Bimonthly Legal Tablet Volume 3 Issue 1 January 05, 2013

Notifications & Circulars (November – December), 2012

National Pharmaceuticals Pricing Policy, 2012 (‘NPPP-2012’)

The objective of NPPP-2012 is to put in place a regulatory framework for pricing of drugs so as to ensure availability of required medicines – ‘essential medicines’ – at reasonable prices even while sufficient opportunity for innovation and competition to support the growth of industry, thereby meeting the goals of employment and shared economic well being for all. The key principles for regulation of prices in the NPPP-2012 are:

a.     Essentiality of drugs;
b.     Control of formulations prices only;
c.     Market based pricing.

The regulation of prices of drugs in the NPPP-2012 would be on the basis of ‘essentiality of drugs’. The ‘essentiality’ criteria for drugs is to be met by the list of medicines specified in the National List Essential Medicines as revised from time to time and most recently declared by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also emphasized the need to consider and formulate appropriate criteria for ensuring essential and life saving drugs do not fall out of price control.

The regulation of prices of drugs would be on the basis of regulating the prices of formulations only. One of the reasons for adoption of this principle for price control of ‘formulations only’ is that the bulk drug -Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (‘API’) may not fully reflect theessentiality of the actual drug formulation due to the possible
applicability of the API in manufacture of various formulations which may or may not be considered ‘essential’ for the larger healthcare needs of the masses.

The regulation of prices of drugs in the NPPP-2012 would be on the basis of regulating the prices of formulations through ‘Market Based Pricing’ (‘MBP’). This is different from the principle of regulating the prices through ‘Cost Based Pricing’ (‘CBP’) under the Drug Policy 1994. Under MBP, the pricing would be based on widely available
information in the public domain as against individual manufacturer level production costing data which would result in more transparent and fair pricing. Union of India v. K.S. Gopinath & Ors., SLP No. 3668/2003.

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 52 dated November 20, 2012 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Department regarding ‘Export of Goods and Software – Realisation and Repatriation of export proceeds – Liberalisation’

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 40 dated November 01, 2011 enhanced the period of realization and repatriation to India of the amount representing the full export value of goods or software exported from 

6 months to 12 months from the date of export. This relaxation was available up to September 30, 2012. The said relaxation has been extended with effect from October 01, 2012 till March 31, 2013.

The provisions in regard to period of realization and repatriation to India of the full export value of goods or software exported by a unit situated in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) as well as exports made to warehouses established outside India remains unchanged.

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 55 dated November 26, 2012 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Department regarding ‘Liaison Office (LO)/Branch Office (BO) in India by Foreign Entities -Reporting to Income Tax Authorities’

In terms of A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 24 dated December 30, 2009, the LOs/BOs are required to furnish copy of Annual Activity Certificate (‘AAC’) to Director General of Income Tax (International Taxation)(‘DGIT’). It is clarified that copies of AACs submitted to the DGIT (International Taxation) should be accompanied by audited financial statements including receipt and payment account. Further, at the time of renewal of permission of LOs by AD banks, they may note to
endorse a copy of such renewal to the office of the DGIT (International
Taxation).

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 58 dated December 14, 2012 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Department regarding ‘Trade Credits for Imports into India – Review all-in-cost ceiling’

The all-in-cost ceiling as specified in A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 44 dated November 15, 2011 will continue to be applicable till March 31, 2013 and subject to review thereafter. All other aspects of Trade Credit policy remain unchanged.

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 59 dated December 14, 2012 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Department regarding ‘Trade Credits for Imports into India’

As per extant guidelines on Trade Credit, the companies in the infrastructure sector, where ‘infrastructure’ is as defined under the extant guidelines on External Commercial Borrowings (‘ECB’) are allowed to avail of trade credit up to a maximum period of 5 years for import of capital goods as classified by DGFT subject to the following; (i) the trade credit must be abinitio contracted for a period not less than 15 months and should not be in the nature of short-term roll overs; and (ii) AD banks are not permitted to issue Letters of Credit/guarantees/Letter of Undertaking (‘LoU’) /Letter of Comfort (‘LoC’) in favour of overseas supplier, bank and financial institution for the extended period beyond 3 years.

On review, it has been decided to further relax the condition of’abinitio’ buyers’ credit for 15 months to 6 months for existing trade credits. However, the condition regarding ‘abinitio’ buyers’ credit for 15 months shall continue for future trade credit. All other aspects of Trade Credit Policy will remain unchanged.

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 60 dated December 14, 2012 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Department regarding ‘External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) Policy – Review all-in-cost ceiling’

It has been decided that the all-in-cost ceiling as specified in A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 99 dated March 30, 2012 will continue to be applicable till March 31, 2013 and subject to review thereafter. All other aspects of ECB Policy remain unchanged.

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 61 dated December 17, 2012 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Department regarding ‘External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) for the low cost affordablehousing projects’

It has been decided to allow ECB for low cost affordable housing projects as a permissible end-use, under the approval route. ECB can be availed of by developers/builders for low cost affordable housing projects. Housing Finance Companies (HFCs)/National Housing Bank (NHB) can also avail of ECB for financing prospective owners of low cost affordable housing units. This Circular also lays down the detailed guidelines on ECB for low cost affordable housing scheme and includes
definition of ‘eligible project’ and ‘eligible borrowers’, the end use and the nodal agency for deciding project’s eligibility for low cost affordable housing.

Developers/builders/HFCs/ NHB will not be permitted to raise Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCBs) under this scheme. For the
financial year 2012-13, an aggregate limit of USD 1 billion is fixed for ECB under the low cost affordable housing scheme which includes ECBs to be raised by developers/builders and NHB/specified HFCs. This limit shall be subject to annual review.

All other ECB parameters, such as, recognized lender, minimum average maturity period, all-in-cost ceilings, restrictions on issuance of guarantee, choice of security, parking of ECB proceeds, prepayment, refinancing of ECB, reporting requirements remain unchanged.

A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 63 dated December 20, 2012 issued bythe Reserve Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Department regarding ‘ECB for MFIs and NGOs engaged in micro finance activities under Automatic Route’

The extant guidelines as specified in A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 59 dated December 19, 2011 will continue to be applicable until further review. ECB by MFIs/NGOs should be fully hedged.

Bills Passed By Parliament of India During The Winter Session 2012

The Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha together have passed seven bills in this winter session of Parliament . A few of the prominent bills
passed are listed below.

1. The Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2011
It seeks to amend the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 .

The Bill proposes to provide for conversion of any part of debt into
shares of a borrower company. The Bill proposes to empower banks
and financial institutions to accept the immovable property in full or
partial satisfaction of the bank’s claim against the defaulting borrower
in times when they cannot find a buyer for the securities. The Bill
also seeks to enable banks or any person to file a caveat so that before
granting any stay, the bank or person is heard by the Debt Recovery
Tribunal. The Bill proposes to provide for registration of transactions
of securitisation, reconstruction or creation of security interest in the
Central Registry, which are subsisting on or before the establishment
of Central Registry. It also seeks to give powers to the central
government to extend the time for filing of such transaction with the
Central Registry.

The Bill proposes to include multi-State co-operative banks to the
existing definition of bank in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and
Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The Bill also seeks to permit multi state
co-operative banks with respect to debts due before or after the
commencement of the proposed legislation, to opt to initiate
proceedings either under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act,
2002 or under the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Bill proposes to enable
banks and financial institutions to enter into settlement or
compromise with the borrower. It also seeks to empower the Debts
Recovery Tribunal to pass an order acknowledging any such settlement
or compromise. 

2. The Banking Laws (Amendment ) Bill, 2011
The Banking Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2011 seeks to strengthen the
regulatory powers of the Reserve Bank of India. It aims to address the
issue of capital raising capacity of banks in India. The Bill seeks to
amend the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980.
For persons who wish to acquire five percent or more of the share
capital of a banking company, it will be mandatory to obtain prior
approval from the RBI. The existing Competition Act, 2002 has given the
power to the Competition Commission of India to regulate mergers and
acquisitions. The Bill proposes to exempt combinations of banking
companies from seeking such permission as these are regulated by
RBI. The Bill proposes to establish a “Depositor Education and
Awareness Fund”. The Fund will take over the deposit accounts which have not been claimed or operated for a period of ten years or
more. The Bill also proposes to increase the penalties and fines in
certain cases of violation of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Such cases would include failure to furnish important information or willful provision of false information.

3. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention )Amendment Bill, 2011

The Bill amends the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 to make it more effective in preventing unlawful activities, and meet commitments made at the Financial Action Task Force (anintergovernmental organization to combat money laundering and terrorism financing). The Bill amends the original Act to include the definition of a ‘person’. It also clarifies that the ‘proceeds of terrorism’ include property intended to be used for terrorism. The Bill also expands the definition of ‘property’ by using the phrase ‘instruments in any form including but not limited to’ those listed in the original definition. The Bill increases the period for which an association can be declared as unlawful from two years to five years. It expands the definition of ‘terrorist act. Under the Bill, raising funds likely to be used (in full or in part) to commit a terrorist act or for the benefit of terrorists shall be punishable irrespective of whether the funds have been raised from legitimate or illegitimate sources. The Bill inserts new sections toinclude offences by companies, societies or trusts. Every person who, at
the time of the offence, was responsible for the conduct of the business shall be punishable with imprisonment for seven or more years and a finebetween five to ten crore rupees. The Bill confers additionalpowers upon the court to provide for attachment or forfeiture of: a. Property equivalent to the counterfeit Indian currency involved in the offence., b. Property equivalent to the value of the proceeds ofterrorism involved in the offence., c. All or any of the property of an accused, based on evidence produced before the court, in cases where the trial cannot be concluded.

4. The Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Bill, 2011

This Bill seeks to amend the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Bills proposes to introduce the concept of ‘corresponding law’ to link the provisions of Indian law with the laws of foreigncountries. It also adds the concept of ‘reporting entity’ which would include a banking company, financial institution, intermediary or a person carrying on a designated business or profession. The Billexpands the definition of offence under money laundering to includeactivities like concealment, acquisition, possession and use of proceedsof crime. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 levies a fine up to Rs 5 lakh. The Bill proposes to remove this upper limit. The Bill seeks to provide for provisionalattachment and confiscation ofproperty of any person (for a period not exceeding 180 days). This power may be exercised by the authority if it has reason to believe that the offence of money laundering has taken place. The Bill states that in the proceedings relating to money laundering, the funds shall be presumed to be involved in the offence, unless proven otherwise. The Bill proposes to provide for appeal against the orders of the Appellate Tribunal directly to the Supreme Court within 60 days from the
communication of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal. Part B of the Schedule in the existing Act includes only those crimes that are above Rs 30 lakh or more whereas Part A did not specify any monetary limit of the offence. The Bill proposes to bring all the offences under Part A of the Schedule to ensure that the monetary thresholds do not apply to the offence of money laundering.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CASES :

Special Officer, Commerce, North Eastern Electricity Company of Orissa (NESCO) & Anr. Vs. M/s Raghunath Paper Mills Private Limited & Anr. [MANU/SC/0962/2012]

The question which came before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
present case was whether a Company, which purchased the property of another Company under liquidation through auction, is liable to pay the arrears of electricity dues outstanding against the erstwhile Company.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the supply of electricity by a
distributor to a consumer is “sale of goods”. The distributor as the
supplier, and the owner/occupier of a premises with whom it enters intoa contract for supply of electricity are the parties to the contract. A transferee of the premises or a subsequent occupant of a premises with whom the supplier has no privity of contract cannot obviously be asked to pay the dues of his predecessor-in-title or possession, as the amount payable towards supply of electricity does not constitute a “charge” on the premises.

A purchaser of premises cannot be foisted with the electricity dues of any previous occupant, merely because he happens to be the current owner of the premises. The supplier can therefore neither file a suit nor initiate revenue recovery proceedings against a purchaser of a premises for the outstanding electricity dues of the vendor of the premises in the absence of any contract to the contrary.

Indra Kumar Patodia & Anr. Vs Reliance Industries Ltd. and Ors. [MANU/SC/1012/2012]

The question that came before the Court was whether a complaint
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short “the 

Act”) without signature is maintainable when such complaint wassubsequently verified by the complainant. The important question in the instant case is what is meant by ‘complaint in writing’. Whether complaint should be in writing simpliciter or complaint being in writing requires signature below such writing. The Court held that if the legislature intended that the complaint under the Act, apart from being in writing, is also required to be signed by the complainant, the legislature would have used different language and inserted the same at the appropriate place. The requirements of Section 142(a) of the Act is that the complaint must necessarily be in writing and the complaint can be presented by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque and it need not be signed by the complainant.

M/s Laxmi Dyechem Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.
[MANU/SC/1030/2012]
The question that came up in the present case was whether cheques that were dishonored on account of the signatures not being complete’ or ‘no image found’ complete’ or ‘no image found’ would amount to a dishonor that could constitute an offence under Section 138 of theNegotiable Instrument Act. The Court held that the two contingencies envisaged under Section 138 of the Act must be interpreted strictly or literally. The expression “amount of money …………. is insufficient”appearing in Section 138 of the Act is a genus and dishonour for reasons such “as account closed”, “payment stopped”, “referred to the drawer” are only species of that genus. So long as the change is brought about with a view to preventing the cheque being honoured the dishonour would become an offence under Section 138 subject to other conditions prescribed being satisfied. It is only when the drawer despite receipt of such a notice and despite the opportunity to make the payment within the time stipulated under the statute does not pay the amount that the dishonour would be

considered a dishonour constituting an offence, hence punishable.

COMPETITION LAW

Ajay Devgan Films V. Yash Raj Films Private Limited and others Case No. 66 of 2012 Dated: 05/11/2012

Held : As per the scheme of the Competition Act, tie-in arrangements per se are not violated of section 3(4)(a) of the Act. Whether such an agreement is prohibited under the Act depends upon its actual or likely appreciable adverse effect on the competition in India. The governing principle under section 3(4) is ‘appreciable adverse effect on
Competition in India’. The guiding factors are stated under section 19(3) to assess whether any agreement is causing or likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition.

It further held that no enterprise can be considered dominant on the basis of big name. Dominance has to be determined as per law on the basis of market share, economic strength and other relevant factorsstated under section 19(4) of the Act. The Commission is unable toaccept such a narrow approach while determining the relevant market.

Shri Kaushal K. Rana v. DLF Commercial Complexes Ltd Case No. 50 of 2012 Dated: 13.12.2012

Held :The Competition Commission in view of the allegations of contravention of section 4 of the Act observed, that, despite DLF being a major real estate player with a PAN India presence, the geographic conditions prevailing in different parts of the country require

determination of relevant geographic market in context of that area. Gurgaon and Delhi are different relevant geographic markets vis a vis whole of India real estate market for the purposes of case at hand. In Delhi, DLF is just one of the real estate developers. Since the informant in the present case was desirous of booking an office space, the relevant market for this is ‘market for development of commercial/office space in the region of Delhi’. Presence of other real estate developers offering commercial office space also indicates that the informant was not dependent upon the DLF for provisioning of anoffice space. None of the factors stated under section 19(4) of the Actsupported the informant’s plea of dominance of DLF in the relevant market.

The allegations related to unfair trade practices, deficiency in services etc. may be pleaded at other appropriate forums because these are not within the ambit and jurisdiction of the Commission.

TRADE MARK CASE LAW

IPAB Judgement
Ilango v. Rank Xerox Ltd. & Ors., delivered on September 21, 2012 Order (No.229/2012)

The IPAB stated that though the public had been using the word
‘Xerox’ in a loose manner, it clearly knew that the owner of the trade mark was the respondent’s. The IPAB further pointed that the markwas registered since the 1960s, and the same was continuouslyrenewed by the proprietor without any opposition from its competitors. The fact that an alternative word, that is, photocopy, existed and was used by competitors weighed against the argument of the applicant.

Accordingly, the IPAB concluded that the word ‘Xerox’ was not generic and dismissed the plea for rectification against the said trade mark in Classes 1, 7 and 9. However, rectification against three applications was allowed as the respondent failed to prove the user of the same.

