The Irony of Protection: Why Deepachelvan’s Books are Held at the Border

 

I was investigating the justification for the seizure of Deepachelvan's books by Sri Lankan customs officials. While there is a serious legal challenge to be made for those who oppose the PTA and the ICCPR Act, the reality is that the majority of people in Sri Lanka remain largely indifferent to these issues.

Many readers might not realize the irony: the ICCPR Act was originally designed to protect rights, yet in Sri Lanka, it is frequently used to limit them. Section 3(1) of the Sri Lankan ICCPR Act is the specific part usually cited in these cases. It prohibits "advocating national, racial or religious hatred." Critics argue it is used selectively against minority writers (like Deepachelvan) while ignoring similar rhetoric from other groups.

Pradeepan  Deepachelvan is widely known for his raw, unflinching portrayal of the Tamil experience during and after the Sri Lankan civil war. His work—particularly his novels Nadugal (Memorial Stones) and Bhayagaravadi (The Terrorist)—is deeply critical of the centralized, unitary nature of the Sri Lankan state.

Anti-unitary themes and expressions found in his writing:

1. The State as an "Occupying Force"

In many of his poems and prose pieces, the unitary state is not depicted as a protector, but as an alien presence in the Tamil homelands. He often uses imagery of barbed wire, bunkers, and high-security zones to describe the "unitary" reach of Colombo. FOor Deepachelvan, the unitary state is a physical weight—a structure that occupies the land through military presence rather than through the consent of the people living there.

2. The Erasure of Memory (Cultural Genocide)

A recurring theme in his work is the destruction of Tamil heritage (cemeteries, monuments, and libraries) by the state. He writes extensively about the "bulldozing of history."  He views the unitary state's insistence on a single national identity as an act of violence against Tamil memory. By destroying "Nadugal" (hero stones), the state attempts to finalize its unitary control by making sure only its own version of history remains standing.

3. The Label of the "Terrorist" (Bhayagaravadi)

In his novel Bhayagaravadi, he explores how the unitary state uses legal and political labels to dehumanize Tamil identity. The title itself is a provocation. He explores how anyone who questions the central authority or demands self-determination is automatically branded a "terrorist" by the unitary legal framework. He argues that the unitary state uses the "national security" narrative to suppress any political expression that seeks a federal or separate existence.

4. Language as Resistance

Deepachelvan’s very choice of Tamil is a political act against the unitary linguistic hegemony. He often describes the Tamil language as a "wounded body" that still refuses to die. He portrays the unitary state’s attempts to impose a singular cultural identity as a failure, asserting that the Tamil soul remains "un-unifiable" under the current political terms.

Deepachelvan’s work suggests that the Unitary State (ஒற்றையாட்சி - Otraiyaatchi) is the root cause of the conflict because:

1. It treats the Tamil North/East as a colony rather than a partner.
2. It uses monumental violence to enforce a single national narrative.
3. It denies the right to mourn, which he considers the most basic human right.

Pradeepan Deepachelvan (known as Deepachelvan) has not been officially convicted of "breaking" a law in the sense of a final court verdict, but his work and activism have frequently placed him under the crosshairs of the Sri Lankan security apparatus.

The "laws" his work is often accused of violating are not typically about literary quality, but rather about national security and ethnic harmony. Here is exactly which laws and legal frameworks have been used to target or investigate him and his writing:

1. The Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA)

This is the most significant law used against writers in the North and East. Deepachelvan has been summoned and interrogated by the Terrorism Investigation Division (TID) multiple times (notably in 2021 and 2022) regarding his writings and social media posts. The PTA allows for the arrest of anyone suspected of "advocating for secession" or "causing communal disharmony."  His books like Nadugal (Memorial Stones) deal with the remembrance of fallen LTTE fighters. Under the PTA, the state often interprets the act of "memorialization" as "glorifying terrorism" or "inciting a resurgence" of conflict.

2. The ICCPR Act (No. 56 of 2007)

While originally intended to protect human rights, Section 3(1) of Sri Lanka’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act has been frequently used to silence writers. The act prohibits the "advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence." Because Deepachelvan’s work is "anti-unitary" and critiques the Sinhala-Buddhist nationalist nature of the state, authorities have viewed his prose as "inciting communal hatred" against the majority community or the state itself.

