The Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs) on 12 June 2026, notified the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-Debt Instruments) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2026 (‘Amendment Rules’), amending the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-Debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 (‘NDI Rules’). The Amendment Rules constitute the third amendment in the FEMA liberalisation cycle for the year 2026, following the first and second amendments, which respectively relaxed restrictions on investments from countries sharing a land border with India and liberalised foreign investment in the insurance sector opening the sector up till 100% under automatic route. The third amendment is yet another attempt to widen the gate for the Indian economy. For years, access to India's listed securities market was reserved specially for a defined class amongst which are foreign portfolio investors (FPIs) and non-resident Indians (NRIs) and overseas citizens of India (OCIs), this time the liberalisation is into the Indian capital markets.
The 2026 Steel import Regulation of the European Union (EU) (‘2026 Regulation’),[1] which came into force on 1 July 2026, is not simply a continuation of earlier Steel Safeguard measures[2] applicable since 2018, but it indicates a decisive shift in the EU’s approach to regulate its steel imports in the coming years. With lowering of tariff-rate quotas (TRQs), higher out-of-quota duties and proposal for stricter origin requirements, the 2026 Regulation goes beyond the WTO’s temporary safeguard regime to a more permanent industrial policy governing steel imports into the EU. In particular, the 2026 Regulation reduces the EU's tariff-free steel quota by ~47%, doubles the out-of-quota duty from 25% to 50%, and introduces a new ‘melt and pour’ traceability requirement.
Various State Benches of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘GSTAT’) have recently become operational, and questions relating to jurisdiction between the Principal Bench and the State Benches have begun to arise in practice. While Section 109 of the CGST Act specifies certain categories of cases to be dealt with exclusively by the Principal Bench, early orders of the Principal Bench indicate that jurisdictional issues are not always straightforward.
The article notes that there is absence of express statutory provisions under the India’s AD/CVD laws on how ‘public interest’ should be assessed by the DGTR and the Ministry of Finance. Drawing from the practices of other jurisdictions across the world, the authors also highlight certain criteria which could be adopted by India.
The article discusses the history related to the entry tax dispute in Haryana, the questions surrounding legality of the recent Removal of Difficulties order introduced by the Government of Haryana and the present statuswith respect to the instant issue
The article highlights the retroactive impact of the amendment relating to export refunds, in the light of recent High Court decisions. The authors note that while GST Council has simplified the export refund process for the future from 2024, the amendment was not made retrospective by the legislature, and hence creating problems.
The article discusses the powers, jurisdiction, procedural framework, evolving enforcement trends, and the key challenges businesses face in navigating the CCPA's legal landscape.
The article infers that gross negligence and wilful misconduct, while related, are distinct legal concepts. Pointing out various recommendations to the investors to safeguard against the risks posed by these, the authors note that it is imperative for investors to carefully negotiate and finalize transaction documents that include these terms as defined ‘cause’ events.
The article discusses extended category of companies allowed under the Fast Track Merger. Elaborately analysing all the four categories with diagrams, the authors note that the amendment seeks to cover more categories of companies under the FTM process.
The article discusses the defined role, responsibilities and operational contour of a consent managers as provided in the recently issued draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025.
The article discusses the scope, applicability and key interpretational challenges of Section 194T of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024. According to the authors, this represents a pivotal shift in the tax regime governing payments made by partnership firms and LLPs to their partners but, has number of interpretational issues.
The article discusses how the Courts are increasingly realizing that distinctiveness in trademarks may not necessarily be inherent, it can also be created via use. It examines these changing interpretations, concentrating on significant rulings that have influenced India’s trademark protection laws.
The article discusses a recent decision of the Delhi High Court in a patent infringement suit between Roche and Natco. The authors believe that the decision, particularly the analysis of inventive step, may be wanting, especially in applying the concept of ‘bioisosterism’.
As a part of enhancing the ease of doing business and for providing greater flexibility to exporters and importers, the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) proposes to rationalise the export and import regulations
The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from advertising and soliciting work through communication in the public domain. This website is meant solely for the purpose of information and not for the purpose of advertising. Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan does not intend to solicit clients through this website. We do not take responsibility for decisions taken by the reader based solely on the information provided in the website. By clicking on 'ACCEPT', the visitor acknowledges that the information provided in the website (a) does not amount to advertising or solicitation and (b) is meant only for his/her understanding about our activities and who we are.
By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Cookie Policy.
