India reduces import tax on crude edible oils by 10% to bring down food prices
India halved the basic import tax on crude edible oils to 10 per cent on Friday, the government said, as the world's biggest vegetable oil importer tries to bring down food prices and help the local refining industry.The customs duty applies to crude palm oil FCPOc3, crude soy oil BOc2 and crude sunflower oil.It will effectively bring down the total import duty on the three oils to 16.5 per cent from earlier 27.5 per cent as they are also subject to India's Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess and Social Welfare Surcharge.advertisement
"This is a win-win situation for vegetable oil refiners as well as consumers, as local prices will go down due to the duty reduction," said B.V. Mehta, executive director of the Solvent Extractors' Association of India (SEA).The government did not change the import duty on refined palm oil, refined soyoil or refined sunflower oil, which currently attract a 35.75 per cent import tax.The import duty gap between refined and crude edible oils has risen to 19.25 per cent, which will prompt importers to bring in crude edible oils instead of refined oils and boost the local refining industry, Mehta said.India meets more than 70 per cent of its vegetable oil demand through imports. It buys palm oil mainly from Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, while it imports soyoil and sunflower oil from Argentina, Brazil, Russia and Ukraine.advertisementSandeep Bajoria, CEO of Sunvin Group, a vegetable oil brokerage, said the cut in the basic duty would bring down edible oil prices and help revive retail demand, which has been subdued in recent months.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
The judge's data dilemma in the Google search case
Data played a starring role in the government's successful antitrust suit against accusing it of illegally protecting its monopoly in online search. Now, steps to force Google to unlock its data trove could figure prominently in a ruling on how to address the tech giant's dominance, antitrust experts say. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now On Friday, the federal judge overseeing the case, Amit P Mehta, heard closing arguments in federal court in Washington on what corrective measures, known as remedies, he should order to restore competition. The government's requests include forcing Google to share its search engine results and advertising data with rivals. Justice Department lawyers have repeatedly described data as "the oxygen" for search engines. And in his ruling against Google in August, Mehta recounted in detail how the company harvests vast amounts of data from user searches and web crawling, then stores and analyzes the data to rule the lucrative market for internet search. Google, he noted, collects nine times as much user search data every day as all its rivals combined. And as more data is fed into Google's software, the results that the search engine returns on everything from biology to bluejeans become more accurate and relevant to the person seeking information. Better search performance, in turn, attracts more users and more advertisers, Mehta wrote. It's a flywheel that steadily enhances Google's search and acts as a barrier to competition. "At every stage in the search process," the judge wrote, "user data is a critical input that directly improves quality." His decision on how to fix Google's monopoly has the potential to reshape competition on the internet, particularly as a new age of generative artificial intelligence takes off and is expected to overhaul the way people search for information online. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Tech companies are racing to win consumers over with chatbots and other tools that can answer more sophisticated questions, drawing from vast pools of data. Mehta has already indicated that AI may factor into his deliberations, noting during a recent hearing the rapid development of the technology since the lawsuit went to trial in the fall of 2023. To fix Google's search monopoly, the Justice Department and the group of states that brought the case have recommended a range of sanctions, from simply prohibiting anticompetitive deals with companies that Google pays to make it the automatic search engine to forcing the company to sell off its market-leading Chrome browser. The government's data-related proposal falls somewhere in between. It includes requiring Google to share user search information and license its search index, a database of hundreds of billions of webpages scored by popularity, quality and relevance. In late April, Mehta said he looked at his job as weighing actions across a "remedy spectrum." At one end was a breakup order, he said, while at the minimalist end was a ban on illegal deals with browser and smartphone companies. In the middle were "forward-looking remedies," he said, without elaborating on