3. Penal Code Section 120 (Sedition)

This section deals with "exciting or attempting to excite feelings of disaffection to the Government." Any writing that strongly critiques the "Unitary State" or the military's role in the North can be framed as an attempt to bring the government into "hatred or contempt." Deepachelvan’s depictions of the military as an "occupying force" in his poems are often flagged under this definition of sedition.

While not always a formal parliamentary law, various court injunctions and emergency regulations have been used to ban the specific themes he writes about. Sri Lankan law has often been used to ban any public or literary mention of the "Maaveerar" (Great Heroes) or the use of specific symbols (like the Gloriosa Superba flower) associated with Tamil resistance. Since his book Nadugal is centered entirely on the culture of these memorial stones, the book itself exists in a "legal gray zone" where it can be seized or its launch prevented under the guise of maintaining public order.

As of April 2026, 360 copies of his books imported from Chennai remain detained. Despite a high-level meeting on April 17, the Ministry of Cultural Affairs has stalled the release, stating that the Ministry of Defence must now provide clearance. This suggests that in Sri Lanka, literature is still being treated not as art, but as a matter of national security.

Source - Internet

- Ajith Dharmakeerthi

19/04/2026

Allegations of Low-Quality Coal Imports- Previous Governments

Previous Aticle:  Sri Lanka Coal Tender Controversy (2025–2026) 

Analysis of Coal Import Controversies (2011–2022)

Following the recent parliamentary debates, I investigated previous allegations surrounding coal import controversies during the tenures of Patali Champika Ranawaka and Ranjith Siyambalapitiya as Energy Ministers. While controversies abound—and some have even reached the courts—a distinct pattern emerges regarding the nature of these allegations.

Allegations of Low-Quality Coal Imports

• The 2011–2015 Period: Early controversies centered around the procurement process itself. Allegations were made that the coal being imported had higher ash and sulfur content than the plant's design specifications, leading to frequent breakdowns of the boiler units.  (please see below)

• Political "Blame Game"

  Minister	Their Stance
  Champika Ranawaka 2010-2013	Claimed that "coal mafias" were operating within the LCC and CEB to intentionally import low-quality coal for kickbacks.
  Pavithra Wanniarachchi 2013- 2015	Counter-accused Ranawaka’s era of setting up the flawed procurement systems that she was now forced to manage.

   During this period, the controversy wasn't just about "bad coal"; it was about how that bad coal physically damaged the $1.3 billion power plant, leading to the "unreliable" reputation Norochcholai has had ever since.

• The 2016 Scandal: A major Supreme Court case occurred involving a coal tender awarded to a Swiss-Singaporean company. The court ruled the tender process was "procedurally flawed," though the primary focus was on the legality of the tender rather than just the physical quality of the coal. (please see below)

• This one was often cited as one of the most significant procurement controversies in Sri Lanka’s energy history. It centered on a long-term contract for 2.2 million metric tonnes of coal awarded to Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprises Pte Ltd.

2015	Champika Ranawaka (Briefly returned)
2015 – 2019	Ranjith Siyambalapitiya
2019 – 2020	Mahinda Amaraweera
2020 – 2021	Dullas Alahapperuma
2021 – 2022	Gamini Lokuge
2022	Pavithra Wanniarachchi (Briefly)
2022 – 2024	Kanchana Wijesekera

The Nature of the Allegations

From my understanding, there are no specific allegations that either Minister Ranawaka or Minister Siyambalapitiya personally benefited from these deals or received financial "kickbacks." The same appears to apply to Kumar Jayakody; there is no clear evidence or formal accusation suggesting he received any direct financial incentive.

This raises a pivotal question: If there are no allegations of personal enrichment, where does the "cheating" or "corruption" claim originate? ### The Dilemma of Oversight If improper coal imports persisted between 2011 and 2022, resulting in massive financial losses for the Sri Lankan government, the role of Kumar Jayakody becomes highly scrutinized. We are left with two likely conclusions:

1. Administrative Incompetence: Ministers were utterly incompetent in their oversight duties and failed to verify the quality and pricing of the imports.

2. Systemic Pressure: They were forced to bypass standard protocols and allow these imports due to the dire energy situation and the urgent need to keep the power grid functional.

Despite the lack of proven "kickbacks," the persistent allegations of "substandard" coal since the Norochcholai power plant's inception suggest a failure in the system. Here is a breakdown of the situation:

Key Points of Contention

• Procurement Deviations: Most allegations stem from the bypassing of the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) and the Standing Cabinet Appointed Procurement Committee (SCAPC).

