India to restore RoDTEP benefits for AA, EOU & SEZ exports from June 1
These benefits had earlier lapsed on February 5, 2025. Their restoration signals the government's ongoing commitment to boosting merchandise exports by offsetting unrefunded embedded duties and taxes. Since its launch on January 1, 2021, the WTO-compliant scheme has disbursed over ₹57,976.78 crore (~$6.8 billion), the Ministry of Commerce & Industry said in a press release.
Indian government has reinstated RoDTEP benefits for AA holders, EOUs and SEZ units from June 1. The move aims to enhance export competitiveness and ensure parity across exporter categories. Earlier withdrawn in February 2025, the scheme has disbursed over ₹57,976.78 crore (~$6.8 billion) since 2021. For FY26, ₹18,233 crore is allocated to support a wide range of HS lines via a digital platform.
For FY26, ₹18,233 crore has been earmarked to support exports under 10,780 HS lines for Domestic Tariff Area and 10,795 HS lines for AA/EOU/SEZ segments. The scheme is operated through a fully digital platform to ensure transparency and ease of access for exporters.
Fibre2Fashion News Desk (KD)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
What Trump is actually doing — and why India needs to press reform & reset
FOR all the disquiet in Delhi over US President Donald Trump's sugar-uncoated remarks, his rough and ready tactics on trade, there needs to be a sobering acknowledgment of two realities: one, like it or not, tough tactics often win on the street in a world that's never stopped being an unfair place; and, two, Trump has prevailed. Most mainstream economists dismissed his approach, warning that his aggressive tariff regime would spell disaster for the US economy. Yet, four months after unveiling his first tariff chart on April 2—dubbed 'Liberation Day'— and his second on Friday, Trump has gained enough ground to claim a significant victory. Like a gambler, who believes he is on a winning streak, Trump is set to roll the dice for far more sweeping changes in the post-war global financial and technological orders. The US President's bilateral negotiations are being described as the 'Trump Round' of trade talks, echoing the major rounds of GATT and WTO negotiations that shaped global commercial order. With the exception of Canada and China, most countries refrained from retaliatory tariffs. Instead, they lined up outside the White House, eager to strike deals before the extended August 1 deadline. India was among the early partners to start trade talks but failed to close a deal. While many major economies and middle powers signed agreements on Trump's terms, India now finds itself in the company of Brazil, Burma, and Switzerland facing steep US tariffs. To its credit, Delhi did recognise trade as central to Trump's second-term agenda. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's February 13 meeting with Trump produced a joint statement affirming the goal of expanding bilateral trade to $500 billion and launching time-bound trade negotiations. India negotiated in good faith and continuously. But the gap between India's negotiating brief and Trump's maximalist agenda proved too wide to bridge. Trump's growing impatience was evident in a barrage of tweets targeting India, while senior administration figures—Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Senator Marco Rubio—spoke publicly about the President's 'frustration' with Delhi's posture. Frustration had also defined Trump's first-term trade engagement with India. Robert Lighthizer, Trump's former US Trade Representative, recounts in his book, No Trade is Free, how difficult it was to conclude even a modest trade agreement with Delhi. He placed the blame not on India's bureaucracy, but on the entrenched interests of the Indian capitalists that fiercely guard the barriers protecting them from external competition. Lighthizer revealed he kept files on top Indian tycoons—whom he labeled 'oligarchs'—to better understand Delhi's negotiating strategy. Trump's complaint about India's 'obnoxious' non-tariff barriers rings familiar. India's neighbours have long voiced similar grievances, although a lot more politely. Yet, the deeper issue may be Delhi's underestimation of the scale and ambition of the Trump Round. Trump's goal was not merely a new bilateral deal here or there, but a systemic overhaul of the global trading order constructed after the Second World War and revamped at the turn of the millennium. On the campaign trail and in office, Trump has argued that the international trade regime has failed the American people—and must be overturned. The strategy, often dismissed as irrational, had a logic of its own. Stephen Miran, Trump's economic adviser, argued in a paper written before the presidential election that Washington could exploit the global export dependence on the US market—and allies' reliance on US security guarantees—to rewrite the rules. Miran describes the post-war free-trade order as a political