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 highlights the proposed amendment to Customs Section 28DA, relevant in case of imports under various Free Trade Agreements. The amendment substitutes the term 'Certificate of Origin' with 'Proof of Origin', and re-defines the term 'Issuing Authority'. The change is seen as a trade facilitation measure.
The article analyses the Budget proposals and discusses changes relating to attracting foreign investments, benefits proposed in tax regime, evolution in insolvency resolution, flexible company structures, credit enhancement to MSMEs, easy exits to companies, decriminalisation of offences, and proposal to incentivize states if they lower the stamp duty rates.
The article discusses the legal basis for plurilateral agreements and assesses their compatibility with the broader principles of multilateral rule-making at the WTO. It considers Articles III and IX of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO and observes that such plurilateral joint initiatives have neither been blessed by the Ministerial Conference nor by the broader WTO Membership.
This article examines the need and scope of the new Section 11A as proposed by the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2024, and the potential challenges foreseeable by insertion of said provision in the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The article chiefly focuses on the Madras High Court’s interpretation of Section 3(p) of the Patents Act, 1970 relating to 'traditional knowledge'. According to the authors, the decision is a first stride towards judicial clarification of Section 3(p). The interpretation provided by the Court is a much needed consolation sought by the Applicants where the Patent Applications relate to products or processes, misconstrued as being part of traditional knowledge.
In this article, an attempt shall be made to explore the ramifications of a specific legislative change introduced in Budget 2024-25 vide Clause 101 of Finance (No.2) Bill, 2024 (‘Finance Bill’) in relation to Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962 (‘Customs Act’). The amendment proposed under Clause 101 of the Finance Bill shall come into effect on the date of enactment of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024.
The article examines a recent Bombay High Court decision wherein the Court had analysed the Order issued by the Controller under Section 21(1) of the Patents Act [deemed abandonment]. The article closely examines Section 21(1) and Section 15 of the Act and observes that there is potential confusion in the applicability of the two provisions. It also notes that the Controller in this case had issued a hearing notice informing that the patent application was deemed to be abandoned.
The article discusses the recent judgement of the Divisional Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Natco Pharma v. Novartis Ag and Anr. The bench focusses on the two pivotal issues under a broader question of a credible challenge to the validity of a patent. First was enhanced bioavailability data could be construed as proof of enhanced ‘therapeutic efficacy and second was the concept of Coverage v. Disclosure in patent applications.
The article discusses Section 43B(h) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was introduced by Finance Act, 2023. Observing that despite the well-placed intent behind introducing the aforesaid provision, the cross-linkage of the Income Tax Act with the MSME Act may cause certain ambiguities specifically concerning the deduction of the provision of expenses, calculating the time limit under the MSME Act, etc.
The article discusses how the gaming industry will be impacted by the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. It discusses how the new law once enforced will require platforms, gaming...
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has set aside the Single Bench’s order which had affirmed the Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers' Rights Authority’s order of revocation of registration.
The article in this issue of International Trade Amicus discusses the nature of transnational subsidies, in which a government of one country subsidizes a firm outside of its territory.
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.
