# data[].attributes.headline
Budget in a Minute: Union Budget 2023- The Misses

# data[].attributes.subject
Budget in a Minute: Union Budget 2023- The Misses

# data[].attributes.body
In our 'Budget in a Minute' series, Gopal Mundhra, Partner, Economic Laws Practice talks about the misses in the Union Budget 2023.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Budget in a Minute: Union Budget 2023- The Misses

# data[].attributes.headline
ELP Arbitration Update – Essential ingredients of the notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996

# data[].attributes.subject
ELP Arbitration Update – Essential ingredients of the notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Essential ingredients of the notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996
M/s D.P. Construction v. M/s Vishvaraj Environment Private Ltd.
Background

Recently in context of an application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) seeking appointment of an arbitrator, the question which arose for determination before the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench (Court) was whether the notice issued prior to the said application satisfied the requirement under section 21 of the Act. Section 21 of the Act provides that, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary between the parties, arbitral proceedings commence on the date on which the respondent receives a request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration.

The Nagpur Municipal Corporation awarded a contract for pipeline works in favor of Vishvaraj Environment Private Ltd. (the Respondent). In relation to the said works, the Respondent engaged D.P. Construction (the Applicant) under a Work Order (Work Order). The Work Order included an arbitration clause[2] for settlement of disputes between the parties.

Dispute arose between the parties and the Applicant issued a notice dated October 7, 2020 (Notice) to the Respondent through its advocate. By the Notice, the Applicant quantified its claims, set out its grievances, and stated that if its claimed amounts were not paid by the Respondent, recourse would be taken before the competent court for redressal of grievances. In response, the Respondent's advocate addressed a reply dated October 29, 2020 (Reply) to the Notice wherein the Respondent repudiated the claim and sought payment towards penalty.

Thereafter, the Applicant preferred an application under section 11 of the Act, before the Court, seeking court assistance in constitution of the tribunal (Section 11 Application).

Submissions

Challenging the maintainability of the section 11 Application, the Respondent contended that while the arbitration clause provided a two-tier procedure for dispute resolution, the Applicant had not exhausted the first tier and therefore, the section 11 Application was premature. The first tier required the dispute to be referred to the Respondent itself for a decision that would be final and binding. If this step failed, the dispute would be referred to arbitration before a sole arbitrator which would be governed by the provisions of the Act. In response, the Applicant contended that it was entitled to pursue arbitration as the Notice satisfied the requirement as per the first tier of the procedure.

Assuming the first tier of the procedure was satisfied, the Respondent further contended that the Notice did not qualify as a notice invoking arbitration under section 21 of the Act. The Notice neither referred to the arbitration clause nor did it aver that arbitration was being invoked. Since the agreed procedure between the parties was yet to be followed, the jurisdiction of the Court could not be invoked under section 11 of the Act. On the other hand, the Applicant contended that the Notice stated the claims, the points of dispute, and quantified the interest rate. Accordingly, the Notice was in consonance with section 21 of the Act.

Findings of the Hon'ble Court

Upon examining the Notice and the arbitration clause, the Court observed that the Applicant had sufficiently complied with the requirements of the first tier of the arbitration clause and was then constrained to escalate the dispute to the second tier.
The Application under section 11(6) can be triggered only once parties have failed to act as per the agreed procedure
Examining section 11 of the Act, the Court observed that the said provision comes into play when the conditions specified therein have occurred, including failure of a party to act as required under the agreed procedure i.e., only when the agreed procedure under section 11(2) of the Act has failed, the jurisdiction of the Court under section 11(6) of the Act can be invoked.

Importance of the notice under Section 21 of the Act

Reflecting upon the importance of section 21 of the Act, the Court observed that the provision provides that the arbitral proceedings shall commence on " the date on which a request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration " is received by the respondent. Hence, for commencement of arbitral proceedings, there must be a request for the dispute to be referred to arbitration.
Referring to the jurisprudence in relation to section 21 of the Act, the Court observed that:

In Nortel Networks Private Ltd., the Supreme Court noted the significance of section 21 of the Act to compute the date from which the limitation period is to be calculated for the purpose of an application under section 11 of the Act. Please refer to the link here for our analysis on BSNL v. Nortel.

In Secunderabad Cantonment Board, the Supreme Court reiterated the necessity to invoke arbitration under section 21 of the Act to answer the question of limitation.

In Malvika Rajnikant Mehta, the Court examined the manner in which arbitration ought to be invoked under section 21 of the Act and the purpose of such notice under section 21 of the Act i.e., it provides the adversary (a) notice as to the nature of the claim, (b) an opportunity to contest the admissibility of the claim at the threshold; (c) an opportunity to raise any issues regarding impartiality of the arbitrator. Further, the date of receipt of the notice has an impact on the date of commencement of the arbitration.

In Alupro Building Systems Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi High Court set out the purpose of the notice under section 21 of the Act and inter alia observed that "unless there is such a notice invoking the arbitration clause, it will not be possible to know whether the procedure as envisaged in the arbitration clause has been followed" and the "trigger for the Court's jurisdiction under section 11 of the Act is such failure by one party to respond".

In Veena wd/o Naresh Seth, the Bombay High Court held that even when the notice invoking arbitration does not state the claims proposed to be made in the reference, it would be necessary for the notice to indicate the disputes which had arisen and that the subject arbitration clause was being invoked.

Upon perusing the judicial precedents and the language of Section 21 of the Act, the Court held that:

The notice invoking arbitration ought to be absolutely clear with reference to the arbitration clause and with clear intent of calling upon the opposite party to proceed for the appointment of an arbitrator and for reference of disputes to arbitration.

Unless there is a request by the party to refer the disputes to arbitration, mere setting out of the claims and disputes would not suffice.

When the parties have not triggered the agreed procedure (in the arbitration clause) for reference of the dispute to arbitration, the question of failure does not arise. Therefore, the precondition of invoking jurisdiction under section 11 of the Act is not satisfied. This aspect goes to the root of the matter and hits the jurisdiction of the Court.

As elaborated in the judicial precedents, there are legal consequences which follow once notice is issued in accordance with section 21 of the Act, including computation of limitation.