Delhi High Court
Exide Industries Limited v. Exide Corporation, U.S.A. & Ors.
MANU/DE/4642/2012

The issue in the present case centres on the ownership of trademark ‘EXIDE’. The defendant was undisputedly the owner of the ‘EXIDE’ marks in several countries.. The defendant claimed that being the prior user worldwide and due to its transnational/spill over reputation in India, it is the owner of the said mark even in India.

It is the case of the plaintiff that CESCO started selling batteries in India under the name ‘EXIDE’ from U.K. and subsequently it applied for and was granted registration of the same in India.

In examining whether the defendant company did in fact give a common law license to the plaintiff, and if whether the plaintiff’s rights were relatable to the defendant, the Court considered relevant commercial scenarios viz., the defendant did not have any controlling stake over the plaintiff or its predecessors after the split between the UK and US companies and that the defendant never received anyconsideration from the plaintiff as royalty. The Court observes that theAmerican company would not have allowed its most valuable property to vest with the plaintiff without any control, and therefore there can be no common law license inferred. In deciding on specialcircumstances, the Court observed that there were no direct or indirect bars to import of batteries, and neither was the same demonstrated by the defendant for the purpose of qualifying as’special circumstances’. The Court also held that there was no question of acquiescence by the plaintiff, as the defendant did not sell any goods in India nor did any special circumstances exist.

The Court held the plaintiff to be the registered proprietor of the trademark ‘EXIDE’ and therefore the defendant cannot infringe thetrademark of the plaintiff and sell its goods or have a trade name with
having the trademark ‘EXIDE’ of the plaintiff or any other name/mark deceptively similar thereto. The Court also stated that the plaintiff was the prior user of the trademark in India and, therefore, owner of the said trademark in India as defendant failed to plead and prove the
existence of special circumstances.

Nov 1, 2012
1. The Indian government amended the tax laws in this year’s budget retrospectively allowing tax authorities to tax overseas indirect
transfers involving underlying Indian assets, virtually nullifying the Supreme Court decision that said the Vodafone’s $11.2 billion
acquisition of Hucthison Essar was not taxable in India. Subsequently, the government had asked the Shome committee, which was already looking into another budget proposal, the GAAR, to also review the provisions relating to indirect transfers.

2. The new minister for housing and urban poverty alleviation Ajay
Maken on Wednesday said that the proposal for external commercial borrowings for low-cost housing has been cleared by the Reserve Bankof India and the finance ministry and the National Housing Bank hasbeen asked to make the draft guidelines.

Nov 2, 2012
The corporate affairs ministry is proposing a new set of rules and amendments to the Companies Act to curb fraudulent pyramidal schemes disguised as multi-level marketing schemes.

Nov 6, 2012
India has opposed a move by the US and the European Union to expand the list of electronic items under the World Trade Organisation’s IT Agreement, which will result in elimination of import duties on mobile handsets, printers, fax machines and consumer electronic goods.

Nov 13, 2012
Google India Private Limited, the Indian arm of the global search
engine, is grappling with a 76-crore penalty slapped by the income-tax authorities.
The tax office has said Google India has misled the department,
deflated income, violated accounting rules laid down by the chartered accountants’ institute and also attempted to show wrong revenues to avoid being subjected to transfer pricing adjustments with respect to its international transactions.

Nov 19, 2012
The finance ministry has urged the corporate affairs ministry to notify that ailing banks and insurance companies will not come under the purview of the Competition Commission, a step that can help speed up issuance of new banking licences.

Nov 23, 2012
1. The India unit of Walmart has suspended its chief financial officer
and the entire legal team in the country as part of a global investigation
into potential violations of America’s anti-bribery laws.
2. SEBI has moved a local court to initiate criminal proceedings against Sahara Chief and directors of two unlisted group firms for allegedly violating certain regulatory orders.
3. The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs has made it mandatory for oil marketing companies to blend 5% ethanol with petrol.
4. The Department of Industrial Policy Promotion (DIPP), the nodal department responsible for FDI policy is looking to design the control definition on the lines of the definition in the SEBI’s takeover code. The SEBI’s takeover code has a wider definition of “control”. 

