IT is hardly unusual for goods to go missing en route to Afghanistan there have been several incidents of the sort. Yet the sheer scale of recent revelations makes such incidents worthy of notice.
On Thursday, Minister of State for Production Khwaja Sheeraz informed the Senate that after conducting an internal inquiry, the Federal Board of Revenue found that nearly 29,000 containers carrying Nato and Afghan Transit Trade goods had gone missing inside the country. This was the first time the issue has been raised in parliament. Its gravity can be gauged by the estimate given by federal tax ombudsman Dr Shoaib Suddle, appointed to look into the matter. He has said that the containers that are missing have caused a loss of Rsitr to the national exchequer.
There are multiple aspects to this matter, one of the more curious being that neither Nato nor Isaf have officially complained to Pakistan about the nondelivery of goods on this scale. That notwithstanding, it is well established that large quantities of goods bound forAfghanistan, mainly under the ATT, end up in Pakistani markets, as was shown by an inquiry report prepared earlier this year by Dr Suddle.
Yet the most disturbing dimension of this issue is the light it sheds on the operations of the National Logistics Cell, a subsidiary of the Pakistan Army that, according to the ATT agreement, has exclusive rights to transport transit trade goods through Pakistan`s road network.
Mr Sheeraz told the Senate that amongst others, notices in terms of the missing containers have been issued to the NLC. It is worth noting that in July, the Public Accounts Committee of the National Assembly directed the Ministry of Defence to take action against three retired NLC generals. If there is corruption within the NLC, particularly on so large a scale, it is time to thoroughly investigate the functioning of the organisation. The issue of goods going missing in Pakistan is not just about the losses incurred, but also piercing the fog of secrecy that surrounds many of the military`s subsidiary interests.
No comments:
Post a Comment