AGL 39.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.50 (-1.25%)
AIRLINK 131.70 Increased By ▲ 2.64 (2.05%)
BOP 6.81 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.89%)
CNERGY 4.73 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (5.35%)
DCL 8.49 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.7%)
DFML 41.45 Increased By ▲ 0.63 (1.54%)
DGKC 82.15 Increased By ▲ 1.19 (1.47%)
FCCL 33.25 Increased By ▲ 0.48 (1.46%)
FFBL 72.58 Decreased By ▼ -1.85 (-2.49%)
FFL 12.40 Increased By ▲ 0.66 (5.62%)
HUBC 110.74 Increased By ▲ 1.16 (1.06%)
HUMNL 14.40 Increased By ▲ 0.65 (4.73%)
KEL 5.17 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-2.64%)
KOSM 7.63 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-1.17%)
MLCF 38.85 Increased By ▲ 0.25 (0.65%)
NBP 63.80 Increased By ▲ 0.29 (0.46%)
OGDC 192.75 Decreased By ▼ -1.94 (-1%)
PAEL 25.75 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (0.16%)
PIBTL 7.36 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.41%)
PPL 153.85 Decreased By ▼ -1.60 (-1.03%)
PRL 25.82 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.12%)
PTC 17.75 Increased By ▲ 0.25 (1.43%)
SEARL 82.40 Increased By ▲ 3.75 (4.77%)
TELE 7.79 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.89%)
TOMCL 33.55 Decreased By ▼ -0.18 (-0.53%)
TPLP 8.50 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (1.19%)
TREET 16.60 Increased By ▲ 0.33 (2.03%)
TRG 57.25 Decreased By ▼ -0.97 (-1.67%)
UNITY 27.61 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (0.44%)
WTL 1.38 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.72%)
BR100 10,507 Increased By 61.9 (0.59%)
BR30 31,262 Increased By 72.9 (0.23%)
KSE100 98,089 Increased By 290.7 (0.3%)
KSE30 30,567 Increased By 86.3 (0.28%)

The country's cement industry which had been reluctant to pay marking fee worth millions of rupees to Pakistan Standard and Quality Control Authority (PSQCA) is likely to renegotiate the fee with PSQCA after a court verdict in favour of the authority.
According to PSQCA officials, Peshawar High Court, through decision of a case filed by a leading cement manufacturing company, has rejected the move against marking fee on cement of annual production which later revised as ex-factory price. Marking fee on cement was notified @ 0.15 percent of annual production on January 13, 1986. It was revised as 0.1 percent ex-factory price with effect from April 1, 2008 under SRO (KE)/2008 dated February 27, 2008. The fee has been defined as a levy on use of standard mark on a product.
However, they claimed, the cement manufacturers were demanding the fee set on per ton of cement dispatched besides withdrawing millions of rupees worth dues they owed to PSQCA. According to them, the change of fee structure could, however, create problems to the authority as other sectors would also demand the same concession. The payment of dues was also needed for renewal of license issued by PSQCA. The authority grants license for use of PS mark on the product and accordingly manufacturers are levied with marking fee. This mark is symbol of conformance of the product or process to relevant Pakistani standard.
However, the official sources at All Pakistan Cement Manufacturers Association (APCMA) claimed that they had written to the authority and showed their willingness to settle the long outstanding issues without prejudice to the cement industry's legal rights and statutory remedies sought through various writs/appeals.
"We still suggest the authority to withdraw all litigations and settle long standing issues regarding marking fee through mutual understanding," they added. In a written reply to queries, the association while mentioning longstanding issues related to marking fee which were pending under litigation before various courts for more than a decade, said that APCMA was asked to resubmit a proposal for amicable settlement of the disputes.
"Therefore, our proposal on the issues of renewal of licenses and marking fee based on per ton of cement dispatched will help both the parties reach a settlement with assurance that all litigations would be withdrawn in case of acceptance of our recommendations and the payment of marking fee would be made with mutual understanding," they added.
According to them cement industry has never denied the requirement of CM licenses as all manufacturers have always applied for fresh/renewed licenses from time to time but apparently due to pending litigations, same was refused/delayed at times licenses. "Moreover, coercive measures were also taken against targeted manufacturers which created harassment and damaged their businesses owing to unfair propaganda in the press."
Therefore, the association proposed that all pending applications for issuance of fresh/renewed licenses should be processed immediately subject to receipt of license fee and submission of application form from its members. Regarding marking fee based on per ton cement dispatched, they said that in a meeting held in February 2011 at PSQCA office it was agreed in principal that for cement industry marking fee should be charged on per ton cement dispatched basis instead of percentage basis. "The meeting had agreed that marking fee would be charged at Rs 1.20/ton for the previous period till March 2008 on local cement dispatches; Rs 1.50/ton from April 2008 onwards on local cement dispatches; and Rs 0.25/ton from February 17, 2011 onwards on export dispatches (excluding loose cement and clinker)."
But, the association in the later meetings was told that the rate of marking fee of Rs 1.5/ton from April 2008 onwards is too less to be taken to Board of Directors' meeting. "However, the officials of PSQCA were of the view that from April 2008 onward, marking fee rate should be increased to Rs 2.0/ton instead of Rs 1.5/ton in order to get the approval from their Board of Directors." So, in the larger interest of both sides the APCMA proposes a way out which will not only eliminate the pending litigations spanned over a decade but will also facilitate PSQCA to collect handsome amount of marking fee which was otherwise under dispute.
"The APCMA proposed that marking fee shall be charged at Rs 1.20/ton for the previous period till March 2008 on local cement dispatches; Rs 2.00/ton from April 2008 onwards on local cement dispatches; and Rs 0.25/ton from February 17, 2011 onwards on export dispatches (excluding loose cement and clinker). This they said would resolve the long outstanding issue between the industry and PSQCA.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2012

Comments

Comments are closed.