- Details
-
Created on Sunday, 03 August 2014 04:21
-
Hits: 4338
(Image Courtesy: IndiaFirst Life Insurance)
The brewing political ruckus over Insurance Laws (Amendment) Bill 2008 has blurred the distinction between the fact and fiction.
News stories indicate that nine political parties including Congress and its UPA allies have given a notice to the Rajya Sabha Chairman demanding that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for scrutiny.
The Finance Minister Arun Jaitley is likely to introduce the revised Bill in Rajya Sabha on 4th August for which a four-hour discussion has been specified by the House’s Business Advisory Committee. He is expected to take the fizz out of the Opposition cacophony during the discussion as the new Government is on a strong footing as for as the facts and the domestic interests are concerned.
The Opposition parties have contended that 97 official amendments to the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Bill 2008 (which is to be enacted as Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act 2014) have changed the character of the proposed law. It thus required fresh scrutiny and this should be done by a Select Committee.
The fact is that 88 official amendments were approved by the Cabinet during the UPA regime taking into account the recommendations and observations of Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Finance. Several changes are of “drafting nature”, which only implies an attempt to improve the text of the Bill.
The UPA and its outside allies should first overcome selective amnesia instead of demanding that the Bill be referred to the Select Committee. The Opposition should recall a release issued by Press Information Bureau on 4th October 2012, announcing the Cabinet decision to approve official amendments to the Bill.
Read more: Opposition Should Overcome Selective Amnesia Before Pitching for Select Committee on Insurance bill
- Details
-
Created on Saturday, 01 June 2019 03:49
-
Hits: 3952
India should put expropriation and taxation hazards faced by foreign companies on the top of new blueprint for economic growth. Preparation of new agenda is customary in India after the formation of new Government or the return of ruling alliance to power.
The reforms agenda for foreign investment should comprise 1) Time-bound negotiation of new bilateral investment treaties (BITs) with 58 countries with which India terminated the flawed ones. BITs serve as beacon for prospective investors.
2) Finalization of model Centre-State investment agreement (CSIA) for effective implementation of BITs. Mooted in February 2016, CSIA is to be signed by Centre (national government) with state (provincial) governments.
3) Setting a limit on dogged litigation waged by Government as defendant against over a dozen arbitration cases launched by foreign companies.
4) Shedding reluctance to be party to certain international pacts such as Energy Charter Treaty and investment facilitation framework being explored under World Trade Organisation (WTO).
5) Reconsider Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2018 keeping in view concern voiced by different quarters over some of the bill’s provisions. Couple this with enactment of a new law to protect both local and foreign investments.
Read more: India Should take Decisive call on 5 keys to Derisk Foreign Investment
- Details
-
Created on Saturday, 06 February 2016 10:20
-
Hits: 4517
(Image Courtesy: freedigitalphotos.net)
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has repeatedly assured foreign investors that retrospective taxation would not be revived. He has also promised predictable tax regime.
An official release has quoted Mr. Modi as stating “retrospective tax was a thing of the past, and a closed chapter.” He articulated his stance on retrotax at India-France Business Summit in Chandigarh on 24th January 2016.
In November 2015 while touring the UK, he reportedly stated: “We want to make sure our tax regime is transparent and predictable. We are also keen to see that genuine investors and honest tax payers get quick and fair decisions on tax matters.”
Mr. Modi's assurances are, however, unlikely to bring comfort to companies that are locked in tax and non-tax disputes under different bilateral economic agreements that India has signed with various countries or trading blocks over the years.
This is because the Government is determined to defend meticulously its stance on retrotax and other disputes with foreign firms at arbitration tribunals and courts. On 20th January, 2016, Finance Ministry invited separate offers from international and domestic legal firms to represent the Government in disputes under 3 types of bilateral pacts.
Read more: India’s Credibility Deficit in Retrospective Governance Persists
- Details
-
Created on Saturday, 14 June 2014 08:21
-
Hits: 6153
Image courtesy: FAO
The subject of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) has occupied the centre stage in the expropriation discourse due to a spate of recent developments across the globe.
This signals the need for redefinition of all elements of ISDS mechanism as well as broadening the definition of expropriation to factor in recent disputes that turned focus on ambiguities or deficiencies in ISDS system as mentioned in the bilateral or global investment protection agreements.
This should also serve as wake-up call for the companies to mitigate their investment risks in foreign countries through purchase of appropriate investment protection insurance cover.
ISDS has been made part of public consultation process in the ongoing negotiations between the US and the European Union (EU) on the proposed free trade agreement (FTA) named the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
EU, which has been negotiating ISDS mechanism on behalf of member States since 2009, explains: “ISDS allows an investor from one country to bring a case directly against the country in which they have invested before an arbitration tribunal.”
The stakes in negotiation of ISDS are high as is evidenced from US Trade Representative’s (USTR’s) perspective on TTIP.
As put by USTR, “Transatlantic investments total $4 trillion, directly supporting seven million American and European jobs, with millions more in indirect jobs. These investments help our manufacturing sector, generating 18 percent of U.S. exports to the world. Furthermore, jobs created by foreign investment tend to pay better than other private sector jobs. That is why we need to build on these achievements and help generate more jobs, growth, and exports through certain, clear, and fair investment rules that encourage even more investment in job- and export-supporting economic activity.”
ISDS has also come under lens during the course of negotiations on Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT)/Bilateral investment promotion and protection agreements (BIPA) or regional FTAs.
In India, ISDS has become the core issue following emergence of about a dozen arbitration cases due to judiciary-induced expropriation and retrospective governance including taxation.
Read more: The world needs to redefine ISDS to safeguard foreign investments; MNCs should be willing to pay...