• Quality vs. Urgency: Frequently, the defense for "substandard" coal is the "emergency procurement" argument—claiming that strict quality checks were sacrificed to prevent nationwide blackouts.

• Financial Loss vs. Personal Gain: The "cheating" often referred to in public discourse may relate to Public Property offenses (loss to the state) rather than traditional bribery. Under Sri Lankan law, causing a loss to the state through negligence can be prosecuted similarly to active corruption.

In Sri Lankan administrative law, "Corruption" is often defined broadly. Even if a minister didn't take a cent, if they knowingly signed off on a deal that lost the state money, it can still be legally classified under the "Corruption" umbrella.

 Recent Issues (2025–2026): As of early 2026, a significant controversy is currently unfolding. Reports from the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) have flagged that recent shipments from South Africa (supplied via Trident Chemphar) have a lower Gross Calorific Value (GCV) than required.

In short there have been documented instances where coal quality was found to be lower than the required benchmarks, leading to both environmental concerns and increased financial strain on the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB).

Between 2011 and 2015 

Between 2011 and 2015, the coal quality controversy was a major political and technical flashpoint, primarily involving the Lanka Coal Company (LCC) and the then-Ministers of Power and Energy, Champika Ranawaka (2010–2013) and Pavithra Wanniarachchi (2013–2015).

Unlike the 2016 scandal, which was about legal procurement flaws, the 2011–2015 period was defined by technical failures and finger-pointing between different government factions.

1. The Calorific Value (Energy) Dispute

The most public controversy occurred in late 2014, involving a shipment of coal from Indonesia.

• The Conflict: Minister Champika Ranawaka (who had moved to another ministry but remained influential) publicly accused the Ministry of Power (under Pavithra Wanniarachchi) of accepting substandard coal.
• The Findings: Independent tests conducted in Australia confirmed that the coal had a lower Gross Calorific Value (GCV) than the contract required.
• The Result: While the ministry admitted the energy content was lower, they argued it wasn't "dangerous" to the plant but merely "less efficient." This meant the government was paying a premium price for "B-grade" energy.

2. The Ash and Sulfur Controversy

The Norochcholai power plant was designed to burn coal with very specific parameters: Ash content (<11%) and Sulfur content (<0.5%). During this period, reports emerged that imported coal was exceeding these limits.

• Excessive Ash: Shipments were reported to have ash levels near 15–20% at times.
• The Consequence: High ash acts like sandpaper on the internal machinery. It caused rapid erosion of the boiler tubes and the "electrostatic precipitators" (which catch dust). This is widely blamed for the frequent plant breakdowns (tripping) that led to island-wide power cuts during those years.

• Sulfur and Environmental Impact: High sulfur levels lead to the release of Sulfur Dioxide ($SO_2$), which causes acid rain.
• The Community Outery: Farmers and residents in Norochcholai began reporting that a fine layer of "black dust" (fly ash) was covering their crops and homes. Investigations during 2014-2015 revealed that the wind was carrying fly ash from the open-air storage piles because the "wind-fences" were inadequate for the volume of waste being generated by the lower-quality, high-ash coal.

3. The "Emergency" Loophole

A recurring theme from 2011–2015 was the use of "Spot Tenders" and emergency purchases.

• Because the Ceylon Shipping Corporation and Lanka Coal Company often failed to secure long-term contracts on time, they were forced to buy coal "on the fly" from whatever ships were nearby.
• Critics alleged that suppliers used these "emergency" windows to offload lower-quality coal that had been rejected by other countries, knowing Sri Lanka was desperate to keep the lights on.

The 2016 coal scandal 

Here is a breakdown of why it was so controversial and what happened in the courts:

1. The Procurement Violation

The scandal began when the Standing Cabinet Appointed Procurement Committee (SCAPC) bypassed standard competitive bidding guidelines. Investigations and court filings revealed that Swiss Singapore had secured the deal through what was described as "direct and illegal interference" in the evaluation process. Other bidders, such as Noble Resources, were disqualified on technicalities while the winning company’s irregularities were allegedly overlooked.

2. The Supreme Court's "Shocker" Ruling

In June 2016, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka delivered a stinging judgment (Case: SC FR No. 394/2015). The then-Chief Justice K. Sripavan stated:

"The events which took place in the award of the coal tender to Swiss Singapore... shock the conscience of the Court."

Key Court Findings:

• The decision to award the tender was outside the jurisdiction of the procurement committee and therefore "null and void."
• The Cabinet of Ministers had been misled through inaccurate information provided by the Ministry.
• The Court declared that the government may terminate the contract.