In the circumstances, the Court observed that the Notice did not satisfy the requirements of a valid notice under section 21 of the Act. The Court reserved the Applicant's right to initiate arbitration on issuance of a fresh and valid notice under section 21 of the Act, along with its right to file a fresh application under section 11 of the Act, should the parties fail to appoint an arbitrator.

Conclusion and Analysis

This decision reiterates the importance of a notice under section 21 of the Act, which serves several key purposes, as enumerated by the Court. Section 21, begins with the words "unless otherwise agrees by the parties." This is but one more example of party-autonomy being the cornerstone of arbitration law. Thus, parties may agree to waive the requirement of such notice under section 21 of the Act. However, in the absence of such waiver, the provision must be given full effect.[8]

Earlier this year, in Malvika Rajnikant Mehta, the Bombay High Court inter alia considered whether a purported communication constituted lawful invocation of the arbitration under Section 21 of the Act, 1996. In view of the facts and disputed correspondences, the court held that the said question could be determined by the arbitrator and the " language of Section 16(1) of the Act, 1996 is elastic enough to subsume in its fold determination of the question as to whether arbitration is lawfully invoked under Section 21 of Act, 1996". In doing so, the court relied upon the policy of minimal interference under section 11 of the Act.

While the courts in India have drawn light on the importance and purpose of section 21 of the Act, the essential ingredients of a notice under section 21 are not expressly set out in the Act. In the circumstances, the key elements of such a notice have evolved though jurisprudence. In the present decision, the Court emphasized that the notice must refer to the arbitration clause and the party must be able to demonstrate that the agreed procedure had failed before preferring an application under section 11 (6) of the Act.

ELP law is one of the best law firms in India.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ELP Arbitration Update - Essential ingredients of the notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration & Conciliation...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Essential ingredients of the notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 M/s D.P. Construction v. M/s Vishvaraj Environment Private Ltd.

# data[].attributes.headline
Clarifications by IFSCA | Amendments by NFRA

# data[].attributes.subject
Clarifications by IFSCA | Amendments by NFRA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
RESIDENT INDIVIDUALS NOT PERMITTED TO INVEST IN BULLION DEPOSITORY RECEIPTS ON IIBX IN IFSC UNDER LRS ROUTE | NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING AUTHORITY RULES, 2018 TO ATTRACT SPECIFIC PUNISHMENT
A. Resident individuals not permitted to invest in Bullion Depository Receipts (BDRs) on India International Bullion Exchange (IFSC) Limited (IIBX) through the Liberalized Remittance Scheme (LRS) route:
IFSCA has clarified that resident individuals are not permitted to transact/invest in BDRs on IIBX through the liberalized remittance scheme route.
B. Non-compliance with National Financial Reporting Authority Rules, 2018 to attract specific punishment:
MCA has amended the National Financial Reporting Authority Rules, 2018 (NFRA Rules) to provide for a specific punishment for non-compliance with the NFRA Rules. Such contravention will now be punishable with a fine not exceeding INR 5,000. Also, where the contravention is a continuing one, there is a further fine not exceeding INR 500 for every day after the first during which the contravention continues.

The above changes have been analyzed in detail below:
A. Resident individuals not permitted to investment in Bullion Depository Receipts (BDRs) on India International Bullion Exchange (IFSC) Limited (IIBX) through LRS route

For the purposes of foreign exchange laws, any unit set-up in International Financial Services Centre (IFSC) is treated as being outside the domestic jurisdiction, thereby requiring investment in IFSC to comply with the provision of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 read with the relevant regulations.

In this regard, vide circular dated February 16, 2021 ( available here) (LRS Circular), the Reserve Bank of India had permitted resident individuals to make remittances under the liberalized remittance scheme (LRS) route in International Financial Services Centres (IFSC) in India only for making investments in IFSCs in securities, other than those issued by entities/companies resident (outside IFSC) in India.

Earlier, vide notification dated August 31, 2020 ( available here), the Ministry of Finance had notified the bullion spot delivery contract and BDR with underlying bullion as a financial product and related services as financial services. Further, bullion spot delivery contract and BDR with underlying bullion have also been included in the definition of 'securities' under the Securities Contract Regulations Act, 1956 vide notification dated December 24, 2021 ( available here).

IFSCA has now clarified that resident individuals, as referred to in the LRS Circular, are not permitted to transact/invest in BDR on IIBX through the LRS route.

However, it has been stated that the aforesaid clarification is without prejudice to the participation of Qualified Jewellers notified by the IFSCA, in terms of DGFT notification no.49/2015-2020 dated January 05, 2022 for purchase of BDRs for the sole purpose of import of gold through IIBX.

This clarification was issued by the IFSCA vide circular dated June 17, 2022 ( available here).
B. Non-compliance with NFRA Rules to attract specific punishment

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has amended the National Financial Reporting Authority Rules, 2018 (NFRA Rules) to provide for a specific punishment for non-compliance. Contraventions of any of the provisions of the NFRA Rules, shall be punishable with a fine not exceeding INR 5,000. If the contravention is a continuing one, there is a further fine not exceeding INR 500 for every day after the first during which the contravention continues.

The above amendment has been introduced vide the National Financial Reporting Authority Amendment Rules, 2022 dated June 17, 2022 ( available here).

ELP Law is one of the Best corporate lawyers in India.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Clarifications by IFSCA | Amendments by NFRA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
RESIDENT INDIVIDUALS NOT PERMITTED TO INVEST IN BULLION DEPOSITORY RECEIPTS ON IIBX IN IFSC UNDER LRS ROUTE | NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING AUTHORITY RULES, 2018 TO ATTRACT SPECIFIC PUNISHMENT A.

# data[].attributes.body
Economic Laws Practice offers legal advise in Mergers & Acquistions (M&A), Private Equity & Venture Capital (PE & VC), corporate structuring, tax litigation, company law advice, legal advice on SEBI, MCA, RBI, FDI , DTAA and FEMA.
Visit our website: https://elplaw.in/

# data[].attributes.headline
ELP Tax Update – Supreme Court strikes down levy of IGST on Ocean Freight

# data[].attributes.subject
ELP Tax Update – Supreme Court strikes down levy of IGST on Ocean Freight

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court in its landmark ruling in the case of UOI vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. [C.A. No. 1390 of 2022] has struck down the levy of IGST on importers in respect of ocean freight services- which are provided by foreign shipping lines to foreign suppliers in a CIF contract for import of goods into India.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Supreme Court strikes down levy of IGST on Ocean Freight
UOI vs Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd.