his thinking. Given the evidence in the case, a data-sharing order would be "a conceptually appropriate remedy," since the exclusive deals increased Google's data advantage, said Douglas Melamed, a former senior official in the Justice Department's antitrust division and now a visiting fellow at the Stanford Law School. Still, a data-sharing project raises its own set of questions. In court testimony, Google emphasized the privacy concerns of passing user search data along to other companies. The government's data proposal also calls for access to software that uses data as an ingredient but was built by Google's engineers. "It looks like an administrative headache -- how much data, how often, and access to Google's crown jewel?" said John Yun, an economist at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. Google has described the government's data-sharing plan as the equivalent of a breakup -- a forced surrender of its intellectual property, allowing competitors to reverse-engineer its technology. "The proposal on data sharing is so far-reaching, so extraordinary," that it "feels like de facto divestiture of search," , CEO of Alphabet, Google's parent company, testified in court last month. The history of forced asset sharing as a solution for monopolistic behavior is mixed. In 1956, as part of an antitrust settlement with the government, AT&T agreed to license its patents, including for transistors, the tiny switches that are the building blocks of electronic circuitry. That opened the door to an independent semiconductor industry in what became Silicon Valley. But the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was intended to increase competition for local telephone service by mandating that companies share network capacity, didn't result in much innovation. Eventually, genuine competition emerged, but it came from mobile wireless and cable broadband companies, said Jon Nuechterlein, a telecom expert and former general counsel of the Federal Trade Commission. Landline voice service has fallen from nearly 100% of households in 1996 to about 25% today. "Outside competition emerged independent of all the regulatory churn," said Nuechterlein, a distinguished scholar at George Washington University's Competition Law Center. Today, AI is the big unknown in search. Chatbots like OpenAI's ChatGPT and Anthropic's Claude, the AI-powered search engine Perplexity, and others are potential Google disrupters. Google itself is investing heavily in AI-enhanced search, which Pichai recently described as "a total reimagining of search." While Mehta has more recently acknowledged the rapid advance of AI, his ruling in August noted that the technology had yet to overtake traditional search. "AI has not supplanted the traditional ingredients that define general search," he wrote. "Importantly, generative AI has not (or, at least, not yet) eliminated or materially reduced the need for user data to deliver quality search results." Some antitrust experts say Mehta's decision could affect search and AI. "The explosion of AI makes it even more important to have strong data-sharing remedies," said Gene Kimmelman, a former senior official in the Justice Department's antitrust division. "AI and search overlap, and both ride on data."
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Time of India
Google says it will appeal court's decision in Search case: Read company's 6-point response to remedies proposed by justice department
Google has announced that t plans to appeal a US antitrust ruling after a federal judge proposed milder remedies than those sought by antitrust regulators to address the company's dominance in online search. The update follows a Friday (May 30) hearing in Washington, where US District Judge Amit Mehta heard closing arguments on how to remedy Google's illegal monopoly in search and related advertising. What remedies DOJ has demanded and what the judge said The Department of Justice (DOJ) and a group of state attorneys general are seeking strong corrective measures, including forcing Google to share search data and stop paying billions to Apple and other smartphone makers to remain the default search engine on their devices. Judge Mehta, however, has suggested less aggressive options than the DOJ's proposal for a 10-year regulatory regime. The DOJ has expressed concern that Google's dominance in search also boosts its competitive edge in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), particularly through products such as Gemini. The DOJ's proposed remedies go miles beyond...: Google by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Homeowners can claim a free boiler upgrade if they live in these postcodes Eco Green Tips Apply Now Undo Google, in a statement posted on X (formerly Twitter), said that it will wait for the decision and believes "the Court's original decision was wrong". Yesterday, we made closing arguments in the DOJ search remedies trial. The DOJ's proposed remedies go miles beyond the Court's decision & would harm consumers, businesses and America's tech leadership. Here are a few key points from our arguments. ⬇️ 1/ DOJ waved off very real privacy issues, saying they'd be resolved later on. In fact, one DOJ lawyer said 'the only thing we can do is give [rivals] more data.' 