Maruti says engineers working to mitigate rare earth magnet shortage issue
China currently dominates the global rare earth magnet supply chain, controlling over 90 per cent of global processing capacity.These magnets are essential components across sectors like automobiles, household appliances, and renewable energy.The Chinese government has mandated, from April 4 onwards, that special export licences be required for seven rare earth elements and associated magnets.On demand scenario in the domestic market, Bharti said: "At the beginning of the year, the industry body had given a kind of a guess of 1-2 per cent growth this fiscal. Q1 has not been up to the mark. Q2 has some positives".He noted that the company is expecting the situation to improve in the festive season."There are other positives also, like the monsoon and rural (sales) are holding up. So, we are looking at the second quarter and the festive season with optimism," Bharti stated.Replying to a query on the upcoming Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE)-3 norms, he said the discussions have been proceeding well between industry and government with both sides understanding each other's position quite well.
"It is a complex topic, but there have been sufficient discussions and all the complexibilities are on the table, and it is expected that between one to two months, all of us are hoping that the final revelation will be out, so that we have clarity for for the powertrains starting from first April 2027," Bharti stated.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
32 minutes ago
- News18
China's Birth Rate Is Plummeting: Can Cash Subsidies Reverse A Deepening Demographic Crisis?
Last Updated: If current trends continue, China's population could shrink to levels last seen in the 1950s, UN projections show For the third year in a row, China's population is shrinking. The country recorded a drop of 1.39 million people in 2024, according to the National Bureau of Statistics, bringing its total population to 1.408 billion. This follows an even steeper fall in 2023, when numbers fell by 2.08 million, marking the fastest decline in over six decades. Births are not just falling behind deaths; they're disappearing from the national imagination. Now, Beijing is finally making its move. On July 28, the Chinese government announced a nationwide childcare subsidy of 3,600 yuan (£376) per year for every child under the age of three. The scheme, backdated to January 2025, will also offer partial payouts to children born between 2022 and 2024. Crucially, the subsidies will not count as taxable income or affect poverty assistance eligibility, signalling that the state wants uptake, not bureaucracy. This is a sharp departure from past policy, where the onus of boosting fertility was left to provincial and city-level governments. In the last few years, over 20 regions have launched their own piecemeal incentives — housing discounts, monthly allowances, baby bonuses — but none have managed to reverse the trend. By stepping in directly, Beijing has signalled that it now considers the collapsing birth rate not just a demographic concern, but a national emergency. At stake is not just the country's economic growth, but the future of its labour force, pension systems, and healthcare infrastructure. An ageing China, shrinking at the base and ballooning at the top, risks becoming old before it becomes rich. Why Aren't People Having Children In China? The numbers tell only part of the story. Underneath the decline is a deep and perhaps irreversible cultural shift. First, marriage itself is in decline. Only 6.1 million couples registered marriages in 2024, down from 7.7 million the year before. More young Chinese are choosing to stay single, delay family formation, or reject it altogether. This is not unique to China; similar patterns are seen in South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, but China's size and speed of change make it particularly stark. Second, having children has simply become unaffordable in China. A 2024 report by the YuWa Population Research Institute estimated that raising a child in urban China costs 538,000 yuan (£59,275) till the age of 18, more than 6.3 times the country's per capita GDP. The phrase 'tunjinshou", or 'gold-devouring beasts", is now a popular, if grim, shorthand for children in many urban households. Third, the workplace is often hostile to mothers. Many Chinese women report being pushed out of their jobs or passed over for promotions simply because they had children or took maternity leave. While women are legally entitled to 128 to 158 days of leave (depending on the province), fathers receive only a handful of days. Parental responsibility remains deeply gendered, and the state's leave policies mirror that inequality. Then there is the crushing pressure of modern parenting. High housing costs, hyper-competitive education, and a lack of affordable childcare combine to make family life feel more like a burden than a joy. These factors are especially magnified in China's largest cities, where the cost of living has exploded but real wages and job security have stagnated. What Has Been Tried And Why It Hasn't Worked For years, provincial governments have scrambled to offer incentives. In Inner Mongolia's Hohhot, families with a second or third child are eligible for up to 100,000 yuan (£10,400), paid annually until the child turns 10. The policy also