Introduction

The Supreme Court in its landmark ruling in the case of UOI vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. [C.A. No. 1390 of 2022] has struck down the levy of IGST on importers in respect of ocean freight services- which are provided by foreign shipping lines to foreign suppliers in a CIF contract for import of goods into India.

This decision has been passed on the ground that that a CIF contract for import of goods forms a composite supply, comprising of supply of goods and supply of services of transportation, insurance, etc., on which the Indian importer discharges IGST. Thus, a separate levy of IGST on the service aspect of the transaction would violate the principle of composite supply under Section 8 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). While dealing with the argument of the Union that recommendations of GST Council are binding on Union and States, the Supreme Court held that the recommendations of the GST Council would only have a persuasive value.

Background

Notification No. 8/2017-Integrated tax (Rate) [dated 28.06.2017 ('Notification 8/2017')] vide Entry No. 9, notifies IGST rate of 5% on ocean freight services provided or agreed to be provided by a person located in a non-taxable territory to another person located in a non-taxable territory by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India upto the customs stations of clearance in India.

By virtue of the power conferred under Section 5(3) of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act), Notification No. 10/2017 - Integrated Tax (Rate) [dated 28.06.2017 ('Notification 10/2017')] notifies that for the said category of service, IGST would be payable under reverse charge mechanism by the importer, located in the taxable territory, as defined in clause 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The constitutional validity of the Notifications, - seeking IGST under reverse charge from an Indian importer on ocean freight services between persons located in a non-taxable territory with respect to import of goods in India on a CIF basis - was challenged before the Gujarat High Court.

The Gujarat High Court in Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI [SCA No. 726/2018] struck down such a levy of IGST as unconstitutional and ultra vires the IGST Act. It was struck inter alia on the ground that (a) the notifications amount to extraterritorial law, (b) the reverse charge payment of IGST amounts to double taxation of the same transaction inasmuch as IGST paid on import of goods and (c) the importer is not a "recipient of service" to be made liable to tax on a reverse charge basis.

A batch of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) were filed before the Supreme Court by the Department against the decision of the Gujarat High Court.

Findings of the Court

The 'recommendations' of the GST Council are a product of a collaborative dialogue involving the Union and States and are recommendatory in nature. Under Article 246A of the Constitution of India, both the Union and the States are conferred equal power to legislate on GST. Thus, to regard recommendations of GST Council as binding would disrupt fiscal federalism.

Notification 10/2017 does not specify a taxable entity different from that which is prescribed in Section 5(3) of the IGST Act for the purposes of reverse charge. Hence, the said Notification does not suffer from excessive delegation.

Notification 8/2017 cannot be struck down for excessive delegation when it prescribes ten percent of the CIF value as the mechanism for imposing tax on a reverse charge basis.

Section 2(31) of the CGST Act defines 'consideration' to include payment made by the recipient or by any other person. Thus, in the case of goods imported on CIF basis, the fact that consideration is paid by the foreign exporter to the foreign shipping line would not stand in the way of it being considered as a "supply of service" under Section 7(4) of the IGST Act.

The services by foreign shipping lines to foreign exporters for import of goods into India has a nexus with the territory of India inasmuch as the destination of the goods is India and the services are rendered for the benefit of the Indian importer.

When the place of supply of ocean freight services is deemed to be the destination of goods under Section 13(9) of the IGST Act, the supply of services would necessarily be "made" to the Indian importer, who would then be considered as a "recipient" under the definition of Section 2(93)(c) of the CGST Act.

The supply of services of transportation by the foreign shipper forms a part of the "composite supply" between the foreign exporter and the Indian importer, on which the IGST is already payable under Section 5(1) of the IGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, Section 8 and Section 2(30) of the CGST Act.

While the notifications are validly issued under Sections 5(3) and 5(4) of the IGST Act, it would be in violation of the principle of 'composite supply' enshrined under Section 8 of the CGST Act and the overall scheme of the GST legislation.

Broader issue - Legislation of GST

The Supreme Court has held that Article 246A of the Constitution of India confers equal power to the Centre and States to legislate on aspects of GST. States are not sub-servient to the Centre or the GST Council and are free to engage in co-operative as well as competitive federalism.

In terms of the finding of the Supreme Court on the non-binding nature of recommendations of GST Council, the State has independent power to legislate various provisions of State GST law.

Issue on Ocean Freight

This ruling brings in a huge respite for the importers who are not eligible to claim Input tax credit or face accumulation of credit. The importers who have paid IGST on ocean freight services and have not claimed Input tax credit or claimed but not utilized the Input tax credit of such IGST can claim refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act.

Section 54 of the CGST Act provides a limitation period of two years for refund. However, one may argue that the tax collected without the authority of law by the Government is violative of Article 265 of Constitution of India and hence, the bar of limitation should not apply.

While the ruling goes in the favour of importers, the finding that importers may be deemed to be the 'recipient' may set a wrong precedent giving liberty to the Government to shift the onus of payment on persons other than the actual recipient of goods or services in any other similar situations.

We hope you have found this information useful. For any queries/clarifications please write to us at [email protected] or write to our authors:

Disclaimer: The information provided in this update is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal opinion or advice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ELP Tax Update - Supreme Court strikes down levy of IGST on Ocean Freight

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Supreme Court strikes down levy of IGST on Ocean Freight UOI vs Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Introduction The Supreme Court in its landmark ruling in the case of UOI vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. [C.A. No.

# data[].attributes.headline
ELP Arbitration Update – Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee

# data[].attributes.subject
ELP Arbitration Update – Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee

# data[].attributes.body
Transfer and issuance of securities by companies to comply with foreign exchange laws | India Inc. gets extension to hold AGM/EGM through VC/OAVM till December 31, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Transfer and issuance of securities by companies to comply with foreign exchange laws | India Inc. gets extension to hold AGM/EGM through VC/OAVM till December 31, 2022

Following significant changes have been introduced by MCA:

A. Compliance with foreign exchange laws while transferring and issuing shares:

a. Declaration to be made if Government approval is required before transfer of shares;

b. No offer or invitation of any securities to be made to a body corporate incorporated in, or a national of, a country which shares a land border with India without obtaining Government approval under the foreign exchange laws.
B. MCA permits holding of holding of annual general meeting (AGM) and extraordinary general meetings (EGM) through VC/ OAVM till December 31, 2022
The above changes have been analyzed in detail below:

A. Compliance with foreign exchange laws while transferring and issuing shares
a. Amendment to Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules, 2014
Under Rule 11 of the Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules, 2014 (Share Capital Rules), the instrument of transfer of securities held in physical form is required to be in Form No. SH-4 ( Securities Transfer Form) and is required to be delivered to the company within 60 days from the date of such execution.