3. The "May" Loopholes and Policy Defiance

Despite the court's harsh words, the Ministry of Power and Renewable Energy (then under Minister Ranjith Siyambalapitiya) did not immediately cancel the contract. They relied on a legal technicality: the Court used the word "may" (discretionary) rather than "must" (mandatory) regarding termination.

The Ministry argued that:

• Canceling the contract would lead to international arbitration.
• It could cause a coal shortage, leading to national blackouts.
• Swiss Singapore threatened to sue the government if the deal was revoked.

4. Financial Impact

An Auditor General’s report later estimated that the procedural flaws and the decision to continue with the flawed contract resulted in a loss of over Rs. 3.9 billion (approx. $26 million at the time) to the state. Critics argued that the price per metric tonne was significantly higher than what could have been secured through a transparent spot-tender process.

The Fallout

Aspect	Detail
Primary Actor	Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprises
Legal Outcome	Tender declared "null and void," but the contract was allowed to run its course to avoid arbitration.
Public Sentiment	It became a symbol of "crony capitalism," where high-ranking officials were accused of tailoring tender requirements to favor specific companies.
Legacy	It set a precedent for the frequent "emergency" coal purchases we see today, as the lack of a transparent long-term supplier often forces the government into expensive, last-minute deals.

- Researched from the internet

11/04/2026 Ajith 

Sri Lanka Coal Tender Controversy (2025–2026)

 

Sri Lanka Coal Tender Controversy (2025–2026) 

Trident Chemphar won a major tender to supply 1.5 million metric tonnes (25 shipments) of coal to the Lanka Coal Company (LCC) for the 2025–2026 season at a price of $98.50 per MT. However, the contract has faced significant scrutiny: 

• Quality Failures: Multiple shipments from South Africa allegedly failed quality tests conducted by the independent laboratory Cotecna. These shipments were reportedly "off-specification," with high ash content and low calorific value, which prevented the Lakvijaya Power Plant from reaching its optimal 900MW capacity.

• Operational Delays: By late March 2026, the company was significantly behind schedule, unloading only its 13th shipment when it should have been on the 19th. These delays forced the Sri Lankan government to issue an "emergency tender" for additional coal at a much higher price of $142 per MT.

• Financial Penalties: As of March 2026, Trident has been charged approximately $8.1 million in penalties for quality and supply issues.

• Emergency Bid Disqualification: Despite its ongoing issues, Trident bid for the emergency replacement tender but was disqualified after attempting to revise its bid price following the formal opening of bids.

• Local Representation: Investigations revealed that the company is represented in Sri Lanka by a local agent associated with Panaurora, leading to parliamentary questions regarding the transparency of the procurement process. 

Key Performance Issues (Lakvijaya Plant)

According to the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL), coal supplied by Trident required 391g to 452g to produce one kilowatt-hour of electricity, compared to just 365g for higher-quality Russian coal used previously.

The investigation into Trident Chemphar’s (TCPL) local representation in  has centered on Panaurora (Pvt) Ltd, a company registered in May 2025 that served as TCPL's local agent for the controversial coal tender. 

Key Individuals and Entities

The following entities and individuals have been identified as the core components of this local agency:

• Sanath Bandara Jayasundara

: Identified as the primary agent for TCPL. He is a former cricket analyst currently serving a multi-year ban from the International Cricket Council (ICC).

• Panaurora (Pvt) Ltd: The company listed as the official local agent. Its ownership is primarily split between two entities: Invest LK (Pvt) Ltd and Sayaara Holdings.

• Rakitha Nirmala Rajapakshe

: A director and shareholder of Invest LK, which owns shares in Panaurora. In statements to the press, he has denied that Panaurora or Invest LK has any formal agency arrangement with TCPL, despite LCC records suggesting otherwise.

• Hakmana Nandaloka Thero

: A Buddhist monk who is a director of both Panaurora and Invest LK.

• H.B.A.O. Herath

: A director of Sayaara Holdings who appeared as a witness signatory on the official contract between Trident Chemphar and the Lanka Coal Company (LCC). 

