Pakistan finance minister meets US officials amid tariff tensions
Pakistan and the US have expressed optimism that the ongoing trade talks would yield positive outcomes, as Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb held meetings with American officials in Washington to enhance trade ties.
Pakistan faces a 29 per cent tariff on exports to the US under President Donald Trump's measures against nations with large trade surpluses with his country.
The threat prompted a flurry of activities, including Aurangzeb's meetings with US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on Friday.Aurangzeb had a "productive meeting" with Lutnick and Greer in Washington, DC, with both sides satisfied with progress made in enhancing trade ties, according to a finance ministry overnight statement."They (Pakistan and the US) reaffirmed their commitment to exploring opportunities to strengthen these ties in all possible areas of mutual benefit," the statement read.
"Finance Minister Aurangzeb emphasised that the US remains Pakistan's largest trading partner and underscored Pakistan's interest in expanding cooperation in both traditional and non-traditional sectors, including IT and tech sector, minerals, and agriculture, to foster a mutually beneficial relationship." The ministry further added that both parties "expressed optimism" that ongoing trade talks would yield positive outcomes and economic benefits for Islamabad and Washington.The meetings took place as Pakistan and the US concluded a critical round of trade negotiations earlier this month, with officials saying an understanding on a tariff deal was reached that could shape the future of Pakistan's key export sectors.A formal announcement is expected only after the US concludes similar ongoing negotiations with other trade partners.
The US-Pakistan ties, which had been under strain, received a major boost after Trump hosted Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir at the White House last month for a lunch and meeting.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
5 minutes ago
- Hans India
Supreme Court dismisses Byju's settlement plea
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed pleas filed by the BCCI and Riju Raveendran — brother of Byju Raveendran — seeking withdrawal of insolvency proceedings against Byju's and to consider the settlement between the beleaguered edtech company and the BCCI. A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadeven refused to interfere with the April 17 order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which had ruled that since the settlement proposal was filed after the formation of Committee of Creditors (CoC), it required the approval of the lender's body under the provisions of section 12 A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Earlier in February 2025, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had directed the petitioners to place their settlement offer before the new CoC, in which US-based Glas Trust, the trustee for lenders to which Byju's owes $1.2 billion, is a member. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Byju's was initiated in July last year by the NCLAT, admitting a Rs 158.90 crore claim from the BCCI as an operational creditor of edtech major. An Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was also appointed in this matter. Later, a settlement was reached between the parties, and Byju Raveendran approached the NCLAT. The appellate tribunal set aside the insolvency proceedings against Byju's on August 2, 2024, after approving a dues settlement with the BCCI, which had entered into a Team Sponsor Agreement with the cricket body in 2019. This was challenged by Glas Trust before the Supreme Court. A Bench headed by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud halted the NCLAT order and directed the BCCI to deposit the amount in question in a separate escrow account till further orders. Meanwhile, Byju's Alpha, a special purpose financing vehicle established by Byju's in the US to receive proceeds of a $1.5 billion Term Loan B, has sued Byju Raveendran, co-founder and his wife Divya Gokulnath for "orchestrating theft of $533 million". Byju's Alpha said that following the $533 million judgment of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware against Riju Ravindran and Byju's ultimate corporate parent in India, the company has now filed a lawsuit against Byju Raveendran, his co-founder and wife Divya Gokulnath, and his consigliere (advisor), Anita Kishore. The lawsuit states that each of them co-orchestrated and executed a lawless scheme to conceal and steal $533 million of loan proceeds (the 'Alpha Funds'), according to a press release. They further stated that "it is clear that Byju, Divya, and Anita deliberately hid the assets of Byju's Alpha and repeatedly were deceptive about the location of the money in order to steal funds rightfully owed to the Lenders".