Now, the following declaration has been inserted in the Form SH-4:

When Government approval under Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 (NDI Rules) is NOT required:

"Transferee is not required to obtain the Government approval under the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 prior to transfer of shares";

OR

When Government approval under NDI Rules is required, and if the same is procured and enclosed prior to the transfer:
"Transferee is required to obtain the Government approval under the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 prior to transfer of shares and the same has been obtained and is enclosed herewith."
As a result of the aforesaid amendment, it will be essential for the company to not take on record any transfer of shares which lacks compliance with the aforesaid declarations. The aforesaid amendment has been made vide the Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Amendment Rules, 2022 dated May 4, 2022 ( available here).
b. Amendment to Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014 (PAS Rules)
Rule 14 of the PAS Rules inter alia provides that a company shall make an offer or invitation to subscribe to securities through private placement only if such proposal has been previously approved by the shareholders of the company. This will be done by a special resolution for each of the offers or invitations.

Now, MCA has incorporated a conditionality that no offer or invitation of any securities under Rule 14 will be made to a body corporate incorporated in, or a national of, a country which shares a land border with India. An exception is made for such body corporate or the national, as the case may be, who have obtained Government approval under the NDI Rules and attached such approval with the private placement offer cum application letter.

Further, now, the applicant will be required to declare, in Form PAS-4 ( Private Placement Offer cum Application Letter), whether the Government approval under the NDI Rules is required or not and accordingly, tick the applicable provision:

When Government approval is NOT required:

"The applicant is not required to obtain Government approval under the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 prior to subscription of shares "

OR

When Government approval is required:
"The applicant is required to obtain Government approval under the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 prior to subscription of shares and the same has been obtained, and is enclosed herewith."
The said amendment will cast responsibility on the company to ensure that no private placement is made in violation of the newly introduced prohibited category unless Government approval is taken. The aforementioned amendments have been introduced vide the Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Amendment Rules, 2022 dated May 5, 2022 ( available here).

B. Relaxation in holding of AGM and EGM through VC/ OAVM till December 31, 2022

In furtherance of the earlier relaxations granted by MCA in respect of holding of AGM through VC/ OAVM, MCA has now permitted companies whose AGMs are due in the year 2022, to conduct their AGMs on or before December 31, 2022, through VC/ OAVM. It has been clarified that this relaxation should not be construed as conferring any extension of time for holding of AGMs by the companies under Companies Act, 2013. The aforesaid relaxation has been granted vide General Circular No. 2/2022 dated May 5, 2022 ( available here).

In case of EGMs, MCA has permitted companies to hold EGMs through VC/OAVM or transact items through postal ballot in accordance with the earlier circulars till December 31, 2022. The extension has been given vide General Circular No. 3/2022 dated May 5, 2022 ( available here).

ELP Law is the top law firm in India.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this update is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal opinion or advice. Readers are requested to seek formal legal advice prior to acting upon any of the information provided herein. This update is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or corporate body. There can be no assurance that the judicial/ quasi-judicial authorities may not take a position contrary to the views mentioned herein.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ELP Arbitration Update - Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Transfer and issuance of securities by companies to comply with foreign exchange laws | India Inc. gets extension to hold AGM/EGM through VC/OAVM till December 31, 2022 Following significant changes have been introduced by MCA: A. Compliance with foreign exchange laws while transferring and issuing shares: a.

# data[].attributes.body
Transfer and issuance of securities by companies to comply with foreign exchange laws | India Inc. gets extension to hold AGM/EGM through VC/OAVM till December 31, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Transfer and issuance of securities by companies to comply with foreign exchange laws | India Inc. gets extension to hold AGM/EGM through VC/OAVM till December 31, 2022
Following significant changes have been introduced by MCA:
A. Compliance with foreign exchange laws while transferring and issuing shares:
a. Declaration to be made if Government approval is required before transfer of shares;
B. MCA permits holding of holding of annual general meeting (AGM) and extraordinary general meetings (EGM) through VC/ OAVM till December 31, 2022
b. No offer or invitation of any securities to be made to a body corporate incorporated in, or a national of, a country which shares a land border with India without obtaining Government approval under the foreign exchange laws.
A. Compliance with foreign exchange laws while transferring and issuing shares a. Amendment to Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules, 2014
The above changes have been analyzed in detail below:

Under Rule 11 of the Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules, 2014 ( Share Capital Rules), the instrument of transfer of securities held in physical form is required to be in Form No. SH-4 ( Securities Transfer Form) and is required to be delivered to the company within 60 days from the date of such execution.

When Government approval under Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 (NDI Rules) is NOT required:

Now, the following declaration has been inserted in the Form SH-4:
OR
When Government approval under NDI Rules is required, and if the same is procured and enclosed prior to the transfer:
"Transferee is required to obtain the Government approval under the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 prior to transfer of shares and the same has been obtained and is enclosed herewith."
"Transferee is not required to obtain the Government approval under the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 prior to transfer of shares";
B. Amendment to Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014 (PAS Rules)
As a result of the aforesaid amendment, it will be essential for the company to not take on record any transfer of shares which lacks compliance with the aforesaid declarations. The aforesaid amendment has been made vide the Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Amendment Rules, 2022 dated May 4, 2022 ( available here).

Rule 14 of the PAS Rules inter alia

provides that a company shall make an offer or invitation to subscribe to securities through private placement only if such proposal has been previously approved by the shareholders of the company. This will be done by a special resolution for each of the offers or invitations.

Now, MCA has incorporated a conditionality that no offer or invitation of any securities under Rule 14 will be made to a body corporate incorporated in, or a national of, a country which shares a land border with India. An exception is made for such body corporate or the national, as the case may be, who have obtained Government approval under the NDI Rules and attached such approval with the private placement offer cum application letter.

When Government approval is NOT required:

Further, now, the applicant will be required to declare, in Form PAS-4 ( Private Placement Offer cum Application Letter), whether the Government approval under the NDI Rules is required or not and accordingly, tick the applicable provision:
OR
When Government approval is required:
"The applicant is required to obtain Government approval under the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 prior to subscription of shares and the same has been obtained, and is enclosed herewith."
"The applicant is not required to obtain Government approval under the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 prior to subscription of shares "
B. Relaxation in holding of AGM and EGM through VC/ OAVM till December 31, 2022
The said amendment will cast responsibility on the company to ensure that no private placement is made in violation of the newly introduced prohibited category unless Government approval is taken. The aforementioned amendments have been introduced vide the Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Amendment Rules, 2022 dated May 5, 2022 ( available here).

In furtherance of the earlier relaxations granted by MCA in respect of holding of AGM through VC/ OAVM, MCA has now permitted companies whose AGMs are due in the year 2022, to conduct their AGMs on or before December 31, 2022, through VC/ OAVM. It has been clarified that this relaxation should not be construed as conferring any extension of time for holding of AGMs by the companies under Companies Act, 2013. The aforesaid relaxation has been granted vide General Circular No. 2/2022 dated May 5, 2022 ( available here).

In case of EGMs, MCA has permitted companies to hold EGMs through VC/OAVM or transact items through postal ballot in accordance with the earlier circulars till December 31, 2022. The extension has been given vide General Circular No. 3/2022 dated May 5, 2022 ( available here).
Disclaimer: The information provided in this update is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal opinion or advice. Readers are requested to seek formal legal advice prior to acting upon any of the information provided herein. This update is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or corporate body. There can be no assurance that the judicial/ quasi-judicial authorities may not take a position contrary to the views mentioned herein.
ELP Law is one of the best law firm in India

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Transfer and issuance of securities by companies to comply with foreign exchange laws | India Inc. gets extension to hold AGM/EGM through VC/OAVM till December 31, 2022 Following significant changes have been introduced by MCA: A. Compliance with foreign exchange laws while transferring and issuing shares : a.

# data[].attributes.headline
ELP Tax Update — Supreme Court strikes down levy of IGST on Ocean Freight | ELP Law

# data[].attributes.subject
ELP Tax Update — Supreme Court strikes down levy of IGST on Ocean Freight | ELP Law

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court in its landmark ruling in the case of UOI vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. [C.A. №1390 of 2022] has struck down the levy of IGST on importers in respect of ocean freight services- which are provided by foreign shipping lines to foreign suppliers in a CIF contract for import of goods into India.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Supreme Court strikes down levy of IGST on Ocean Freight Introduction
UOI vs Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Background

Notification №8/2017-Integrated tax (Rate) [dated 28.06.2017 ('Notification 8/2017')] vide Entry №9, notifies IGST rate of 5% on ocean freight services provided or agreed to be provided by a person located in a non-taxable territory to another person located in a non-taxable territory by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India upto the customs stations of clearance in India.

By virtue of the power conferred under Section 5(3) of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act), Notification №10/2017 - Integrated Tax (Rate) [dated 28.06.2017 ('Notification 10/2017')] notifies that for the said category of service, IGST would be payable under reverse charge mechanism by the importer, located in the taxable territory, as defined in clause 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The constitutional validity of the Notifications, - seeking IGST under reverse charge from an Indian importer on ocean freight services between persons located in a non-taxable territory with respect to import of goods in India on a CIF basis - was challenged before the Gujarat High Court.

The Gujarat High Court in Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI [SCA №726/2018] struck down such a levy of IGST as unconstitutional and ultra vires the IGST Act. It was struck inter alia on the ground that (a) the notifications amount to extraterritorial law, (b) the reverse charge payment of IGST amounts to double taxation of the same transaction inasmuch as IGST paid on import of goods and © the importer is not a "recipient of service" to be made liable to tax on a reverse charge basis.

A batch of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) were filed before the Supreme Court by the Department against the decision of the Gujarat High Court.

Findings of the Court

The 'recommendations' of the GST Council are a product of a collaborative dialogue involving the Union and States and are recommendatory in nature. Under Article 246A of the Constitution of India, both the Union and the States are conferred equal power to legislate on GST. Thus, to regard recommendations of GST Council as binding would disrupt fiscal federalism.

Notification 10/2017 does not specify a taxable entity different from that which is prescribed in Section 5(3) of the IGST Act for the purposes of reverse charge. Hence, the said Notification does not suffer from excessive delegation.

Notification 8/2017 cannot be struck down for excessive delegation when it prescribes ten percent of the CIF value as the mechanism for imposing tax on a reverse charge basis.

Section 2(31) of the CGST Act defines 'consideration' to include payment made by the recipient or by any other person. Thus, in the case of goods imported on CIF basis, the fact that consideration is paid by the foreign exporter to the foreign shipping line would not stand in the way of it being considered as a "supply of service" under Section 7(4) of the IGST Act.

The services by foreign shipping lines to foreign exporters for import of goods into India has a nexus with the territory of India inasmuch as the destination of the goods is India and the services are rendered for the benefit of the Indian importer.

When the place of supply of ocean freight services is deemed to be the destination of goods under Section 13(9) of the IGST Act, the supply of services would necessarily be "made" to the Indian importer, who would then be considered as a "recipient" under the definition of Section 2(93)© of the CGST Act.

The supply of services of transportation by the foreign shipper forms a part of the "composite supply" between the foreign exporter and the Indian importer, on which the IGST is already payable under Section 5(1) of the IGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, Section 8 and Section 2(30) of the CGST Act.

While the notifications are validly issued under Sections 5(3) and 5(4) of the IGST Act, it would be in violation of the principle of 'composite supply' enshrined under Section 8 of the CGST Act and the overall scheme of the GST legislation.

Broader issue - Legislation of GST

The Supreme Court has held that Article 246A of the Constitution of India confers equal power to the Centre and States to legislate on aspects of GST. States are not sub-servient to the Centre or the GST Council and are free to engage in co-operative as well as competitive federalism.

In terms of the finding of the Supreme Court on the non-binding nature of recommendations of GST Council, the State has independent power to legislate various provisions of State GST law.

