The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport, headed by Sitaram
Yechury, has pulled up the Shipping Corporation of India for lack of foresight
and blamed the PSU giant’s ambitious plans for its ongoing financial woes. The Indian
Government, however, disagrees with these findings, saying instead that
depressed market conditions are to blame for the crisis.
“The Committee finds the lack of foresightedness on the part of SCI as
it could not sense the steep decline in the ship prices in the international
markets thereby throwing SCI into deep trouble and huge financial losses in the
form of ship purchase order,” the Committee said in its latest report, and has
demanded to know “under what circumstances such an ambitious project was
initiated.”
Recommending immediate corrective measures, the report said that revenue
generation was adversely affected at SCI, and that the company was “in
depletion of reserve(s).” The report also expressed surprise at seeing “nil”
new acquisition proposals for the next year, agreeing with last year’s CAG
audit that SCI did not pursue acquisition plans to augment and modernise its fleet
. SCI had plans of buying more than sixty ships in the five years ending 2012;
it acquired only about two dozen. The CAG had said that the shortfall in
acquisition had ended up costing the company Rs 2,100 crore in cost overruns, adversely
impacted SCI’s business growth and delayed modernisation when Indian trade was
growing at 8.5 per cent annually.
The government, in its response, has said that SCI’s actions were
correct, and acquisition plans had been postponed given the present global
conditions of gross tonnage oversupply. The reason for the fall in SCI’s
revenues, it stated, were the depressed conditions prevailing in the freight
markets.
The Committee noted, however, that SCI had not been able to meet even the
10 per cent vessel requirement of the all PSUs taken together. “SCI should make
efforts to ensure that at least the PSU orders should not slip from their
hands” due to lack of its business-oriented approach,” it said.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment