Tag: regulation

  • Bitcoin Leads Crypto Recovery with 1.55 Trillion Dollar Market Cap

    Bitcoin Leads Crypto Recovery with 1.55 Trillion Dollar Market Cap

    Bitcoin rebounded to 77,676 dollars following a 22 per cent rally over 14 days, outpacing Ethereum and XRP in market resilience despite prolonged sector-wide corrections throughout 2026.

    The two-week market surge followed an announcement by the US Treasury that it would double long-end bond buybacks, forcing traders to liquidate roughly 3.3 billion dollars in short positions across crypto derivatives. Ethereum climbed 29 per cent to 2,440 dollars during the same window, while XRP advanced 33 per cent to 1.38 dollars.

    Institutional Inflows Support Spot Valuations

    Institutional demand continues to anchor Bitcoin trading volumes. US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds recorded 242.24 million dollars in net inflows on August 27, extending an uninterrupted nine-day buying streak. Corporate buyers including Strategy and sovereign holders such as El Salvador expanded their balance sheet holdings, constraining circulating liquidity across primary exchanges.

    Ethereum relies on structural supply limits rather than spot ETF velocity. Network validators have staked nearly 47 per cent of total circulating Ethereum, locking up volume as institutional asset managers test tokenized bonds and equities on the network.

    XRP recorded 155.98 million dollars in net inflows across spot funds over a three-week period without a single day of net redemptions. The token’s circulating supply stands near 62 billion coins, giving it an 86 billion dollar market cap compared to Ethereum’s 294 billion dollars and Bitcoin’s 1.55 trillion dollars.

    Legislative Filings and Price Resistance

    Regulatory decisions in Washington now dictate secondary market pricing for alternative tokens. The US Senate faces a cloture vote on the CLARITY Act on September 15, which aims to formally classify XRP as a digital commodity under federal law.

    For digital asset treasuries across Asia and global trading desks, Bitcoin remains the primary defensive allocation during macro tightening cycles. While high-beta assets like XRP gain faster during sharp liquidity squeezes, Bitcoin holds nearest to its prior peak, trading 38 per cent below its October 2025 high of 126,198 dollars compared to a 64 per cent deficit for XRP.

    Traders now track the September 15 Senate vote alongside daily US spot ETF subscription data to gauge whether institutional accumulation can sustain current price floors.

  • US SEC Regulation Signals Greater Clarity for Crypto Assets

    US SEC Regulation Signals Greater Clarity for Crypto Assets

    The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has introduced a new regulatory framework for digital assets, aiming to provide clearer guidelines for the classification and trading of cryptocurrencies. This move is expected to bring substantial clarity to a sector previously marked by regulatory uncertainty, particularly concerning tokens like XRP.

    Legal experts, including those from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, view this regulation as a significant step forward in establishing a more structured environment for the crypto market. The framework addresses key areas such as asset categorisation, disclosure requirements, and market integrity, which could help institutional investors and businesses better navigate the digital finance landscape.

    Implications for Digital Asset Markets

    The new SEC regulation is anticipated to impact how digital assets are treated by financial institutions and technology firms. By defining clearer rules, the framework could foster greater investor confidence and potentially encourage broader adoption of cryptocurrencies within established financial systems. This clarity is particularly relevant for tokens that have faced scrutiny over their classification as securities, offering a pathway for compliance and legitimate operation.

    For retailers and consumer brands exploring blockchain and digital payment solutions, regulatory clarity from a major market like the US can set precedents. Asia-Pacific countries are also developing their own frameworks, and global harmonisation, even if gradual, could simplify cross-border digital transactions and the use of cryptocurrencies in retail.

    Global Regulatory Ripple Effects

    While this regulation originates from the US, its implications could extend internationally, influencing how other jurisdictions approach digital asset oversight. As major economies establish robust frameworks, there is a growing potential for a more standardised global approach to crypto regulation. This development could reduce fragmentation and facilitate international trade and investment involving digital assets, including their use in supply chains and consumer loyalty programmes.

    Several Asian markets, including Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan, have been proactive in developing their own digital asset regulations. The SEC’s move provides another data point for these regions as they refine their policies, potentially accelerating the mainstream integration of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology into various business sectors across Asia-Pacific.