Time of India
5 minutes ago
- Time of India
Winter is coming for oil — and not in a positive way
The oil market is deceptively calm. Below the apparent tranquility lies an underappreciated transformation that has slowly reshaped the market over the last 25 years — because the arrival of China and India as big consumers hasn't just given an enormous boost to demand, it's also altered the market's seasonality. And that matters a lot this year. Until recently, global oil demand peaked every year with the arrival of the Northern Hemisphere's winter. As temperatures dropped from October onward, heating oil and kerosene consumption spiked from the US to Germany to Japan. Hence, as recently as 2014, the fourth quarter still marked the annual high for crude demand and, typically, prices. Since then, the seasonality has flipped: Now, the third quarter sees higher demand and prices. The shift means the market is now at its tightest from July to September, rather than October to December. While one-time events can still have an effect — the 2008 global financial crisis, for example, or the Covid-19 pandemic that started in early 2020 — looking over a long enough timescale reveals the change clearly. Because it happened incrementally over a quarter of a century, it often doesn't get the attention it deserves. But the chart below makes it obvious. The change has three notable features. First, consumption of winter fuels including heating oil and kerosene is on a structural decline in the industrialized world, replaced by natural gas and electricity. Back in 1990, about 17per cent of American families heated their homes by burning some kind of refined petroleum product; today, that share has fallen to 9per cent. The collapse in demand for heating oil in Europe is even more pronounced. At the same time, jet-fuel consumption in those regions, which typically peaks during the summer holidays, is growing fast. Second, oil demand in fast-growing emerging nations follows different seasonal patterns, partly because of their locations closer to the equator, but also because of the larger role of their all-year-round industrial oil consumption. While industrialized nations mostly abandoned oil-fired power stations after the 1970s energy crisis, some emerging market countries, particularly in the Middle East, burn lots of crude for electricity generation and water desalination. At the peak last summer, Saudi Arabia burned more than 800,000 barrels a day to generate electricity for air conditioning — more than the daily total petroleum demand of Belgium. And third, climate change is reducing heating consumption by making winters warmer, and boosting holiday travel by making summers hotter. So this year, global third-quarter oil demand will be 500,000 barrels a day higher than fourth-quarter consumption. In a dataset going back to 1991, the current year will mark only the fifth time when winter demand will be lower than summer consumption. Despite rising production from the OPEC+ cartel, oil prices have stabilized in recent weeks at just over $65 a barrel — about $10 above the lows seen in early May. If anything, the physical oil market even feels a bit tight. It helps that China has mopped up much of the oil surplus, putting in May and June barrels into its expanding strategic and commercial stockpiles. But the squeeze will prove temporary; put another way, the market is defying gravity. Because of shifting seasonality, the Northern Hemisphere's summer is now the tightest period of the year. Winter — and an accompanying decrease in demand — is coming. For now, the few remaining oil bulls have a few straws of hope to cling to. Global crude refinery intake is rising swiftly this month and looks set to peak in August at a record 85.4 million barrels a day — enough to absorb the series of OPEC output increases. As a result, global oil stocks aren't increasing meaningfully near where it matters most to the market: the pricing points in northwestern Europe, home of the Brent benchmark, and the central area of the US, home to the West Texas Intermediate yardstick. But by October, when all of the cartel's supply hikes will have arrived, along with extra oil from Brazil, Guyana and Canada, refinery throughput will drop to 81.7 million barrels a day, according to the International Energy Agency. The difference – 3.7 million barrels a day – is equal to a couple of mid-sized OPEC nations. Even if China continues stockpiling as much as it has done over the last two months, the surplus would be so large that oil will flow into inventories elsewhere, including near the pricing points on both sides of the Atlantic. For sure, the market – and I – may be wrong about demand, supply, or both. The expected oil surplus during the now seasonally weaker fourth quarter may be smaller than anticipated. Still, on paper, the glut is so big that even if it turns to be a bit smaller, it would still be enough to put a lot of downward pressure on the market. As I said, winter is coming for the oil market.