Investigative Findings

Parliamentary and media investigations, notably by The Sunday Times Sri Lanka, have highlighted several "red flags" regarding this arrangement:

1. Conflicting Claims: While LCC officials confirmed in the Sectoral Oversight Committee (SOC) that Panaurora was the registered agent, Panaurora’s own directors have publicly distanced the company from TCPL, claiming their primary business is in fertilizer.
2. Timing of Registration: Panaurora was registered just months before the coal tender was awarded, and TCPL received its LCC registration only five days before the tender was published.
3. Insider Information Allegations: Suspicions of "insider information" arose when TCPL submitted a revised bid for an emergency tender that was exactly $1.00 lower than the next lowest bidder, although this specific bid led to their disqualification.
4. Political Links: Investigations have sparked "public backlash" over alleged links between the local agency and influential political figures or kin of former ministers

As of late March 2026, Trident Chemphar (TCPL) remains under heavy scrutiny for failing to meet the quality and delivery requirements of its 2025–2026 coal contract in Sri Lanka.

Penalties and Financial Impact

Despite multiple grounds for contract termination, the government has primarily relied on financial penalties to manage the supplier's performance.

• Total Penalties Accrued: TCPL has been charged approximately $8.1 million in penalties to date.
• Specific Quality Failures: Penalties were triggered by "off-specification" coal in the first, ninth, and twelfth shipments. These consignments failed testing by Cotecna, an independent laboratory, due to high ash content and low calorific value.
• Operational Losses: The substandard coal has caused the Lakvijaya Power Plant to fall 135MW to 185MW short of its optimal 900MW capacity.
• Liquidated Damages: The Lanka Coal Company (LCC) has threatened to seek total liquidated damages if TCPL fails to complete its rescheduled delivery timeline by April 30, 2026. 

Status of the Emergency Coal Tender

In response to the consistent delays and quality issues with TCPL's supply, the LCC floated an emergency tender for 300,000 metric tonnes (5 shipments) of better-quality coal. 

• TCPL’s Disqualification: Surprisingly, TCPL bid for this emergency tender. Although they initially quoted the lowest price ($121.40 per MT), they were disqualified after sending a letter on the same day claiming a "miscalculation" and attempting to raise their price to $141.00 per MT.
• New Supplier Awarded: The emergency contract was awarded to another Indian firm, Taranjot, at a price of $142.00 per MT. Taranjot's shipments are scheduled to arrive between April 20 and May 10, 2026.
• Supply Shortfall Risk: Even with the emergency purchase, experts calculate a potential shortage of three to four shipments (approx. 225,000 MT) for the current season, which could risk power cuts in June and July if demand peaks. 

Why the Main Contract Wasn't Terminated

Government officials, including Minister Bimal Ratnayake, have defended the decision not to terminate TCPL's primary contract. They argue that replacing a major supplier mid-season is unfeasible due to lengthy procurement timelines and that excessive penalties might push the company toward bankruptcy, which would immediately halt all coal deliveries to the country.

In March 2026, the Sectoral Oversight Committee (SOC) on Infrastructure and Strategic Development launched a formal inquiry into the coal procurement process. The investigation focuses on how Trident Chemphar Limited (TCPL) won the 2025–26 term tender despite its background as a pharmaceutical-leaning firm and its subsequent performance failures. 

Parliamentary Findings on "Insider Information"

The most serious allegation involves TCPL's attempt to win the emergency coal tender (floated to replace their own delayed shipments).

• Suspicious Bid Revision: After the formal opening of bids, TCPL submitted a letter claiming a "miscalculation" and updated its price to $141.00 per MT.
• Precision Timing: This revised price was exactly $1.00 lower than the second-lowest bidder, Taranjot ($142.00 per MT).
• SOC Suspicion: Committee members have questioned if TCPL received insider information regarding the other competitors' bids, allowing them to adjust their price to remain the lowest while maximizing profit. This led to TCPL's disqualification from the emergency bid. 

Laboratory Testing Controversy

A major discrepancy exists between the quality reports from various laboratories, leading to a directive for third-party "umpire" testing.

• Conflicting Reports:
• Lakvijaya (LVP) Internal Lab: Consistently recorded high ash content (21%) and low calorific values, well outside tender specifications.
• Cotecna (Official Lab): Testing at the discharge port in Sri Lanka gave the "all-clear" for most shipments, preventing the government from legally recovering full losses from TCPL.
• Allegations of Fraud: The SOC is investigating whether there was fraud or manipulation in the collection or transport of samples sent to the Indian lab (Cotecna) or the Indonesian lab (Mitra SK).
• Bureau Veritas Appointment: Due to these suspicions, the Lanka Coal Company (LCC) has now commissioned Bureau Veritas to conduct independent testing at the load port in South Africa starting from the 13th and 14th shipments.
• Umpire Samples: The SOC has ordered that "umpire samples" currently held in custody at the Lakvijaya plant be tested immediately by a third independent accredited lab to verify which previous reports were accurate. 

