Rabaul Shipping Ltd v Rupen, General Manager, National Maritime Safety Authority Country/Territory Papua New Guinea Type of court National - higher court Date Oct 23, 2008 Source UNEP, InforMEA Court name National Court of Papua New Guinea Seat of court Kokopo Judge Paliau Reference number [2008] PGNC 162 Language English Subject Environment gen., Legal questions, Sea Keyword Navigation Tax/levy Marine pollution Marine pollution (dumping at sea) Marine pollution (ship-based sources) Fiscal and market measures Abstract The Plaintiff in 2006 (4th May 2006) filed by way of Originating Summons seeks an interpretation of the word "ship" as defined under Section 1 of the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Act No. 8 of 2003. "Ship" means "any sea-going vessel and any sea-borne craft of any type actually carrying oil in bulk as cargo." In December 2005, the First Defendant advised the Plaintiff of the requirement to pay the oil spill levy as per a profoma Invoice and the Plaintiff protested because their ships including MV Kula Queen do not actually carry oil in bulk as cargo but only use oil for operation and running of the propulsion, generator and other motors. As such oil spills levy should not be imposed by the Defendants. The Court held that the Second Defendant, National Maritime Safety Authority has improperly imposed the Oil Spill Levy because the Plaintiffs motor vessels Kula Queen and Samarai Queen do not carry oil in bulk as cargo, and therefore are not ships within the meaning of the Act. Full text COU-159633.pdf