Mint
5 minutes ago
- Mint
Viceroy rebuts former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud's legal opinion on its Vedanta report
Mumbai: US-based short-seller Viceroy Research has disputed former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud's legal opinion on its allegations of financial misconduct and misrepresentation against Vedanta Group. Viceroy argued that Chandrachud's legal opinion did not answer questions raised by it with regards to dividend payments and alleged financial mismanagement at the mining and minerals conglomerate. Justice Chandrachud's opinion 'fails to refute, investigate, or even engage with a single substantive financial allegation in our reports,' the short-seller said in a report on Monday, 21 July, its eighth note on Vedanta in 13 days. Vedanta has consistently denied Viceroy's allegations, terming the accusations baseless. Justice Chandrachud in his legal opinion to Vedanta, which was made public on Friday, said Viceroy's first report on billionaire Anil Agarwal's group, published on 9 July, lacked credibility, and the researchers behind the report had 'dubious credentials'. He said he relied on information shared by Vedanta to arrive at this opinion since Viceroy's website had no information in this regard. The former Chief Justice also highlighted Viceroy's interest in profiteering from a possible rout in Vedanta Resources' commercial papers as a result of the short-seller's reports. He also said he suspected the timing of the report, coming just as India-listed Vedanta Ltd is headed for a demerger. In April, Viceroy Research took a short position on the bonds of Vedanta Resources Ltd, the London-based unlisted holding company of the Vedanta Group, according to Fraser Perring, founder of Viceroy Research, who didn't disclose the quantum of his firm's exposure. Viceroy argued that Chandrachud's legal opinion relied entirely on 'management representations without questioning', the short-seller said, adding that the opinion failed to dispute any of its findings, conclusions, or concerns. 'When faced with serious allegations backed by detailed financial evidence, the company responded not with transparency, but with a character assassination attempt dressed in legal language,' the short-seller said in its latest report. Viceroy also claimed Vedanta had to pay for a legal opinion to defend its parent company against claims of stealing money or misusing the subsidiary's funds. Vedanta Resources holds a majority stake in India-listed Vedanta Ltd through several intermediaries. Hindustan Zinc Ltd is a subsidiary of Vedanta Ltd. Justice Chandrachud declined to comment on the matter. He explained that his role was professional in nature and the opinion given was protected by professional privilege. 'It is inappropriate to discuss anything pertaining to it in the public realm,' he said. Vedanta Group did not immediately reply to Mint's emailed queries on Viceroy's rebuttal. In his legal opinion, Justice Chandrachud said the transactions disclosed in financial statements and regulatory filings by Vedanta showed there was transparency and compliance with regulations. Such disclosures should be presumed legitimate unless there was clear evidence to prove otherwise, he opined. To this, Viceroy argued that mere disclosure did not confirm legality of the transactions. Justice Chandrachud also said Viceroy Research's report contained serious allegations tarnishing the Vedanta Group's image and reputation. 'The report contains serious imputations such as 'ponzi scheme' and 'parasite', which have caused harm to querist's (here Vedanta Ltd) business and reputation,' he said, adding that Vedanta was well placed to seek legal remedies under such circumstances. Former trial court judge Rishabh Gandhi said dismissing Chandrachud's report as just an opinion was reductive and misleading. 'A legal opinion—an opinion rendered by a legal expert based on applicable law and the facts presented—when issued by a highly regarded authority like the former Chief Justice of India, carries considerable legal and institutional credibility,' said Gandhi, who is also the founder of law firm Rishabh Gandhi & Associates. Gandhi explained that most legal opinions are based on a detailed review of documents, statutory interpretation, and precedent, primarily to confirm legal compliance, and enforceability of corporate actions such as dividend declarations, inter-company transactions, or board resolutions. Gandhi, however, clarified that while Chandrachud's legal opinion likely affirmed the legal permissibility of Vedanta's transactions and dividend policies under Indian corporate law, it did not address the broader concerns around financial prudence, related-party dynamics, or cash flow impact. 'If Vedanta wishes to credibly address Viceroy's allegations and rebut the perception that the legal opinion is merely a public relations exercise, it would be prudentto commission an independent financial or forensic audit,' Gandhi said. Viceroy has accused Vedanta Group of alleged financial misconduct and misrepresentation, making empty promises to shore up share prices, manipulating asset values, raising off-balance sheet loans, and corporate governance lapses, Mint reported on 9 July. At Vedanta's annual general meeting on 10 July, shareholders reposed their confidence in the company. 'Different investors have different concerns as they view things differently,' said Shriram Subramanian, managing director of proxy advisory firm InGovern. 'Viceroy is a short seller and has a thesis and a short position. Other investors and stakeholders may have a different thesis.' If investors were truly concerned about Viceroy's allegations, Vedanta's stock would have seen a sharp decline, which hasn't happened, he said. On 9 July, when Viceroy published its first report on the mining conglomerate, Vedanta Ltd shares declined as much as 8% intraday to ₹ 420.65 apiece before recouping some of the losses following a clarification from the company to settle at ₹ 441.30, down 3.29% on the NSE. The shares have since recovered. On Monday, Vedanta ended 2% higher at ₹ 454.90 per share.