Profiles of Competitors in the 2025–26 Tender

The Sectoral Oversight Committee (SOC) is investigating why TCPL was selected over established energy firms that have historically supplied Sri Lanka.

Bidder	Background	Bid Price (per MT)	Status
Trident Chemphar (TCPL)	Indian Chemical/Trading	$98.50	Selected (Lowest Bid)
Taranjot	Indian Coal Specialist	$104.20	Rejected (Higher price)
Suek AG	Russian Energy Giant	$112.00	Rejected (Sanction/Logistics concerns)
Glencore	Multinational Commodity	$118.50	Rejected (Higher price)

Key Investigative Point: Critics argue that while TCPL’s bid was the lowest on paper, the "total cost of ownership" became much higher due to the quality issues. Established bidders like Taranjot (who eventually won the emergency tender) and Suek AG have historically provided coal with 10–15% lower ash content, which would have saved the plant millions in fuel volume.

Current Status of Other Bidders

• Taranjot: Now effectively the "back-up" supplier, they are currently mobilizing their first shipment to arrive by April 20, 2026.
• Blacklisting Risk: The SOC has recommended that if the "umpire" tests confirm quality manipulation, TCPL should be permanently blacklisted from all future energy tenders in Sri Lanka, alongside its local agent, Panaurora.

Company Details:

Trident Chemphar Limited (TCPL) is an Indian chemical and trading company established in February 2007. Headquartered in Hyderabad, Telangana, the firm specialises in the sourcing, storage, and distribution of chemicals, primarily serving the pharmaceutical and manufacturing industries. 

Core Business Operations

TCPL operates through three primary business units: Solvents, CMO (Contract Manufacturing), and Energy. 

• Flagship Unit: The company’s core expertise lies in solvent distribution. It manages sourcing and distribution from a dedicated storage facility at Visakhapatnam.
• Sourcing and Distribution: It sources key inputs, including bulk solvents and other chemicals, through international trade to supply over 139 customers, including intermediate manufacturers and resellers.
• Integrated Services: The company provides a "one-roof" service model that includes vessel chartering, warehousing, import customs clearance for bulk/containerised goods, and domestic transportation. 

Recent Developments

As of early 2026, the company has been involved in high-profile energy procurement tenders in Sri Lanka: 

• Coal Supply Tenders: Trident Chemphar reportedly won a term tender for coal supply (2025-26) for the Lanka Coal Company (LCC).
• Controversies: Recent reports from The Sunday Times Sri Lanka (March 2026) highlight concerns regarding shipment delays and revised pricing bids in emergency coal tenders, which led to the company being disqualified from certain bidding processes. 

Key Company Details

Feature	Details
Incorporation	21 February 2007
Managing Director	Chittoori Kiran Kumar Garu
Headquarters	Survey No. 66 & 67, Miyapur, Hyderabad, 500050, India
Industry	Chemicals, Petrochemicals, and International Trade
Revenue	Approximately $5.1 million (as of 2026)
Official Website	tridentchemphar.com

Trident Chemphar Limited (TCPL) has expanded from its traditional solvent business into a major international trading player, particularly in the energy sector. Below are the details regarding their product portfolio and the specific controversies surrounding their recent coal supply activities in Sri Lanka. 

Chemical Portfolio and Business Units

The company operates through three distinct business units, serving approximately 139 customers including major pharmaceutical manufacturers and resellers. 

• Solvents (Flagship): TCPL specializes in the sourcing, storage, and distribution of bulk solvents. They utilize a dedicated storage facility at Visakhapatnam to ensure seamless supply to manufacturing clients.
• CMO (Contract Manufacturing): This unit focuses on specialized manufacturing services for the pharmaceutical industry.
• Energy and Trading: This division has become a leading international trade arm, importing coal, bulk solvents, and other chemicals from multiple countries.
• Integrated Logistics: The company provides turnkey services including vessel chartering, warehousing, import customs clearance, and domestic transportation. 

Disclaimer: All data and information provided in this article is for informational purposes only. The author makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of any information sourced from the web and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or damages arising from its use.

08/04/2026 Ajith

 

Ref: Bloomberg.com 

LinkedIn