includes free milk for new mothers and a 3,000 yuan dairy product voucher. In Tianmen, parents of a third child can claim a 12,500-pound discount on new homes. Hangzhou has distributed childcare vouchers. Cities like Shenyang and Changchun offer cash subsidies ranging from 1,800 to 3,600 yuan per child annually. These sound generous on paper, but uptake has been low. In most cases, the incentives are dwarfed by the actual cost of parenting. As one mother from Ningxia told Xinhua, the subsidies barely cover basics like baby formula and diapers. For middle-class and working-class families, they are not gamechangers; they are a drop in the ocean. More importantly, these schemes have failed to address structural inequities. From job insecurity and unaffordable housing to unequal leave policies and gendered expectations, the barriers are systemic. In an online poll cited by The Conversation in 2022, nearly 90 per cent of Chinese respondents said they wouldn't consider having more children even if given 12,000 yuan annually, four times what the Chinese government is now offering. Why This Subsidy Might Still Not Be Enough The latest national childcare subsidy may be modest, but it's significant. It marks the first time the Chinese government has directly deployed fiscal tools to encourage childbirth. The rollout, alongside a nationwide promise of free preschool, is designed to relieve pressure on parents in both urban and rural areas. The policy is also cleaner in design, no application hurdles, no tax implications, and broader eligibility, aiming for scale. According to the National Health Commission, nearly 20 million families could benefit. But experts remain sceptical. Yale demographer Emma Zang told Reuters that without sustained investment in affordable childcare, job protections for women, and a more equitable parental leave framework, the effect on fertility is likely to be 'minimal." South Korea offers a cautionary tale. Despite decades of generous baby bonuses, housing perks, and leave policies, its birth rate remains the lowest in the world. Fertility decline, once entrenched, is hard to reverse. Social norms don't snap back. They ossify. A Cultural Reckoning Ahead? If China hopes to slow, let alone reverse, its population drop, it will need more than cash. It will need a cultural reckoning. That means undoing decades of gender inequality in both the home and workplace. It means making parenting, for both mothers and fathers, economically viable and socially supported. And it means acknowledging that the one-child policy didn't just shrink family sizes, it rewired an entire generation's expectations about what family even means. top videos View all The urgency is real. The United Nations projects China could lose 204 million people between 2024 and 2054, and as many as 786 million by the end of the century, returning to population levels not seen since the 1950s. Whether these new policies are a turning point or a last-ditch effort remains to be seen. About the Author Karishma Jain Karishma Jain, Chief Sub Editor at writes and edits opinion pieces on a variety of subjects, including Indian politics and policy, culture and the arts, technology and social change. Follow her @ More Get Latest Updates on Movies, Breaking News On India, World, Live Cricket Scores, And Stock Market Updates. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : china birth rates China One Child Policy China population view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 07, 2025, 15:50 IST News explainers China's Birth Rate Is Plummeting: Can Cash Subsidies Reverse A Deepening Demographic Crisis? 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.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Donald Trump's 2025 tariff timeline: India, China, EU among 69 countries facing heat over oil, tech and power moves
Since returning to office, US President Donald Trump has reignited aggressive trade actions through a series of escalating tariff announcements. His latest move, a 25% tariff on Indian goods due to their links with Russian oil is the most recent in a line of decisions that have rattled markets and international relations. Here's a full breakdown of Trump's tariff rollout since January 20, mapped through key dates and agreements. Initial tariff wave targets Mexico, Canada, and China Trump began his tariff actions on February 1, applying 25% duties on most imports from Mexico and Canada, and a 10% rate on Chinese goods. He cited drug control and immigration issues as the rationale. Two days later, a temporary 30-day pause on tariffs was granted to Mexico and Canada in exchange for commitments on border enforcement. China did not receive a similar arrangement. On February 10, Trump increased steel and aluminum tariffs to 25%. In early March, he confirmed 25% duties on goods from Mexico and Canada starting March 4, while doubling fentanyl-related tariffs on Chinese imports to 20%. A brief exemption for Canadian and Mexican goods under a North American pact followed on March 6. Later that month, he introduced a 25% tariff on imported vehicles and light trucks. Blanket tariffs, temporary truces, and bilateral deals On April 2, Trump imposed a 10% base tariff on all imports globally, while raising duties for selected countries. Seven days later, most country-specific tariffs were paused for 90 days, though the blanket duty remained. Trump proposed a hike on Chinese imports