construct, in which US policy sacrificed domestic industry for Cold War geopolitical goals. He proposed replacing blanket multilateralism with 'strategic pluralism,' forging separate deals with different nations based on US leverage. Before taking over at the Treasury, Bessent, too, hinted at the broader potential of tariffs—not just to reshape trade, but to pressure states on energy, currency, and strategic alignment. For Bessent, Trump's strategy was about a grand rebalancing of the global economy in America's favour. Trump has not held back. He has used tariffs for a variety of objectives. He imposed a 50% tariff on Brazil to weaken President Lula and help his rival Jair Bolsonaro. He is threatening tariffs on Indian and Chinese oil imports from Russia and using economic leverage to push BRICS countries away from their loose talk on de-dollarisation. In the last four months, three core pillars of Trump's strategy have become visible: using tariffs to narrow trade and fiscal deficits; mobilising investment to reindustrialise the US; and compelling trade partners to buy American energy and goods. Even countries with minimal trade ties to the US have had to offer something of interest to the White House. Pakistan's offering was its allegedly 'rich' oilfields. The EU, Japan, and South Korea have made sweeping pledges, including tariff concessions, major investments, and hefty American purchases. Whether these commitments are realised is another question. But they have delivered the optics of victory that Trump craves. What India offered remains unclear—but evidently, it was not enough. If Delhi was unprepared for Trump's counter-revolution in trade, it now faces an even more profound challenge: coping with a broader transformation of the global financial and technological order. Trump is targeting the foundations of the old monetary system. His administration's embrace of cryptocurrencies and stablecoins promises to reinforce the dollar's dominance over the global system and the US ability to leverage it. At the same time, Trump is aggressively deregulating artificial intelligence. At a recent AI summit in Pittsburgh, he announced a sweeping new policy to promote American AI dominance—especially over China—and pledged to invest a significant share of the revenues secured through trade negotiations into AI-driven industrial renewal. Trump's vision of American resurgence hinges less on outsourcing work and insourcing labour and more on technological innovation to restore US industrial might. In short, Trump is not just renegotiating trade. He is leading a radical overhaul of American capitalism by reshoring key elements of the supply chains, promoting a national industrial policy, and investing in tech-centric manufacturing in the United States. As India resumes trade talks with the US later this month, it must recognise this historic moment in the evolution of the global economy. Any negotiating strategy premised on maintaining the status quo at home at a time of radical change abroad will leave India more vulnerable—not just to US pressure, but to the accumulating costs of missing a long-overdue internal economic transformation. This is a moment that demands India to focus on reforming its own economy to make it globally competitive and technologically agile. India owes this to itself – and to its future. (C. Raja Mohan is a contributing editor on international affairs for The Indian Express)
Hindustan Times
14 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Current challenges in the patent system
The introduction of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) as one of the covered agreements under the WTO brought several uncertainties for India's generic pharmaceutical industry. This industry had emerged as one of the country's major sectors after the post-colonial Patents Act was enacted in 1970. The key feature of the 1970 Act that contributed to the growth of this industry was the introduction of a process patent regime, replacing the product patent regime under the Patents and Designs Act of 1911. Alongside this, the period of patent protection for pharmaceutical processes was reduced to seven years from the application date or five years from the grant, whichever was shorter. Patent Application(Photo used for representational purpose) India's acceptance of the TRIPS Agreement as a WTO member meant replacing the process patent regime for pharmaceuticals with a product patent regime and increasing the patent term to 20 years. However, Indian lawmakers developed a TRIPS-compliant patent regime that aimed to protect the domestic pharmaceutical industry's ability to supply affordable medicines even after the process patent system was discontinued from 1st January 2005. While the TRIPS Agreement strengthened patent rules, it also included flexibilities to protect national interests. Indian legislators incorporated these into domestic law to ensure generic companies could continue to operate effectively