RIGHT OF REPLY
View(s):MSC LANKA (Pvt) Ltd., has sent the following statement in response to our news item in the Business Times last week (November 15 issue) titled “Major shipping line pulls out of Colombo Port”.
“We write to inform you that we, (MSC Lanka nor our Principal, MSC GENEVA) have published or made any announcement of MSC withdrawing services from Port of Colombo. We were not consulted by journalists before publishing this article. This incorrect information has given us a negative impression in the industry and our customers were kept in doubt” – Mr. Chandima Hulangamuwa, Managing Director, MSC LANKA (Pvt) Ltd.,
In a follow-up telephone call, Mr. Hulangamuwa further stated that a letter they sent to the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) was “normal practice” where ships bypass Colombo Port.
Reporter’s note: The Business Times reported the correspondence from MSC Lanka to the SLPA where the company unequivocally stated that their vessels will be bypassing Colombo due to delays and disruptions and they will return only when the situation at the Port returns to normal. To quote from that mail, verbatim, this is what the company said;
“Once JCT and Port of Colombo manages to find a solution and can continue operations without similar interruptions let me know to inform (MSC) Geneva in order to request them to divert the service back to Colombo but cannot guarantee as MSC got severely affected with the current situation in Colombo”.
It says the company “cannot guarantee” an immediate return to the Colombo Port. Readers can therefore decide what a plain understanding of that veiled threat would mean.
The letter from the shipping company also said that “MSC HO has mentioned that they were heavily affected due to current Port of Colombo congestion and diverted over 20 ships to assist POC and discharged boxes in various Indian ports and Singapore, now Colombo imports and some boxes they must re-route back to Colombo incurring additional costs”.
There was no reason to contact the company when we had their letter to SLPA in our possession and that was what we stated in our story. We did not say anything about the company’s Principals in Geneva, their own letter dragged them into the story.
While we can understand the embarrassment caused to the company and the difficulties by the subsequent ‘wrap on the knuckles’ it may have received, what we reported was their own letter to the SLPA, and nothing more.