from 104% to 125%, potentially pushing duties to 145%. In May, a limited deal with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer preserved 10% duties on British goods while reducing auto tariffs. A truce with China on May 12 cut US duties on Chinese goods to 30%, while China reduced tariffs on US imports from 125% to 10%. #WATCH | Delhi: On US President Donald Trump's imposition of an additional 25% tariff on India's purchase of Russian oil, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor says, "It will definitely have an impact because we have a trade of $90 billion with them, and if everything becomes 50% more… Trump warned Apple on May 23 of a 25% tariff if production remained offshore. On May 29, a federal appeals court reinstated broader tariff powers after an earlier court ruling had suspended them. Global tariff expansion and India in focus On June 3, steel and aluminum tariffs were raised to 50%. By July 3, a 20% tariff was introduced on Vietnamese exports, with 40% levied on trans-shipped goods. On July 6, Trump posted on Truth Social that Brics-aligned countries would face an extra 10% tariff. July 7 brought letters to 14 nations including Japan and South Korea warning of tariffs between 25% and 40% starting August 1. Additional tariffs were then announced: 35% on Canadian goods (July 10), 19% on Indonesian products (July 15), and 15% on Japanese auto imports (July 22). Trade deals followed with the EU (15% tariff, July 27) and South Korea (reduced tariffs to 15%, July 30). On the same day, Trump imposed a 25% tariff on Indian goods and 50% on most Brazilian imports, while giving softer terms to some sectors. A 50% duty on copper wiring and pipes was also scheduled for August 1. Donald Trump's 'substantial tariff' plan for India! #TrumpTariffs By July 31, he signed an executive order imposing tariffs ranging from 10% to 41% on 69 trading partners. A separate order raised fentanyl-linked tariffs on Canadian goods from 25% to 35%. Mexico received a 90-day reprieve from a 30% tariff to allow trade negotiations. On August 6, Trump finalized a 25% tariff on Indian goods, citing indirect imports of Russian oil as the reason.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump's New Tax Is in the Mail
Proponents of tax increases on others seldom like to pay them personally. Tariffs are no different. The White House claims its tariff revenue is coming from foreign countries, but Americans will soon pay new levies on small packages from abroad because of an executive order President Trump signed last week. On Aug. 29, the U.S. will end its de minimis exemption, which grants Americans a tax break for small mail-order purchases from abroad. For the first time since 1938, international packages will arrive with a tariff bill to be paid by the recipient. That means your next eBay purchase from Europe will incur a 15% tax. Your online coffee order from Brazil will face a 50% markup. And everyday purchases from Amazon Haul, or its Chinese competitor Temu, will come with a surcharge matching the tariff on its origin country. If a postal carrier isn't equipped to calculate the fee according to Mr. Trump's ever-changing tariff schedule, the new tax is a minimum $80 flat rate per package. In total, Mr. Trump's order will put tariffs on the estimated 1.36 billion packages that Americans receive every year from online purchases that were previously tax-exempt. Tax hikes are seldom rewarded at the ballot box. That's why the White House is trying to justify its order by saying the de minimis exemption is abused to send fentanyl and other synthetic opioids undetected. The vast majority of fentanyl smuggled into the U.S. comes from one country: Mexico. But Mr. Trump is ending the de minimis exemption for packages from all countries. Although fentanyl is a deadly drug, there's no evidence that taxing worldwide e-commerce will stop drugs from entering the U.S. Mr. Trump's new package tax is part of a global protectionist resurgence, and we've already seen the pitfalls of the strategy across the Atlantic. The European Union has been targeting Temu and Shein, another low-cost Chinese platform, under the guise of 'consumer protection.' The EU alleges that these platforms distribute 'illegal' goods. But, in many cases, 'illegality' means little more than failing to meet the EU's notoriously complex product-labeling regulations or falling short of its Byzantine labor and environmental rules. After toying with an end to the de minimis exemption, the EU is now considering a €2-a-package handling fee. This is less dramatic than Mr. Trump's measure, but it would apply on top of a stricter enforcement of the EU standards. In the U.S. and Europe, misdiagnosed emergencies and so-called safety measures are being used to obscure unpopular tax and regulatory agendas. Mr. Trump's e-commerce tax will fall on Americans despite his claims that tariffs only burden foreign countries. For the EU, the erosion of de minimis has become a back door to force global adherence to its own 'environmental, social, and digital standards.' If a politician's true aim is to tax, regulate and restrict consumer choice, he should drop the charade that he's doing it for our good. Mr. Magness is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute. Mr. Mingardi is a professor of the history of political thought at IULM University and Director of Istituto Bruno Leoni, Italy's free-market think tank.
