• Container’s CTN Number is 10/NL/0162
Government officials, operators and proponents of the controversial Cargo Tracking Note, (CTN), were shocked to their marrows last week upon the discovery that the equally controversial toxic container on board MV Maersk Nashville actually came with the much-touted CTN number.
The discovery was said to have created strong doubts even in the minds of those who have vigorously defended CTN since its introduction on January 11, 2010.
Although, the container has since been sent back to the shipper aboard the same vessel which brought it to Nigeria on Friday, April 16, 2010, the effect of the shocking discovery has largely thrown spanners in the works and largely punctured one of the arguments of Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) and its consultants on the CTN; Messrs TPMS Antaser.
Since Shipping Position Weekly broke the story of the introduction of the controversial levy in its January 11, 2010 edition, many stakeholders initially kicked against it, but most of them were later wooed into accepting it.
It was, however, gathered exclusively last week that a meeting that was conveyed by the Minister of Transport, Alhaji Suleiman Yusuf to once again examine the pros and cons of CTN was shocked when it was uncovered that the toxic container with number UESU4635950 and which had Safmarine Bill of Lading number 7101406626 was actually issued a CTN at the port of loading in Netherlands.
Shipping Position Weekly learnt exclusively that the CTN number that was issued to the container which brought in the toxic materials and which were recorded as disused motor batteries, spare parts and refrigerators is 10/NL/0162.
Our correspondent was told that the ministerial meeting which was presided over by the director of maritime services (who represented the minister) took place on Monday, April 19, 2010 in Lagos. It was attended by Nigerian Port Authourity, Manufacturers Association of Nigeria, Shipping Association of Nigeria, Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry, National Association of Chambers of Commerce Industry Mines and Agriculture as well as the National Association of Government Approved Freight Forwarders which went to defend the CTN.
On the strength of the discovery, the director was said to have expressed shock that the container actually had a CTN and also that collection of the levy has actually commenced, even though government was yet to give a final verdict on it.
The minister’s representative was also reportedly shocked when he was shown a copy of a letter that was purportedly written jointly by NPA and TPMS Nigeria Limited to importers to the effect that CTN is “irreversible” and that importers who do not comply would be dealt with at the point of discharge of their cargo.
A copy of the letter which was dated March 25, 2010 and which was sighted by our correspondent reads in part: “All bills of lading, cargo manifests presented by the shipping managers must bear the corresponding CTN numbers. One of the main targets of the CTN is to provide authorities with advanced information on cargoes for statistics and security reasons (ISPS), accordingly all shipping managers are kindly requested to make sure that all cargo manifests and B/ladings should bear CTN number in order to avoid penalties at the discharging ports”.
“All shipping lines not adhering to above will subject to fines from N.P.A and receivers will face customs penalties”, the letter had threatened.
Shipping Position Weekly also learnt that contrary to the assurances from operators of CTN that it does not attract addition levy, importers now pay between $325 and $425 per 20- foot container as compulsory CTN levy. For instance, such containers coming from China and USA attract $425 per 20- foot container, while the ones coming from United Arab Emirate and India pay $325 and $340 respectively.
A member of Shipping Association of Nigeria (SAN): the umbrella body of foreign shipping lines operating in Nigeria also told our correspondent last week that contrary to the claim that its members had been collecting levies akin to CTN, it has since come out to deny the claim. “We came out publicly on February 8th to deny it because it is not true, we don’t collect such money”, he claimed.
Discussion about this post