Mohamed AlgarjThis investigation compared annual sugar quantities and credit values from 2021 onward, highlighting a cumulative total above one million tonnes and sharp changes in unit value. Its claim that part of the volume was ‘missing’ requires customs, inventory, re-export and consumption data.
Cumulative sugar quantity stated in the original multi-year comparison
A four-year ledger, not one alarming number
The multi-year comparison assembled more than one million tonnes of sugar-related financing with a cumulative value reported at about $509 million. Its value lies in the annual sequence: quantities, total cost and implied cost per tonne can be compared across years instead of treating every credit as an isolated event.
The available figures cited 342,000 tonnes worth $112 million in 2021 and about 307,000 tonnes worth $250 million in 2022. On those rounded numbers, the implied value rose from roughly $327 to $814 per tonne—an increase near 149% even though the quantity declined. That movement demands explanation, but it is not proof of over-invoicing by itself.
Why unit value can change
Global sugar prices, freight, insurance, origin, quality, packaging, contract timing and payment terms can all change landed unit value. A credit table may also mix raw sugar, refined sugar and packaged retail products. Comparing unlike goods creates a false price gap.
The correct method is to calculate unit values within consistent commodity codes and delivery terms, then compare them with international benchmark prices over the same contract dates. Outliers should be investigated transaction by transaction, not inferred from an annual average alone.
What does ‘missing sugar’ actually mean?
A gap between a financed quantity and an estimate of household consumption does not show that sugar disappeared. Industrial users, beverage producers, bakeries, inventory accumulation, losses, border trade and re-export can all account for part of the difference. Population and consumption assumptions also carry uncertainty.
The word ‘missing’ is therefore too strong unless the financing record is reconciled with bills of lading, customs clearance, warehouse movements, tax declarations and verified end use. Until then, the defensible finding is a reconciliation gap in public data.
The market-structure question
Sugar is a staple and an industrial input. Concentrated access to its import financing can affect prices across households and food manufacturing. The relevant measures are the number of importers, the largest groups’ market share, the banks carrying the exposure and whether retail prices moved consistently with landed costs.
If the state allocates official currency to stabilize supply, it should measure the result in availability and prices. If the system is purely commercial, it still requires competition oversight, customs verification and taxation of realized profits.
A reconciliation that can be published
For each year, authorities should publish four aligned totals: credits executed, customs-cleared tonnes, verified industrial and retail distribution, and closing inventory. Values should be separated by raw, refined and packaged sugar and reported with origin and landed unit cost.
This would convert the debate from accusation to audit. It would reveal whether the apparent gap comes from classification, timing, inventories, re-export, pricing or transactions that genuinely cannot be explained.
Editorial method: This investigation rebuilds the original calculation from the linked public records, preserves the source period and transaction stage, and separates documented figures from estimates, interpretation and allegations.
Mohamed Algarj