KARACHI: The world’s leading provider of services in airport ground handling, aircraft cargo terminal and related services to the aviation industry through its Pakistani affiliate, dnata, issued a formal public statement of disclaimer on Friday stating categorically that there was no factual or legal validity to the penalty of Rs2.7 billion levied upon them recently by the country’s Federal Board of Revenue. The corporation stated categorically that it had appealed against the decision and that the case is sub judice.
The disclaimer, which has been issued through prominent Pakistani media outlets, is seen as the first major statement made by the company regarding a controversy that received considerable attention after the announcement by FBR regarding the imposition of the penalty on May 21, 2026.
Findings from FBR’s Adjudication
FBR’s case against dnata owned by Gerry is based on the findings made in five different adjudications related to the removal of expensive imported electronic equipment from the dnata cargo facility without going through the process of customs clearance and payment of the required duties.
Based on the information from the Collectorate of Customs, there was found the practice of concealing airway bills, deleting consignment index numbers from Gerry’s dnata’s computerised cargo management system, as well as producing fake gate passes which enabled the removal of cargoes from the terminal without registering Goods Declarations.The above mentioned electronic gadgets include iPhone, MacBook, iPad, laptops, PlayStation, tablets, and memory cards. The interception took place when the shipments were seized from Gerry’s dnata shed, which included luxury goods using the fake gate passes.
A total of eight people were arrested in relation to this case, out of which five were found to be dnata workers employed by Gerry who worked in the cargo handling section of the terminal building. Statements made in confessions by the accused helped the investigators get first-hand information regarding the processes followed. One woman confessed that she used to forge gate passes under instructions from her supervisors. The cargo handler revealed the presence of a conspiracy that had existed in the system for several years that indulged in manipulation of manifests and theft of imported goods.
It was also noted that Gerry’s dnata withheld the CCTV recordings and the system logs which were demanded by the customs officers under Section 211 of the Pakistani Customs Act of 1969. In addition, the company continued to refuse cooperation in investigations even after being formally notified under Section 26 of the same act. The decision of the FBR on the matter was independently confirmed by the Federal Tax Ombudsman.
The Claim in Gerry’s dnata’s Disclaimer
While Gerry’s dnata does not refute any of the facts found by the FBR through its investigation, namely the fake gate passes, the deletion of documents, the admissions, or even the fake stamp, there are basically three arguments in the disclaimer.
This pertains to procedure, since the penalty has been appealed, and it is sub judice. The latter is correct and is important from a legal perspective. A penalty that is sub judice is not final and is subject to all the presumption of disputability that goes with it until such time as the appeals process is completed.
The second one is substantive and relates to the point that according to the company, the law applicable to the case offers a particular procedure for imposing this type of fine, and it was not duly followed in their case. This is a legal issue that would be analyzed by the court of appeal. Focus Pakistan cannot decide it, nor can any other media agency.
Thirdly, it is an institutional one because the firm’s dnata, which Gerry uses as its name, calls itself a licensed Customs Bonded Warehouse functioning under the direct supervision of customs authorities and asserts that it has no right to collect or enforce customs duties. The idea is that duty evasion would be the fault of the customs authority, not the firm, which is not the case according to the FBR’s adjudication orders.
Legal Threat to Media Houses
As per Gerry’s dnata customs penalty, there is an evident warning provided to media houses regarding their right to exercise both legal and criminal remedies against anyone accused of distortion of facts or misinformation under the charge of defamatory action and malicious representation.
This statement holds a lot of weight considering the state of media in Pakistan. According to Focus Pakistan, “the publication of accurate news based on FBR adjudication orders, arrest confirmations and Federal Tax Ombudsman decisions – all of which are public records – cannot be considered defamatory according to Pakistani laws. Defamation occurs when the news is published in bad faith and without any basis at all.”
That dnata is worried about certain media outlets making these claims without consulting their side of the story is a genuine grievance and one that Focus Pakistan considers to be valid. The official stance of the company as stated in the disclaimer is properly conveyed in this piece.
ALSO READ: FBR Exposes Gerry’s Dnata Customs Fraud at Karachi Airport
Gerry’s dnata: Over 30 Years in the Aviation Industry in Pakistan
Gerry’s dnata is an association between the Gerry’s Group from Pakistan and dnata, which is an aviation services company based in Dubai belonging to the Emirates Group. This company has been in operation in Pakistan for over 30 years and is licensed for ground handling, cargo terminal management, and logistics services in the aviation industry in Pakistan’s main airports. It claims to be the top service provider in the aviation and logistics industries in Pakistan and works under a system where its cargo terminals come under the purview of Pakistan Customs.
This is what the relationship between customs officials and the bonded warehouse supervisor is all about: the lack of supervision by customs officials as regards to the removal of goods from the bonded warehouses without their clearance is as much the issue as, or even more than, the problem of the bonded warehouse itself. This, however, is the exact opposite of the FBR’s decision which holds that the scheme was an indicator of systemic institutional failure as well as internal control deficiency on the part of the terminal
What Comes Next
In the coming days, the fate of the tax department’s imposition of a Rs2.7 billion fine and a Rs221 million duties recovery ruling will be decided through the appeals process. The duration of the appeals process in the Pakistani customs appeal tribunal varies from case to case, ranging from several months to more than a year.
The five individuals employed by Gerry’s dnata who have been arrested continue to be under criminal charges, which are conducted independently from the appeal regarding the fine imposed. These criminal charges are independent of the appeals process for the monetary penalty issued by the FBR; therefore, the company may win on the issue of monetary penalty reduction or reversal while still losing on the criminal side.
Focus Pakistan will keep its readers posted about any new updates on this case, which are likely to be available from the appellate court as well as the criminal side. Gerry’s dnata and the FBR were contacted for more comments apart from the above disclaimer.