Issue on Ocean Freight

This ruling brings in a huge respite for the importers who are not eligible to claim Input tax credit or face accumulation of credit. The importers who have paid IGST on ocean freight services and have not claimed Input tax credit or claimed but not utilized the Input tax credit of such IGST can claim refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act.

Section 54 of the CGST Act provides a limitation period of two years for refund. However, one may argue that the tax collected without the authority of law by the Government is violative of Article 265 of Constitution of India and hence, the bar of limitation should not apply.

While the ruling goes in the favour of importers, the finding that importers may be deemed to be the 'recipient' may set a wrong precedent giving liberty to the Government to shift the onus of payment on persons other than the actual recipient of goods or services in any other similar situations.

The Supreme Court in its landmark ruling in the case of UOI vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. [C.A. №1390 of 2022] has struck down the levy of IGST on importers in respect of ocean freight services- which are provided by foreign shipping lines to foreign suppliers in a CIF contract for import of goods into India.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this update is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal opinion or advice.
This decision has been passed on the ground that that a CIF contract for import of goods forms a composite supply, comprising of supply of goods and supply of services of transportation, insurance, etc., on which the Indian importer discharges IGST. Thus, a separate levy of IGST on the service aspect of the transaction would violate the principle of composite supply under Section 8 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). While dealing with the argument of the Union that recommendations of GST Council are binding on Union and States, the Supreme Court held that the recommendations of the GST Council would only have a persuasive value.

We hope you have found this information useful. For any queries/clarifications please write to us at insights@elp-in.com or write to our authors:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ELP Tax Update - Supreme Court strikes down levy of IGST on Ocean Freight | ELP Law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Supreme Court strikes down levy of IGST on Ocean Freight Introduction UOI vs Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Background Notification №8/2017-Integrated tax (Rate) [dated 28.06.2017 ('Notification 8/2017')] vide Entry №9, notifies IGST rate of 5% on ocean freight services provided or agreed to be provided by a person located in a non-taxable territory to another person located in a non-taxable territory by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India upto the customs stations of clearance in India.

# data[].attributes.body
Economic Laws Practice offers IBC advisory and lBC litigation assistance. ELP also assists with Rupee and Foreign Currency Debt transactions, corporate debt, restructuring advice and regualtory advice on FEMA. We advise on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. ELP Law is one of the best Banking Law Firms in India

# data[].attributes.headline
ELP Knowledge Series India Update Part 2 of 2022

# data[].attributes.subject
ELP Knowledge Series India Update Part 2 of 2022

# data[].attributes.body
Dear Reader, India Update – Part 2 of 2022 is the latest addition to the ELP Knowledge Series. This document is intended to keep you updated on the latest legal, policy and regulatory developments in India.
Read full document: ELP Knowledge Series India Update Part 2 of 2022

# data[].attributes.body
On April 08, 2022, the Competition Commission of India ( CCI), in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 36, 57 and 64 of the Competition Act, 2002 ( Act), amended the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009, ( General Regulations) and has updated the Confidentiality Regime that is provided for under Regulation 35 of the General Regulations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On April 08, 2022, the Competition Commission of India ( CCI), in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 36, 57 and 64 of the Competition Act, 2002 ( Act), amended the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009, ( General Regulations) and has updated the Confidentiality Regime that is provided for under Regulation 35 of the General Regulations.

Regulation 35 lays down the mechanism to deal with confidentiality requests that are made by parties during the course of proceedings before the CCI and the Office of the Director General ( DG). It sets out the procedure and the parameters for seeking confidentiality over submissions that are made by parties.
Key Changes:
A quick snapshot of some key changes that have been introduced to Regulation 35 is provided below:

a. Self-Certification of Confidentiality Claims: Parties claiming confidentiality over certain information will now have to submit an undertaking certifying that their confidentiality claims are in compliance with the General Regulations.

b. Segregation of confidential information in the nature of personal information: All information in the nature of personal information such as call data records, e-mail dump, documents obtained through search/seizure etc. will now be marked as "confidential" and kept separately by the CCI.

c. Setting up of Confidentiality Rings: If considered necessary, the CCI may set up a confidentiality ring comprising of authorized representatives of parties, who alone will have access to the confidential information in an ongoing matter. Following are the key aspects of the confidentiality ring -

Members of the confidentiality ring will have access to all confidential documents and material relied upon by the DG in the confidential version of the DG Report, including confidential information in the nature of personal information.

The CCI while setting up the confidentiality ring, may decide the extent to which confidential information may be made accessible and also the members to be included.

Access to confidential information shall be provided to members of the confidentiality ring on submission of an undertaking by such members that the information will not be shared outside of the ring and will be destroyed upon culmination of the proceedings.

The Informant shall ordinarily not be a part of the confidentiality ring unless the CCI considers their inclusion to be necessary.

The CCI may initiate penal action against members of the confidentiality ring for breach of the confidentiality obligations.

ELP Comment:
The introduction of confidentiality ring(s) by the CCI is in line with the practices followed by some of the more mature jurisdictions, like the European Union. While the CCI has been following this practice in the recent past, the formal inclusion of a confidentiality ring structure along with the requirement of providing an undertaking will offer additional layers of safeguards to protect the confidential (and personal) information of parties. These changes introduce a more structured mechanism that will also be useful to the parties seeking access to the confidential case records, who can now approach the CCI in a more organized manner following the process to gain access to complete case records. The amendment reflects the CCI's efforts to introduce a system that seeks to strike a balance between the interests of the parties seeking confidentiality over their information and the parties who seek access to complete case records to allow them to effectively present their case before the CCI.

The detailed notification can be accessed here.

We trust you will find this an interesting read. For any queries or comments on this update, please feel free to contact us at insights@elp-in.com.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this update is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal opinion or advice. Readers are requested to seek formal legal advice prior to acting upon any of the information provided herein. This update is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or corporate body. There can be no assurance that the judicial/ quasi-judicial authorities may not take a position contrary to the views mentioned herein.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CCI updates its Confidentiality Regime | ELPLAW

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On April 08, 2022, the Competition Commission of India ( CCI), in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 36, 57 and 64 of the Competition Act, 2002 ( Act), amended the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009, ( General Regulations) and has updated the Confidentiality Regime that is provided for under Regulation 35 of the General Regulations.

