Displaying items by tag: Lucky Cement

The old saying goes that nothing is certain except for death and taxes. But maybe that should be cement and taxes. Paying your taxes is something most people and companies just get on with, perhaps with some grumbling or perhaps not, but certainly with little press. So two news stories popping up in the same week about cement plants with tax issues is out of the ordinary.

The first concerned Lucky Cement’s battle in Pakistan to keep one of its plants open following accusations of underpaying its taxes. The local tax office tried to shut the Pezu plant down for not paying its property tax. The cement producer hit back with a restraining order from the provincial high court. The second detailed efforts by the Ethiopian authorities efforts to claw back US$10m from a local cement producer accused of deliberately understating its profits. In both cases it’s hard to tell if there is an obvious right or wrong party. Yet if these kinds of stories are hitting the local press headlines then either something has gone wrong or both parties are digging in for a fight.

Looking over a longer time frame two major stories about tax have been doing the rounds over the last year in the industry news. India’s Goods and Services Tax (GST) is a classic example of how cement producers sometimes have to deal with changes to existing regulations. It received another outing this week in the form of the credit agency ICRA’s latest forecast. It explained how the introduction of the new tax, a consolidation of other existing indirect taxes, had slowed production in the second quarter of the Indian financial year in 2017 - 2018.

The other example from a large cement producing country was US President Donald Trump’s cut to federal corporate tax in December 2017. The tax cut was expected to particularly benefit companies that produce materials, like building materials manufacturers. It prompted HeidelbergCement to say in early January 2018 that it expected to see a boost to its profits in 2019. Warren Buffet, the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway and owner of insulation producer Johns Manville amongst other companies, put it bluntly when he said in his 2017 annual report that nearly half the gain of his company’s net worth came from the changes to the US tax system.

Multinational companies, including some cement producers, face issues when dealing with different rules and regulations between the various countries that they operate in. However, sometimes unfairly, sometimes not, large companies also hold a reputation for trying to avoid paying tax.

In this context it’s interesting to look at how LafargeHolcim says it approaches the issue. The company published its tax principles in 2016 where it talks about being responsible and that it, “…accepts tax as a necessary and required contribution to society.” It then talks about the necessity of transparency and good relationships with tax authorities. The same year it declared a total tax bill of Euro726m versus total sales revenue of Euro23bn. By contrast Cemex UK in its tax strategy talks about how it follows the US Sarbanes Oxley Act 2002, which applies a more stringent international accounting and auditing standard. It feels far more honest when it says that it aims to minimise the tax burden upon its shareholders by using methods outlined by the UK government. Taxes may be a certainty but nobody wants to pay a penny more in taxes than they have to.

Pakistan: Lucky Cement has obtained restraining orders from the Peshawar High Court to prevent its Pezu plant being closed by the Excise and Taxation Department for not paying a US$135,000 property tax bill. A team from the Excise and Taxation Department attempted to close the site on 23 February 2018, according to the News International newspaper. The cement producer says that the plant continues to produce cement and despatch its products. The tax office has launched a drive to target tax defaulters in the region. It alleges that it has been chasing Lucky Cement’s tax bill for the past six years.

Pakistan: Lucky Cement’s profit after tax fell by 2% year-on-year to US$77.6m in the half year to 31 December 2017 from US$79m in the same period in 2016. The cement producer said that its cost of sales had increased by 21% due to rising coal and other fuels prices. Its sales revenue grew by 5.2% to US$297m from US$283m. Its cement production rose by 5.4% to 3.68Mt from 3.49Mt.

The company completed a new 1.25Mt/yr production line at its Karachi cement plant in December 2017. It is currently seeking government approval to build a new 2.3Mt/yr plant in Punjab Province. However due to the delay it is considering expanding its Pezu plant by 2.3Mt/yr instead. The cement producer also expanded its grinding plant in Iraq by 0.87Mt/yr to 1.74Mt/yr.

Pakistan: Lucky Cement has appointed Muhammad Irfan Husain Chawala as its Chief Finance Officer and director of finance. He succeeds Muhammad Faisal. Previously Chawala was the company secretary of the cement producer. Faisal Mahmood will succeed him in this role.