🤔 2/ When confronted with significant questions left open by their proposals (i.e. how much data should Google be forced to share?), DOJ just said it could all be worked out by a 'Technical Committee' of mostly govt-appointed experts. 3/ The DOJ's proposal reserves the right for the government to decide who gets Google users' data. Not the Court. 4/ The DOJ spent many hours trying to convince the Court to remake the tech sector. Meanwhile it's very clear the AI space is highly competitive today: Countless rivals in the AI space are growing fast & gaining users & distribution without government intervention. 5/ While we heard a lot about how the remedies would help various well-funded competitors (w/ repeated references to Bing), we heard very little about how all this helps consumers. 6/ We will wait for the Court's opinion. And we still strongly believe the Court's original decision was wrong, and look forward to our eventual appeal. Previously in a separate case, the DOJ sought Google's divestment of parts of its ad tech business, specifically Google Ad Manager , which includes its publisher ad server and ad exchange platform. A federal judge ruled that Google unlawfully controlled key parts of the digital advertising market. Powerbeats Pro 2 – Apple's Most Powerful Workout Buds Yet! AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Economic Times
12 hours ago
- Economic Times
Import duty cut on crude edible oils will protect local processors: Industry bodies
Edible oil industry bodies SEA and IVPA have hailed the government's decision to cut basic custom duty on crude oils to 10 per cent, saying the move will discourage imports of finished products and safeguard the interests of domestic refiners. ADVERTISEMENT On Friday, the government reduced the basic custom duty on crude palm oil, crude soyabean oil and crude sunflower oil to 10 per cent from earlier 20 per cent. The effective import duty (including basic custom duty and other charges) on these three products will now be 16.5 per cent, as against 27.5 per cent earlier. With a sharp rise in imports of refined palmolien in the past six months, both industry bodies have been urging the government to increase the duty difference between crude edible oils and refined edible oils. Welcoming the decision, Solvent Extractors Association of India (SEA) President Sanjeev Asthana said, "the government's decision to increase the duty differential from 8.25 per cent to 19.25 per cent is a bold and timely move. It will discourage imports of refined palmolien and shift demand back to crude palm oil, thereby revitalizing the domestic refining sector." This move will not impact the overall volume of edible oil imports and is unlikely to cause any upward pressure on edible oil prices, he said. ADVERTISEMENT "On the contrary, the reduction in duty on crude oil will help reduce domestic prices, benefiting consumers," Asthana said. India imports more than 50 per cent of its domestic edible oil requirement. ADVERTISEMENT India imported 159.6 lakh tonnes of edible oils during the 2023-24 oil marketing year (November to October) valuing Rs 1.32 lakh crore. The basic custom duty on refined oils remains unchanged at 32.5 per cent. ADVERTISEMENT At present, the effective duty on refined oils is 35.75 per cent. The Indian Vegetable Oil Producers' Association (IVPA) President Sudhakar Desai said, "We thank the government for accepting the IVPA recommendation to increase the duty differential between crude and refined edible oil to 19.25 per cent." ADVERTISEMENT It is a significantly bold move towards ensuring Make in India and also protecting the sector from influx of refined oils causing capacity injury to the vegetable oil sector, Desai said. "This is a win-win situation for vegetable oil refiners and consumers, as local prices will go down due to lower duty on crude oils," SEA Executive Director B V Mehta said. India imports palm oil from Malaysia and Indonesia. Soyabean oil comes from Brazil and Argentina. SEA pointed out that the previous import duty difference of 8.25 per cent between CPO (crude palm oil) and refined palmolien had inadvertently incentivized imports of the finished product over the crude form. As a result, during the oil year 2023- 24 (November-October), refined palmolien accounted for over 20 per cent of total palm oil imports, and in the first half of oil year 2024-25 (November 2024-April 2025), its share rose to nearly 27 per cent. On May 29, the C&F price of RBD palmolien was USD 45 per tonne lower than CPO, further encouraging refined imports at the cost of domestic value addition, the SEA added.