and maintain access to affordable medicines. Two pivotal features defined this post-TRIPS regime: The prohibition of patent evergreening and the introduction of a robust pre-grant opposition mechanism. These provisions were designed to filter out non-innovative patent claims and uphold the integrity of the Indian patent system. Section 3(d) of the Patents Act is central to India's strategy against patent evergreening. It restricts patent grants for mere discoveries or minor modifications of known substances unless they demonstrate enhanced therapeutic efficacy. The explanation to this section clarifies that derivatives like salts, esters, polymorphs, and isomers are considered the same substance unless they show significant improvements in efficacy. This ensures that only genuine innovations receive patent protection, enabling timely generic entry and fostering price competition. In essence, a patent cannot be granted on a product unless its enhanced efficacy over an existing product can be proven. Originator companies often develop minor modifications to proprietary drugs just before the original patent expires, seeking additional patent terms. This strategy aims to block generic entry, keeping medicine prices high. The availability of generics typically leads to a significant reduction in drug prices, enhancing affordability. Section 3(d) is intended to serve as a safeguard against such strategies, keeping access and affordability at the heart of India's pharmaceutical policy. However, the implementation of this critical provision has left much to be desired. Studies have shown that at least 80% of the pharmaceutical patents granted in India violate the provisions of Section 3(d), in other words, 'evergreening' of patents is tending to become an undesirable reality of India's patent system. Another TRIPS-compliant safeguard adopted by India is the pre-grant opposition system, which allows stakeholders to challenge patent applications before they are granted. This peer-review mechanism helps prevent unjustified monopolies and contributes to a more robust and transparent IP ecosystem. However, data from the Indian Patent Office between 2008 and 2023 indicates that the mechanism remains underutilised. On average, only five pre-grant oppositions were filed per 1,000 applications each year, suggesting limited stakeholder engagement. While concerns have been raised about the possible grant of low-quality patents, strengthening the system remains essential. Enhancing the rigour of patent examination and improving the opposition process through stakeholder awareness, expert input, and procedural transparency can raise the quality threshold for granted patents. This will help ensure that the IP framework supports genuine innovation and aligns with public interest. Despite challenges, India's patent law remains one of the most balanced globally protecting both innovation and public health. Strengthening the system now requires better implementation, including training for patent examiners, wider awareness of public safeguards like Section 3(d), and increased use of pre-grant opposition. With targeted reforms and greater stakeholder engagement, India can continue to promote innovation while safeguarding affordable access to medicines. This article is authored by Biswajit Dhar professor (retd), Jawaharlal Nehru University.
News18
15 hours ago
- News18
Russian Media Says ‘Indian Govt Did Not Ask Refineries To Stop Buying Oil From Moscow'
Last Updated: After Trump claimed India might have stopped buying Russian oil, reports have surfaced, claiming that New Delhi has not issued any such instructions to refineries. Amid Donald Trump's criticism of New Delhi's energy ties with Moscow, the Russian media reported that the Government of India has not issued any instructions to refineries in the country to stop their purchase of oil from Russia or explore other suppliers. 'The government did not ask refineries to stop buying Russian oil," news agency TASS reported, citing a governmental source. 'No instructions were also given regarding oil imports from other sources instead of Russia," the source added. Earlier in the day, news agency ANI reported, citing sources, that the Indian oil refiners continue to source oil from Russian suppliers. 'Their supply decisions are guided by price, grade of crude, inventories, logistics, and other economic factors," sources told ANI. The latest developments come as US President Trump said on Friday (local time) that he had 'heard" India was going to stop buying oil from Russia, describing the reported move as 'a good step". However, he added that he was unaware if it was true. 'I understand that India is no longer going to be buying oil from Russia. That's what I heard, I don't know if that's right or not. That is a good step. We will see what happens," Trump told reporters. More to follow… view comments First Published: August 02, 2025, 14:33 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