News from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) this week: Lucky Cement has nearly finished its new 1.2Mt/yr cement plant. The US$270m project is due to start commercial operation in October 2016, according to a report by Bloomberg. The news is fascinating because it marks the opening up of central sub-Saharan Africa to the cement industry and it puts the boots of Pakistan’s Lucky Cement on the African continent in a big way.

The Nyumba Ya Akiba plant is a 50:50 joint venture between Lucky Cement and a local conglomerate Groupe Rawji, with financing supplied from a group of international development agencies. Originally proposed in 2013 the plant is located in Kongo Central province in the far west of the country between Kinshasa and the port of Matadi near to the connecting main road and railway line. The kit for the plant was ordered from FLSmidth in 2014 for Euro68m, including crushers, pyro processing equipment and vertical mills for raw meal, coal and cement grinding. An overview from the International Finance Corporation also added that the plant intended to cut a deal to import South African coal via the railway from the coast. Limestone and clay will come from a captive quarry. Incidentally, FLSmidth reckoned in 2015 that the project was the first new cement plant in the country in 40 years.

From Lucky Cement’s perspective the project makes sense given the bad reaction it has had trying to import its cement into western and southern Africa. Local producers recoiled from cheap imports along the coast and then lobbied their governments to block them. So, putting down manufacturing roots in a target country with a local partner makes it that much harder to block additional imports. It may or may not be importing its own clinker from somewhere else to supplement local demand but it is definitely providing local jobs and supporting local development. Lucky Cement’s previous international adventure of this kind was the opening of a cement grinding plant in Iraq in 2014.

Naturally, like buses, one waits ages for a cement plant to be built and then two turn up at the same time. South Africa’s PPC is also building an integrated cement plant in the DRC at Kimpese, in the same province as Lucky Cement’s plant. PPC’s half year report to March 2016, released in September 2016, mentioned that its 1Mt/yr plant was 83% complete with all civic and structural work complete. Commissioning was intended for the end of 2016 with cement ready for sale in early 2017. It is being built by Sinoma. The cement producer already has a sales depot in Kinshasa and it exports 32.5N and 42.5N cement from South Africa to the territory. Given PPC’s falling revenues from cement in South Africa and growing revenue elsewhere in Africa the opening of this plant will be keenly awaited.

The local demographics may answer whether the DRC can support two new cement plants. The country’s cement consumption was just 24kg/capita with a gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of US$490 in 2015. These are some of the smallest figures in the world. A feasibility study ahead of the Nyumba Ya Akiba plant estimated that the country would have a demand of 1.8Mt/yr by 2015 compared to a local production capacity of under 1Mt/yr. Nature, and markets, abhor a vacuum. Lucky Cement and PPC are about to fill it.

South African cement producers may be cheered this week with the news that Iranian cement is causing grief in Pakistan once more. Imported cement from Iran is allegedly undercutting local product in Pakistan through massive 'under-invoicing.' Sources quoted in Pakistan – itself a cement exporter (!) – described the situation as 'incomprehensible.'

The issue here is that Iran is doing to South Africa what Pakistan is doing to South Africa: selling cement cheaper than locally produced product. It's especially ironic this week because one Pakistani cement producer, Lucky Cement, is taking the fight against South African anti-dumping duties to the courts.

A report from July 2015 reckoned that Pakistan's cement exports might drop by 10 – 15% at the start of 2016 as economic sanctions on Iran are lifted. The report had a bit more sense than the usual scaremongering. It predicted that removing sanctions in Iran would not affect competition in Afghanistan as Iranian producers generally targeted Kandahar.

Despite this, cement exports to Afghanistan from Pakistan hit a high of 4.73Mt in the 2010 – 2011 financial year, according to All Pakistan Cement Manufacturers Association (APCMA) data. Since then they dwindled slightly for the next couple of years before decreasing more sharply from mid-2013. Overall exports fell by 11.57% to 7.2Mt in the 2014 – 2015 period. Pakistan's exports to Afghanistan may have been hit by the departure of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) forces and a new cement plant in neighbouring Tajikistan.