# data[].attributes.headline
Decoded: The India-Australia free trade pact is a win-win for both countries.

# data[].attributes.subject
Decoded: The India-Australia free trade pact is a win-win for both countries.

# data[].attributes.body
Earlier this month, India and Australia signed a landmark bilateral trade pact called the Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement (ECTA) on April 2, 2022.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Decoded: The India-Australia free trade pact is a win-win for both countries.

# data[].attributes.headline
Do strategic interests rule over economic gains in India’s new

# data[].attributes.subject
Do strategic interests rule over economic gains in India’s new

# data[].attributes.body
After a long hiatus, India has begun to engage with trade pacts. In 2022, India has concluded a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement with UAE, a more limited Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement with Australia.

Original Published- Do strategic interests rule over economic gains in India’s new trade pacts?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do strategic interests rule over economic gains in India’s new - Blog View - Ketopia Life

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After a long hiatus, India has begun to engage with trade pacts. In 2022, India has concluded a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement with UAE, a more limited Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement with Australia.
Against this backdrop, Suh... This page displays a blog entry.

# data[].attributes.headline
Are businesses subject to specific compliance requirements for undertaking import and export in India?

# data[].attributes.subject
Are businesses subject to specific compliance requirements for undertaking import and export in India?

# data[].attributes.body
The compliance requirements for undertaking import and export transactions may vary on a case-to-case basis. According to Economic Laws Practice, apart from regular compliances such as obtaining Importer Exporter Code (‘IEC’), Goods and Services Tax (‘GST’) registration, ICEGATE registration, it is also essential to consider the following in case of import or export of goods sold into/from India:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are businesses subject to specific compliance requirements for undertaking import and export in India? - Home

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The compliance requirements for undertaking import and export transactions may vary on a case-to-case basis. According to Economic Laws Practice, apart from regular compliances such as obtaining Importer Exporter Code (‘IEC’), Goods and Services Tax (‘GST’) registration, ICEGATE registration, it is…

# data[].attributes.headline
CCI’s Market Study on the Pharmaceutical Sector

# data[].attributes.subject
CCI’s Market Study on the Pharmaceutical Sector

# data[].attributes.headline
Gift of Brand to corpus of a private irrevocable trust is a non-taxable capital receipt

# data[].attributes.subject
Gift of Brand to corpus of a private irrevocable trust is a non-taxable capital receipt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gift of Brand to corpus of a private irrevocable trust is a non-taxable capital

# data[].attributes.body
Economic Laws Practice offers IBC advisory and lBC litigation assistance. ELP also assists with Rupee and Foreign Currency Debt transactions, corporate debt, restructuring advice and regualtory advice on FEMA. We advise on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

To know more, visit: https://elplaw.in/practicearea/banking-finance/

# data[].attributes.body
Are you looking for the best hospitality lawyers in the country? ELP provides legal advice to the hospitality industry on acquisition of hotel land, construction and development of hotels, structuring of hotel investment, hotel financing, exit of investments, operation and maintenance and hospitality litigations.

# data[].attributes.body
Are you looking for the best Corporate Lawyers in India? Economic Laws Practice offers legal advise in Mergers & Acquistions (M&A), Private Equity & Venture Capital (PE & VC), corporate structuring, tax litigation, company law advice, legal advice on SEBI, MCA, RBI, FDI , DTAA and FEMA.

# data[].attributes.body
ELP Law is one of the best law firm in india, offering solutions to domestic and international clients. . Economic Laws Practice is today a leading full-service law firm in India having offices, law firms in Mumbai, New Delhi, Pune, Ahmedabad, Bangalore and Chennai.

# data[].attributes.body
Economic Laws Practice (ELP) is today a leading full-service law firm in India having offices, law firms in Mumbai, New Delhi, Pune, Ahmedabad, Bangalore and Chennai.

# data[].attributes.body
Elplaw is one of the best Law Firms in India. Economic Laws Practice is today a leading full-service law firm in India having offices, law firms in Mumbai, New Delhi, Pune etc.

# data[].attributes.body
ELP Law is a Top Law Firm in India, which offers most optimum solution in every sector of corporates such as hospitality Industry, banking Industry, Real Estate etc. We have a large experienced team and having offices in Mumbai, New Delhi, Pune, Ahmedabad, Bangalore and Chennai.

# data[].attributes.body
ELP LAW is a leading legal process outsourcing (LPO) company in India which provides cost-effective legal services to its clients to reduce time spent on non-core processes. Contact top law firms in India at +91 22 6636 7000 ☎.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Leading Economic Law Firm | Top Law Firms in India | Legal Services Company

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On January 20, 2021, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) approved the proposed acquisition by Flipkart Investments Private Limited (Flipkart) of a minority stake of 7.8%, on a fully diluted basis, in Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited (Aditya Birla) (collectively, Parties). The relevant market proposed by the Parties was the broad market for B2B sales..

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Services

Trade Regulations and Transactions

ELP has broad expertise in handling advisory and enforcement matters involving trade controls, including export controls and economic sanctions. Our team understands the substantive legal constraints in this area with the key regulatory agencies such as the Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of External Affairs. Our services in the area of international trade controls include:

Assisting companies in developing export compliance procedures and export management systems and procedure reviews;

Advising companies on the export classification of their goods, technologies, software and services;

Drafting of documents and filings before the Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of External Affairs and other allied Ministries;

Drafting and vetting of Agreements to be export control compliant between parties;

Guide companies through export controls due diligence in domestic and multinational transactions;

Conduct internal training and draft manual on export compliance;

Guidance on anti-bribery laws and international trade sanctions;

Representation regarding import and export transactions and acquisitions of all kinds

Trade Proceedings

ELP represents international and domestic clients in proceedings arising in relation to anti-dumping, countervailing, safeguard duties and other trade remedy proceedings initiated by the authorities in India. The firm also represents clients in antidumping and other trade law proceedings initiated by United States, the European Communities and other national jurisdictions. ELP has represented the Government of India in a WTO dispute before the WTO Panel and the appellate body. We have successfully worked with clients in over 100 trade cases representing them in proceedings before the Investigating Authority and all the way up to the Supreme Court of India. ELP also provides advice on trade related issues such as Non-Tariff and Regulatory Barriers, transaction structuring to take advantage of investment treaties as well as valuation and rules of origin matters.

Customs Litigation & Advisory Services

The International Trade & Customs team at ELP advises clients on a wide range of customs compliance matters, including the proper classification and valuation of imported goods, rules-of-origin, the establishment and operation of Free Trade Zones (FTZs) or Special Economic Zones (SEZ), duty entitlement and other export-import schemes and customs issues arising under the WTO Agreement. The team also offers advice on tax structuring for investment and tax optimisation for ongoing businesses. We also provide assistance in relation to policy formation, tariff rationalisation and government advocacy.

Additionally, our team assists clients with complex valuation issues, including issues relating to under-invoicing and over-invoicing , royalty payments and licensing arrangements and circumvention issues.

Trade Policy

In addition to its considerable dispute settlement experience, our International Trade & Customs practice draws on its legal, economic and accounting expertise to advise corporations, industry associations and the Government of India on various aspects of trade and investment policy. The team routinely develops strategies to address trade policy problems that integrate legal, regulatory, commercial, and political considerations to offer our clients solutions without resorting to litigation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Trade Regulations and Transactions ELP has broad expertise in handling advisory and enforcement matters involving trade controls, including export controls and economic sanctions. Our team understands the substantive legal constraints in this area with the key regulatory agencies such as the Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of External Affairs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Corporate Law Legal Advice With Economic Laws Practice

# data[].attributes.subject
Corporate Law Legal Advice With Economic Laws Practice

# data[].attributes.body
Economic Laws Practice (ELP) is the Best Corporate Law Legal Advice in India ELP has broad expertise in handling advisory and enforcement matters involving trade controls, including export controls and economic sanctions. for more details contact us at  +912266367000

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Services

Trade Regulations and Transactions

ELP has broad expertise in handling advisory and enforcement matters involving trade controls, including export controls and economic sanctions. Our team understands the substantive legal constraints in this area with the key regulatory agencies such as the Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of External Affairs. Our services in the area of international trade controls include:

Assisting companies in developing export compliance procedures and export management systems and procedure reviews;

Advising companies on the export classification of their goods, technologies, software and services;

Drafting of documents and filings before the Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of External Affairs and other allied Ministries;

Drafting and vetting of Agreements to be export control compliant between parties;

Guide companies through export controls due diligence in domestic and multinational transactions;

Conduct internal training and draft manual on export compliance;

Guidance on anti-bribery laws and international trade sanctions;

Representation regarding import and export transactions and acquisitions of all kinds

Trade Proceedings

ELP represents international and domestic clients in proceedings arising in relation to anti-dumping, countervailing, safeguard duties and other trade remedy proceedings initiated by the authorities in India. The firm also represents clients in antidumping and other trade law proceedings initiated by United States, the European Communities and other national jurisdictions. ELP has represented the Government of India in a WTO dispute before the WTO Panel and the appellate body. We have successfully worked with clients in over 100 trade cases representing them in proceedings before the Investigating Authority and all the way up to the Supreme Court of India. ELP also provides advice on trade related issues such as Non-Tariff and Regulatory Barriers, transaction structuring to take advantage of investment treaties as well as valuation and rules of origin matters.

Customs Litigation & Advisory Services

The International Trade & Customs team at ELP advises clients on a wide range of customs compliance matters, including the proper classification and valuation of imported goods, rules-of-origin, the establishment and operation of Free Trade Zones (FTZs) or Special Economic Zones (SEZ), duty entitlement and other export-import schemes and customs issues arising under the WTO Agreement. The team also offers advice on tax structuring for investment and tax optimisation for ongoing businesses. We also provide assistance in relation to policy formation, tariff rationalisation and government advocacy.

Additionally, our team assists clients with complex valuation issues, including issues relating to under-invoicing and over-invoicing , royalty payments and licensing arrangements and circumvention issues.

Trade Policy

In addition to its considerable dispute settlement experience, our International Trade & Customs practice draws on its legal, economic and accounting expertise to advise corporations, industry associations and the Government of India on various aspects of trade and investment policy. The team routinely develops strategies to address trade policy problems that integrate legal, regulatory, commercial, and political considerations to offer our clients solutions without resorting to litigation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Trade Regulations and Transactions ELP has broad expertise in handling advisory and enforcement matters involving trade controls, including export controls and economic sanctions. Our team understands the substantive legal constraints in this area with the key regulatory agencies such as the Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of External Affairs.

# data[].attributes.body
Economic Laws Practice (ELP) is the Best Legal services company in India. with the aim of bringing together a diverse set of professionals to deliver effective solutions for clients. for more details contact us at  +912266367000

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With law firm offices in Mumbai, New Delhi, Pune, Ahmedabad, Bangalore and Chennai, we have a team of 200+ qualified professionals who have specialized expertise in diverse practice areas. ELP works closely with leading global law firms based in the UK, U.S., Middle East and Asia Pacific region. This gives us the ability to not only provide a pan India offering but a global service offering as well.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With law firm offices in Mumbai, New Delhi, Pune, Ahmedabad, Bangalore and Chennai, we have a team of 200+ qualified professionals who have specialized expertise in diverse practice areas. ELP works closely with leading global law firms based in the UK, U.S., Middle East and Asia Pacific region.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arbitration Alert | Navigating GST 2.0 | SEBI Allows | Taxation & Other Laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read out the ELP LAW Thought Leadership, to get update on Arbitration Alert | Navigating GST 2.0 | SEBI Allows | Taxation & Other Laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Leading Economic Law Firm | Top Law Firms in India | Legal Services Company

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ELP LAW is a top law firm in India which provides cost-effective Economic and legal services to its clients to reduce time spent on non-core processes. Law firms in Pune, Delhi, Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai.

# data[].attributes.body
The Government of India has on 15th and 16th April 2021 notified proposed Quality Control Orders for certain products. For further details kindly read the attached file.

# data[].attributes.body
Competition Commission of
India (CCI) approved the proposed acquisition by Flipkart
Investments Private Limited (Flipkart) of a minority stake
of 7.8%, on a fully diluted basis, in Aditya Birla Fashion
and Retail Limited (Aditya Birla) (collectively, Parties)

# data[].attributes.body
SUPREME COURT APPOINTS ARBITRATOR AND REFUSES TO ENTERTAIN OBJECTIONS OF NOVATION OF AGREEMENT STATING THAT THOSE ARE MATTERS FOR AN ARBITRATOR TO DECIDE.