The Government Position
The Outlook Effect
“This is a massive scam and the commerce minister has tried to sidetrack the real issues.” Gopinath Munde, BJP leader and MP
“A joint parliamentary probe is needed. We must know how private companies like Amira Foods came in.” Basudeb Acharia, CPI(M) MP
“It is a big scam which impinges on India’s food security. The Opposition won’t let it die down.” Bhartruhari Mahtab, Lok Sabha BJD MP
“We need to probe how two or three companies came in without a tender and got preferential treatment.” Shailendra Kumar, Samajwadi Party MP
“It has been noticed that in some cases PSUs have infringed (upon) certain conditions contained in the DGFT (directorate-general of foreign trade) notifications for the export of non-basmati rice. This matter is being looked into. Inquiries will be held; responsibility will be fixed and remedial action shall be taken.”
—Union minister for commerce Anand Sharma in his statement on the rice scam in the Lok Sabha on July 30, 2009
Ever since Outlook exposed the scandalous export of non-basmati rice to 22 “needy” African nations between January 2008 and May 2009, the rot seems to be only getting deeper. For one, not only did this trade take place at a time when there was a ban on export of the grain but, in what was supposed to be a government-to-government aid programme, three private players were hand-picked, contravening all norms. The commerce ministry too played its part by getting the export of 10 lakh metric tonnes (MT) cleared in double quick time. The Outlook investigation had shown how the entire exercise was intended just to help a private cartel profit from the then high international price of rice. Why else would state-owned trading companies like the STC and MMTC be forced to subcontract exports to chosen private players? Now further proof of this nexus has emerged.
Then Union commerce minister Kamal Nath was in the know: In his Lok Sabha statement on the rice scam, Union commerce minister Anand Sharma hinted at state trading companies like STC and MMTC having infringed upon “certain DGFT guidelines”. But were the PSUs alone responsible or did the then commerce minister Kamal Nath know about what was happening under his nose?
In fact, a letter from the West African nation of Sierra Leone (dated March 31, 2009) was addressed directly to Kamal Nath seeking 30,000 MT non-basmati rice (valued at Rs 110 crore) due to a food crisis in that country. The letter clearly recommends the Delhi-based Amira Foods as the company which should be exempted from the then existing ban on exports for this purpose. To quote: “We (Sierra Leone) further request that the concession to export/ship be given to M/s Amira Foods (I) Ltd whom we have nominated as the shippers of the rice concession to be granted to.” (Kamal Nath didn’t respond to a detailed questionnaire faxed to his office and residence seeking his comments.)
This order became one in a series of concessions that Amira Foods bagged in exporting the banned non-basmati rice, including a consignment to the East African nation of Comoros in mid-2008. Here too the country was allotted 25,000 MT of rice to be exported under the food aid programme through MMTC. But as the deal unfolded, it revealed a manipulation that went far beyond MMTC. The fact is that while the PSU tried its best to resist the manipulations in the export deal from the top, it was pushed into a corner and forced to accommodate private players.
The Comoros Deal—The Twists and Turns: In January 2008, the EGoM agreed to exempt a consignment of 25,000 MT of non-basmati rice to the Union of Comoros, a small African nation comprising of four principal islands just off the eastern coast of Africa. The DGFT issued a notice on January 24, 2008 (Notification no. 73 [RE-2007]/2004-2009), clearing the export along with that of 9,000 MT to Mauritius through MMTC. In February 2008, the PSU floated a limited tender for exporting rice to Mauritius and Comoros. While the export to Mauritius went through smoothly, the Comoros deal began to spin out of control.
Interestingly, MMTC raked in profits in the Mauritius deal, buying the rice from the market for $368 per MT and selling it to Mauritius for $455 per MT. The profit margin: $87 per MT. “This was probably the highest profit that MMTC has ever made in a rice export deal in its entire history,” a senior commerce ministry official told Outlook.
A Unilateral Agreement: But a month later, MMTC received an already signed agreement inked without its knowledge where Comoros had agreed to buy the 25,000 MT of rice (worth Rs 28 crore) through three private Indian companies at $640 per MT! The agreement, dated May 22, 2008 (MMTC/RICE/EXP/02/ 2008-09), appointed MMTC as the seller; Amira Foods Ltd, with its office in Sultanpur Estates, Shivnath Rai Harnarain Ltd and Emsons Ltd as the “shippers” and the Comorian trading agency ONICOR as the “buyer”. Strangely enough, the agreement had already been worked out and signed by the “shippers” and the “buyers”, minus the MMTC. This deal raises essentially two questions:
PSUs’ Profit Margin Fixed Unilaterally by Private Player: Mysteriously, the Comoros agreement also stated unilaterally that MMTC’s profit margin would be only $10 per MT. Which meant that while the rice would be sold at a rate much higher than what MMTC had sold to Mauritius, its margin per MT would fall from a high of $87 per MT to $10. Strangely enough, MMTC’s profit margin was written into the typed document by hand and signed by a ‘P. Guha’. The ‘P. Guha’ turns out to be Protik Guha, vice president, Amira Foods! (Outlook contacted Guha on phone but he said he was in a meeting and would get back, but didn’t).
When MMTC wrote back to the MEA (Letter No. MMTC/AGRO/RICE/EXP/ COMOROS/08/02), pointing out details of its original offer and the entry of private players, it received a reply from K.N. Ramachandran, an under-secretary in the MEA. In this letter dated June 16, 2008 (No. IV/I0L/4/2008), it was pointed out that since the contract had already been signed between the government of Comoros and the private Indian companies to supply rice at $640 per MT, “MEA had no further comments to offer.” Instead it requested that “MMTC may please facilitate export of the consignment of rice to Comoros”. With no choice in the matter, the PSU complied.
The Need for a Joint Parliamentary Probe Anand Sharma promised Parliament that there would be an internal inquiry. But Opposition parties as well as the MPs who had filed a calling attention motion on the rice scam are not satisfied. When Outlook spoke to BJP leader Gopinath Munde, CPI(M) MP Basudeb Acharia, BJD MP Bhartruhari Mahtab and Samajwadi Party MP Shailendra Kumar, they all said that a scam of this nature which impinged on the nation’s food security called for a joint parliamentary probe which they had demanded.
But the government rejected this outright, leading to the Opposition staging a walkout. Such a probe could well release a can of worms; an internal inquiry, on the other hand, would be more convenient. It can be easily manipulated and the blame put on PSUs. The big sharks, meanwhile, can continue to roam the ocean of corruption.
Apropos of The Rice Diaries (Aug 17), the rice scam shows how the Congress, its ministers, its allies and others have filled their coffers that were depleted in winning the recent elections. Asha, on e-mail
Last summer, all the rice in the R.S. Pura region was exported to China. As a result, the people of j&k had to buy rice at skyrocketing prices! Aatish Arora, Dehradun
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT