
Documents reveal that the Trading Corporation of Pakistan (TCP) raised objections to documents submitted by two companies and consequently rejected their bids, despite them offering lower prices in their tenders for importing 200,000 metric tons of sugar.
Out of the five companies that submitted bids, two with higher-priced offers were accepted.
According to TCP's tender documents, London-based firm M/s ED&F Man Sugar Limited submitted the lowest bid, offering to deliver 100,000 metric tons of sugar to Karachi Port at $539 per metric ton. The TCP rejected the bid, citing documentation issues.
The second-lowest bid came from German company Bare Syndicate FZCO, which quoted $555 per metric ton for small- and medium-grain white sugar, but this bid too was rejected due to documentary shortcomings.
Meanwhile, Swiss company Louis Dreyfus quoted $580.75 per metric ton for small-grain sugar, and Dubai's Al Khaleej Sugar offered $586 per metric ton for medium-grain sugar. The TCP accepted these bids and declared them successful.
Another Dubai-based company, Sucden Middle East, opted out and withdrew its documents.
According to the tender notification, shipments of either two consignments of 25,000 metric tons each or one of 50,000 metric tons will take place between September 5 and September 20. The full import of 200,000 metric tons is scheduled in phases between September 5 and October 15.
To meet domestic demand and stabilize prices, the government has established Letters of Credit (LCs) through SOCAR Trading for the import of 85,000 metric tons of sugar. All LCs have been officially opened and transmitted through the concerned banks.
The sugar shipment under this agreement with SOCAR will reach Pakistan in phases. The first consignment is expected at the port within the next few weeks.
The government took this step to increase domestic sugar reserves and prevent potential shortages or unusual price fluctuations in the future.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