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 discusses the scope of the new presumptive taxation scheme which has been proposed for non-residents engaged in providing services or technology in India for setting up electronics manufacturing facility or manufacturing electronic products in India. It discusses the issues which need clarification for the application of the scheme.
The article discusses the Amnesty Scheme, which offers the exporters a one-time opportunity to regularize defaults in export obligations under the Advance Authorization and EPCG schemes. It notes that the loophole of absence of any mention of penalty waiver was cited by Customs Authorities to demand penalty but, recently the CESTAT has held to the contrary.
The article addresses the issue of transnational subsidies in global trade across three sections. The first section examines the present framework of the SCM Agreement. The second section focuses on developments in the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (USA). Finally, the third section discusses the way forward for India.
Typically, parties to a rent/lease agreement insert a lock-in period to ensure that either party is unable to terminate the agreement before the stipulated period. Such agreements also incorporate a provision for liquidated damages in the form of rent for the remainder of the lock-in period. The article discusses the jurisprudence on ‘liquidated damages’ in India and its effect on the lock-in-period.
The article discusses on changes made in the Budget 2025 in regards of laboratory chemicals which is covered under Heading 9802 of the Customs Tariff in India, a part of Chapter 98 which is unique to India.
The article discusses the classification and the rate of customs duty on Interactive Flat Panel Displays (IFPDs) as announced in Budget 2025. The authors note that while there is an increase of BCD rate from 10% to 20% on goods classifiable under Tariff Item 8528 59 00, the IFPDs should be correctly classifiable under Heading 8471.
This article analyses the recent judgment delivered by the Kerala High Court in the case of Auto Fit Car Interiors Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., concerning classification of car seat cover and steering cover, made up of textile fabrics and cotton handloom fabrics and its entitlement under Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS).
The article discusses a recent decision of the CCI wherein the Competition Commission penalised an Investment Management company and dismissed the claim that subscription to convertible securities should receive differential treatment from acquisition of shares. The CCI was also not persuaded by the argument that the rights package was available to all investors, and should therefore, be considered ordinary shareholder rights.
Certain labelling laws target goods by category - food, drugs, etc., while there are others which target goods based on other aspects like form of packaging (LM Rules) or applicability of quality standards (BIS). As ambit of these laws is varied, a single product might require complying with labelling requirements set out in more than one law. Hence, the labelling requirements prescribed under different laws for the same product is required to be examined.
The article discusses the recent partial stay granted by the NCLAT to the direction issued by the Competition Commission of India to WhatsApp LLC, prohibiting it from sharing user data collected on its Over-the-Top messaging app on the smartphones (WhatsApp application) with other Meta companies for advertising purposes.
The article highlights that while the recent judgment of Supreme Court in Bank of Rajasthan has put to rest the controversy in context of investments made by banks in government securities, the taxability of Broken Period Interest for other taxpayers is far from settled.
The article discusses the Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra which had ruled that as there is no substantive provision in Section 3 of the CTA that provides for payment of penalty or interest on duty other than BCD, penalty/interest payable on CVD/SAD is not recoverable. The author discusses the subsequent changes by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024 and how the issues has now been referred to the Larger Bench.
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.
