MARITIME industry expert Datuk Seri R. Jeyenderan has sought clarification from the relevant authorities on the regulatory treatment of two petroleum cargoes valued at more than RM220 million under the K8 Customs procedure at Tanjung Langsat, Johor.
Jeyenderan, who is the chief executive officer of Maritime Network Sdn Bhd, said his company was seeking to better establish the respective responsibilities of the parties involved and address questions concerning the handling and documentation of the cargoes.
The maritime expert, with more than 30 years of industry experience, said his company 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 the company report on Aug 26, the two petroleum cargoes totalling 76,954.325 metric tonnes of Atlanta Crude, valued at RM220,253,176.38, were discharged at Tanjung Langsat and linked to tanks T-5001, T-5004 and T-5008 at DIALOG Terminals Langsat (DTL).
“The nature of the terminal facilities made it important to establish the movement and handling of the cargo after discharge. These are not imaginary operational possibilities. DTL publicly describes its Tanjung Langsat facility as a third-party independent terminal with 67 tanks and lists storage, mixing, circulation, heating and additivation among the services available there.
“That does not establish that any particular cargo was mixed or blended. It does, however, explain why the relevant tank, custody, testing and movement records would be useful in clarifying what happened to the cargo,” said the maritime industry executive.
Jeyenderan said the main questions included what rules and approvals applied to the K8 cargoes, whether any mixing, blending or addition of other substances took place and, if so, what approvals applied, whether the treatment affected the cargo classification and how the cargo was recorded from arrival until departure.
“K8 is a Customs declaration for goods brought into Malaysia temporarily for transhipment purposes under Regulation 17 of the Customs Regulations 2019. The Royal Malaysian Customs Department (JKDM), as a department under the Ministry of Finance, is the appropriate authority to clarify the K8 requirements, tariff treatment and Customs compliance,” he said.
Jeyenderan said he had also sought clarification on whether any consultation involving Petroliam Nasional Bhd (PETRONAS) had taken place in relation to the cargoes.
He said, if PETRONAS had been consulted, it would be useful to establish who sought the advice, what questions were raised, what documents were reviewed and whether any written opinion or advice was provided.
Jeyenderan stressed that seeking such clarification did not imply any wrongdoing by PETRONAS, DTL or any other party.
He said the company was also seeking relevant operational information, including tank history, custody records, product movement records, test results, any applicable blending or circulation instructions, licence conditions and reconciliation between incoming and outgoing cargoes.
“These records would help establish the sequence of events and clarify the respective roles and responsibilities of the parties involved,” he said, adding that the company had raised the matter with the authorities and was seeking a written position so that it 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 a company whose name appeared in the operational documentation, even where it was not responsible for the cargo, 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 the outcome of enquiries made by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), saying the commission had informed him that checks with relevant agencies found no basis for an offence under the MACC Act 2009 and that no revenue leakage had been identified to date.
He stressed that the MACC's position and the Customs-related questions were separate matters.
“Any decision on 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, adding that he was not asking the authorities to reach a particular conclusion but to state their position in writing.
“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 industry participants understand the regulatory requirements and reduce uncertainty over how similar cargo movements should be handled in the future. – September 16, 2026
.jpg)