In part the battle seems to be about tax. In June 2015 the APCMA lobbied the Pakistan government to cut duties. At the time these included a 5% federal excise duty and a 17% general sales tax on the retail price of cement. One APCMA spokesman reckoned that these taxes added US$1.56 per bag of cement. More recently the APCMA rallied against a tax on cement exports and an increase in import duties on coal. In this climate, repeated news stories on Iranian exports to Pakistan dodging taxes don't sound so good.

Meanwhile, back in South Africa, Lucky Cement has started to take legal action against anti-dumping duties imposed upon its cement exports by the International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa (ITAC). The ITAC imposed provisional anti-dumping duties of 14.3 – 77.2% on Portland Cement originating in or imported from Pakistan from 15 May 2015 for six months. The duty was imposed on bagged cement. Pakistan-based cement producers may defend themselves by saying that they are following the laws of the countries they are exporting to. In theory Iranian exports to Pakistan that pay the correct taxes should be the same price as Pakistani products.

What this debacle shows is that things could get a whole lot worse for coastal cement markets within easy reach of Iran once the sanctions fall. National bodies like the ITAC across the Middle East, South Asia and East Africa should start tightening up their import policies now.

South African authorities have started a new investigation into imports of cement from Pakistan. This time the inquiry will examine trade dumping allegations made by local producers including Afrisam, Lafarge, NPC Cimpor and PPC.

The application made by the cement producers provided evidence that the difference between the price of cement (the dumping margin) in Pakistan and for imports from Pakistan in 2013 was 48%. Or, in other words, the price of Pakistan cement imported to South Africa was nearly half that of what is was being sold for in the country that it was actually produced in.

The data submitted to the International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa comes from a report by Genesis Analytics on Pakistan cement prices in 2013 and tax information from the South African Revenue Service. Neither source is readily available for more detailed analysis here but data released by XA International Trade Advisors suggests that cement imports from Pakistan rose to 1.1Mt/yr in 2013 and at a value of US$59m. Roughly, this gives a price of US$55/t. This compares to an average price of US$90/t, from the All Pakistan Manufacturers' Association for the first nine months of the 2012 – 2013 Pakistani fiscal year, giving a dumping margin similar to the allegation by the South African cement producers.

Separate industry sources quoted by the Pakistan media on the story reported that the country supplies 1.5 - 1.6Mt/yr of cement to South Africa, its biggest export market, receiving a revenue of US$125m. Although this suggests a dumping margin lower than the one presented to the authorities it is still high.

Other information of note in the investigation notification is that the Pakistan cement imports are only competing heavily with the local bagged cement market in the Southern African Customs Union, which also includes neighbouring Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland. The notification discounts bulk cement imports from Pakistan as being 'prohibitively' expensive suggesting that the Pakistan cement producers have no import infrastructure in southern Africa or that something else is stopping them. For example, the country's market leader for production, Lucky Cement, has export facilities in Karachi with silos and automatic ship loaders. Yet it's only 'brick-and-mortar' presence overseas are projects building an integrated plant in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and a grinding plant in Iraq.

It may also be worth considering that South African industry newcomer Sephaku Cement hasn't joined the dumping allegation. The Dangote subsidiary was set to start producing clinker in late August 2014. This is out of character considering how prominent the Nigerian-based cement producer has been in campaigning against imports to its home nation. However, the Aganang plant in Lichtenburg, North West Province is over 700km from the coast and presumably safe from foreign imports at present.

One final question occurs. How are Pakistan cement producers able to dump bagged cement on the South African market at prices lower than what they are selling it for at home? If individual producers sold their excess at home at a lower price they could potentially undercut their competitors and make a profit. There are many barriers, from input costs to industry structural issues and other reasons that may be preventing this. However, if the South African cement producers succeed in their latest attempt to block imports from Pakistan it may add more impetus to remove such barriers.

At the beginning of September 2013 Lucky Cement reportedly resigned from the All Pakistan Cement Manufacturers Association. The implications of this departure raise interesting implications for Pakistan's cement industry and its export markets.

