Contractual problems caused rejection of wheat: official

The controversy over a consignment of wheat that arrived in Pakistan late last month and now awaits a decision from the authorities about its eventual fate, has arisen because of a contractual obligation that has not been met, a government official said on Thursday. The consignment of about 150,000 mt of wheat, imported by a private Pakistani contractor for the state-owned Pakistan Agriculture Storage and Services Corporation (PASSCO) from Australia, was rejected by Pakistani officials in February on the grounds that it was infected by a fungus. "This was an agreement, or contract, between PASSCO and a private Pakistani company. The contract laid down specific generic specifications, which were not country related," the official, who wished to remain unnamed, told IRIN in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad. "These were generic specifications and were not country-related," the official repeated. "The tender did not mention the country of origin from where the wheat should have come. It mentioned the characteristics the wheat should have. If certain characteristics are not met, the contractual obligations are not fulfilled and the buyer can reject that," he added. Earlier, media reports said a cabinet meeting chaired by Prime Minister Jamali deliberated over the analysis of wheat samples done by a specially constituted committee and backed the findings which detected fungus within the wheat. An official statement issued after the meeting said the second test was conducted in the presence of a plant pathologist from Australia, as well as two other of his countrymen. The importing firm, a private Pakistani concern called Tradesman International, had contended, after the first laboratory test, that the US $23 million wheat shipment was fungus-free. And Australian officials were quoted as saying on Sunday that the tests should be done by an independent laboratory. Warren Truss, the Australian agriculture minister, was reported to have said the "best approach would be to seek independent, third-party DNA testing - for example, in US or UK government laboratories."