Mohamed Algarj
The September 2025 analysis identified $4,236,928 in blanket-related documentary credits within the dataset and disclosure window used at the time.
The working calculation attributed roughly 93% of that selected value to Al-Ruwad and Al-Maysam, whose entries were associated with the Belto name in the retained material. Al-Jadwa Al-Alamiya accounted for the remaining 7%.
Al-Yaqeen Bank in Misrata financed more than $3.2 million — approximately 76% of the snapshot. Turkey was identified as the principal origin, followed by China.
blankets was the original estimated range implied by the selected credit value and comparative trade unit values.
An estimate, not a shipment count
The unit range was an author estimate built from the information available at publication. It was not a customs-confirmed count. Size, fibre, weight, quality, freight and insurance could change the real quantity materially.
Customs arrival records and commercial invoices would be required to verify delivery and count.
Why concentration deserves attention
Concentration is not proof of misconduct. A few importers may legitimately serve a large share of a market. But when official foreign currency finances that concentration, the public has an interest in allocation rules, beneficial ownership, pricing and delivery.
The same applies to the financing bank. A large share in one product snapshot is a due-diligence question, not a verdict.
The missing last mile
A complete record would connect each credit to a customs declaration, quantity, tariff code, origin, arrival date and market destination, allowing the public to compare the official-dollar value with goods actually supplied.
Rebuilding the quantity range
The 490,000–550,000 estimate implies an average financed value of roughly $7.70 to $8.65 per blanket across the selected $4.237 million. That range is only useful if the basket has broadly comparable products. Fibre, size, weight, thermal rating, packaging and whether freight and insurance are included can move unit values substantially.
The correct check starts with customs units and net weight for each tariff line, then compares invoice value with reference ranges for the same specification and origin. Dividing one aggregate by an external average is a scenario, not proof of the shipment count.
Read concentration on two levels
The snapshot shows concentration among applicants and a separate concentration in the financing bank. Those are related but distinct. Applicant concentration describes access to the product market; bank concentration may reflect customer relationships, correspondent capacity, timing or internal risk appetite.
Neither ratio proves preferential treatment. Together they justify asking whether connected ownership was tested, whether supplier and pricing checks were independent, and whether one bank accumulated an unusual exposure to the same commodity and network.
A seasonal product needs a dated market test
Blanket demand is influenced by winter timing, humanitarian procurement, institutional orders, household replacement and regional distribution. A September financing window may fund inventory sold months later. Annualising the snapshot would therefore be misleading without shipment and sales dates.
A market test should compare customs arrival, stocks and wholesale prices before and after the financed supply. If greater official-dollar access does not improve availability or price, authorities need to examine costs, distribution, timing and market structure before drawing a conclusion.
From credit to conformity
The final control is not only financial. Customs and standards authorities should record fibre declaration, country of origin, labelling and conformity where applicable, while tax records identify the importer and subsequent sales. A transaction identifier can connect those stages.
Publishing value, quantity, applicant, bank, origin, execution, customs arrival and status would transform a memorable estimate into an auditable supply record. Until then, the article’s range remains explicitly provisional.
Historical note: The figures reproduce the dated calculation and its selected period; they are not presented as a cumulative 2025 total. Later or broader CBL files naturally produce different aggregates.