Lucky Cement reacted to a growing row over energy prices for cement producers in Pakistan. The government increased electricity taxes for industrial consumers by 55% but only increased gas prices by 17.5%. This has created an uneven rise in the cost of production between those smaller cement producers powered off the national electricity grid and those larger cement producers using captive power plants. Suddenly smaller cement producers have found it much more expensive to make cement than their larger competitors.

Although Pakistan's cement industry contains over 20 producers, it is dominated by four major players - Lucky Cement, Bestway Cement, DG Khan and Maple Leaf – who hold nearly half of the country's cement production capacity of around 45Mt/yr. According to local media covering the spat, Lucky Cement uses 100% captive power generation, DG Khan Cement uses 40% and Maple Leaf Cement uses 45%.

In 2009 the Competition Commission of Pakistan issued fines to 20 cement producers found guilty of acting as a cartel and co-ordinating rises in cement prices. Following the action cement prices fell by 30%. Since then prices have steadily risen again with the industry publicly denying the existence of a cartel as recently as April 2013.

Regardless of whether any collusion exists today, with new cement production capacity announced this week by DG Khan, the incentives for Pakistan's larger cement producers are growing to keep their prices low with the benefit of seizing greater market share. Meanwhile the smaller cement producers could be squeezed on both energy input costs and price.

In Pakistan, if the larger cement producers act on the new market opportunities, industry consolidation seems possible. Internationally, if the big cement producers in Pakistan concentrate more on the domestic market then this presents opportunities elsewhere. For example, markets in East and South Africa receive significant cement imports from Pakistan. If the volumes of these imports decrease then local African producers and rival exporters will benefit.

Changes in Pakistan's cement industry carry implications both at home and abroad in its export markets. Who exactly these changes will be 'lucky' for remains to be seen.

Pakistan: Lucky Cement has announced that its chief executive Muhammad Ali Tabba has been appointed as a member of the cement producer's Human Resource and Remuneration Committee. The committee now includes the following members of the board: Rahila Aleem, Jawed Yunus Tabba, Zulekha Razzak Tabba and Muhammad Ali Tabba.

Pakistan's Lucky Cement received the 'all clear' for its cement imports from the South African regulators last week. The situation exposes the increasingly competitive market in the country after the South African Competition Commission cartel investigations in 2011.

Sales of Lucky Cement were originally shut down in 2011 due to accusations made by its competitors, including Pretoria Portland Cement (PPP) and Natal Portland Cement (NPC). They complained that Lucky was not complying with South African standards. South Africa's National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications (NRCS) then ran its independent investigation and released its results last week.

The regulator's full 28-day test found no evidence that Lucky Cement imports were non-compliant with regards to their quality. A minor infringement concerning underweight bags was found and fixed. However, about a week beforehand, Lafarge South Africa's CEO said that his company was considering approaching another trade body with concerns about 'low-quality cheap cement' imported from Pakistan.

More serious criticism came from the Cement and Concrete Institute when the NRCS admitted that it didn't know how much cement had been imported into South Africa so far in 2012. The NRCS is supposed to inspect and approve the testing bodies each producer and importer uses for every 500t of cement.

Lucky Cement has been a regular importer of cement to South Africa since 2009. It exports around 1.65Mt/yr to over 22 countries in South East Asia, the Middle East and Africa. CCI figures reckon that 140,000t of cement was imported to South Africa in the first quarter of 2012, mostly by Lucky Cement. According to the Global Cement Directory 2012 South Africa's capacity is around 11Mt/yr.

Four domestic producers – Lafarge, PPC, AfriSam and NPC – were accused of cartel activity by the South African Competition Commission, in a case that has been running since 2008. PPC confirmed the existence of the cartel, whilst Lafarge and AfriSam were fined US$19.6m and US$16m respectively.

By letting Lucky Cement resume the sale of its cement in South Africa, the NRCS has arguably done more than the Competition Commission to prevent cartel activity. With reports surfacing that other producers in Pakistan and India are considering exports to South Africa, domestic producers are going to have to become more inventive and more competitive.