he said.
Jeyenderan said Maritime Network had raised the matter with the relevant authorities and was seeking a written position so that the company could understand the applicable regulatory requirements and respond accurately to any questions concerning its role.
He said uncertainty over the applicable regulatory position could have commercial and reputational implications for companies whose names appeared in operational documentation, even where they were not responsible for cargo ownership, terminal operations or regulatory decisions.
“The longer the uncertainty continues, the more difficult it becomes for the company to explain its role based on a clear and authoritative regulatory position,” he said.
Jeyenderan also referred to information he said had been provided to him by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), according to which checks with relevant agencies had not established a basis for an offence under the MACC Act 2009 and no revenue leakage had been identified to date.
He stressed that the MACC-related assessment and questions concerning Customs compliance were separate matters.
“Any determination concerning whether there is a basis for action under anti-corruption legislation does not, by itself, determine whether the K8 treatment, tariff classification, terminal activities or Customs declarations complied with the applicable Customs requirements.
“Those are separate regulatory questions that require separate clarification,” he said.
Jeyenderan said the company was not seeking to influence the authorities towards any particular conclusion, but wanted the applicable requirements and responsibilities to be stated clearly.
“If further information or documents are required, identify them. If the matter needs to be referred to another division, direct us to the appropriate channel.
“What we are seeking is clarity on the applicable requirements and the respective responsibilities of the parties involved,” he said.
He said a clear written position would help the company and other industry participants better understand the relevant regulatory requirements and reduce uncertainty when handling similar cargo movements in the future.