Nov 27, 2012
The government has asked the Reserve Bank of India to draft an
agreement that Delhi can sign with Washington to shield Indian financial institutions from a controversial US legislation, which seeks to penalise entities that fail to report dealings of American residents to the US
revenue authority.
The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, due to come into force from January 1, proposes a 30% withholding tax on any payment made to a foreign financial institution by a US firm if it does not comply with the regulation.

Nov 29, 2012
The government and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) are consideringrelaxation in the stiff valuation norms governing foreign direct investment in unlisted Indian firms, a move that could potentially boost private equity flows.

Nov 30, 2012
1. The government is set to tweak legislation pertaining to private issue of shares to prevent companies from exploiting loopholes arising out of regulatory overlaps between the market regulator and the ministry of corporate affairs.
2. Lok Sabha on Thursday approved the changes in the law to strengthen country’s anti-money laundering framework and bring it on par with international standards.

Dec 7, 2012
1. Amendments to an asset foreclosure law pending in Parliament could allow banks to defer the sale or disposal of assets seized from defaulting borrowers, allowing them to acquire the assets at the reserve price if there are no buyers.

2. The government will move a crucial bill on Monday to amend the

banking law while the finance ministry will engage with foreign institutional investors to hear out their concerns.Both the Banking Regulation Amendment Bill and Sarfesi Amendment Bill are likely to be brought for consideration and passage on Monday.

3. The government plans to revolutionise the retail sector to make India a global shopping hub, with new labour laws to support 24-hour business, limiting reckless multiplication of malls to prevent urban chaos, and strong measures to ensure small shopkeepers also thrive in the
transformation.

Dec 10, 2012
According to the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy, 2012 (NPPP-
2012), a new Drugs Price Control Order (DPCO) would be notified as soon as possible after the notification of the new policy. It will, however, be replaced, but over a period of time.

Dec 15, 2012
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has served notices to Walmart Stores
Inc. as well as Bharti Group as part of the agency’s probe into US retailer’s $100-million investment into the holding company of Bharti
Retail. 

Dec 18, 2012
1. The Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Bill 2011 has been passed by the Rajya Sabha. The Parliament has passed this Bill making the laws against money laundering more tough.
2. The Ministry of Water resources has drafted a National Water Policy 2012.
3. The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Amendment Bill 2012 has been introduced in the Rajya Sabha.

Dec 19, 2012
1. The Banking ( Amendment ) Bill 2011 which permits more foreign investment in the banking sector has been passed in the Lok Sabha . 2. The Companies Bill has been passed in the Lok Sabha . The Bill
contains the important provision for corporate social responsibility.

Dec 21, 2012
The Finance Ministry of India will soon announce new disclosures on source of funds and beneficial ownership that foreign investors will have to furnish to the foreign investment promotion board (FIPB). It will be made mandatory for foreign investors to declare their source of funds while investing in sensitive sectors.

Dec 22, 2012
Increasing the heat on Chinese drug firms exporting medicines to India, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) is all set to open its first foreign drug inspection office in Beijing by March 1. Around four Indian drug inspectors will be posted in China to inspect manufacturing sites and check whether good manufacturing practices (GMP) are being complied with.

Dec 25, 2012
The environment ministry has decided to ease its clearance requirements for existing coal mines planning to increase production. Existing coal mines with plans to increase production by as much as a quarter of its current permissible production levels will be exempt from holding public hearings as part of the environment clearance process.

Dec 28, 2012
The Central Board of Direct Taxes, the apex direct taxes body, has said
in a detailed clarification that withholding tax on QFI income will be computed on settlement basis and not on transaction basis as stockbroker would credit the net proceeds of all transactions to QFIs on settlement basis for one settlement period.

Dec 31, 2012
The government has decided to apply the foreign trade policy’s definition of ‘group company’ for sourcing norms in the retail sectorthat prevent foreign cash-and carry firms from selling more than a
fourth of their goods to affiliated entities.