  • SEC Regulation Proposal Drives Bitcoin and Ethereum Price Gains

    SEC Regulation Proposal Drives Bitcoin and Ethereum Price Gains

    Bitcoin and Ethereum saw price increases following an announcement from the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding proposed new regulations for crypto assets. The move, aimed at providing a clearer operational framework for the nascent industry, was positively received by the market.

    As of Wednesday, August 19, 2026, Bitcoin opened at $64,681.22, marking a 0.3% increase from the previous day, and climbed to $64,877.66 in early trading. Ethereum also experienced a boost, opening at $1,916.47, up 0.2%, and reaching $1,936.31 during the same period. These gains come as global financial markets, including those in Asia, continue to watch regulatory developments closely for their impact on crypto adoption and stability.

    New Regulatory Framework Unveiled

    The proposed SEC rules outline a framework for crypto companies seeking to raise capital, introducing two exemptions for crypto-related investment contracts. While allowing for flexibility, the regulations mandate certain disclosures from issuers. Larger offerings will be required to provide financial statements and adhere to ongoing reporting standards.

    A key aspect of the proposal is the provision for certain crypto assets to shed their securities classification and related reporting requirements once a project fulfills its core managerial commitments. This could particularly benefit established networks such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, signalling a potential path to greater regulatory clarity and reduced compliance burdens for mature digital assets.

    Market Performance And Tax Implications

    Despite recent gains, both major cryptocurrencies have faced significant headwinds over the past year. Bitcoin’s current price is down 44.4% year-on-year, while Ethereum has fallen 55.6% over the same period. One week ago, Bitcoin was up 1.8%, and Ethereum rose 1.9%. Over the last month, Bitcoin experienced a slight dip of 0.2%, whereas Ethereum saw a 3% increase.

    The US regulatory body also emphasized that profits from cryptocurrency transactions are subject to taxation. This includes sales of digital assets for more than their purchase price, as well as exchanges between different cryptocurrencies. The tax rate depends on the holding period; assets held for less than a year typically incur higher short-term capital gains rates, while longer holding periods benefit from lower long-term rates. This tax clarity, while not new, continues to shape investor behavior and compliance efforts across financial markets, including Asia where similar tax discussions are ongoing in various jurisdictions.

    The all-time high for Bitcoin was $126,198.07 on October 6, 2025. The all-time high for Ethereum was $4,953.73 on August 24, 2025.

  • Trump Urges Congress to Pass Clarity Act for Cryptocurrency Regulation

    Trump Urges Congress to Pass Clarity Act for Cryptocurrency Regulation

    Former US President Donald Trump has urged Congress to pass the Clarity Act, a bipartisan legislative proposal aimed at establishing clear regulatory guidelines for the cryptocurrency sector. Speaking at the White House on Wednesday, August 19, 2026, Trump emphasized the importance of the bill for maintaining America’s leadership in digital asset innovation.

    The President convened crypto industry leaders, including executives from Coinbase, Kraken, and Robinhood, alongside regulators from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). He lauded the industry’s efforts in fostering commercial markets within the US, stating the Clarity Act would open doors for future innovation and help the country stay ahead of rivals like China.

    This move is particularly pertinent for businesses and investors in Asia who closely monitor global regulatory trends in the digital asset space. The region has seen its own efforts to clarify crypto regulations, with countries like Singapore and Hong Kong actively working on frameworks to attract and govern digital asset businesses.

    Aims of the Clarity Act

    The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act seeks to provide a definitive statutory framework for cryptocurrencies. Its core objective is to end the SEC’s practice of ‘regulation through enforcement’ by clearly defining which digital assets are securities and which are commodities. The bill also incorporates consumer protection measures, allocating approximately $150 million for anti-fraud initiatives and imposing resale restrictions on insiders to curb ‘pump-and-dump’ schemes, where asset prices are artificially inflated before being sold off.

    Currently, the legislation is stalled in the Senate due to partisan disagreements over ethics provisions. It is expected to be reconsidered when the Senate reconvenes on September 15. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong expressed strong support for the bill at the event, noting it would ensure the administration’s progress in this sector endures for decades.

    Political Opposition and Conflicts of Interest

    The Clarity Act faces significant opposition from some Democratic lawmakers, who voice concerns about potential presidential conflicts of interest. Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., criticized the bill, highlighting Trump’s substantial earnings from cryptocurrency ventures. She argued the legislation does not adequately protect investors or the financial system.

    In June, the President disclosed nearly $1.2 billion in income from his crypto businesses in 2025, including $526 million from World Liberty Financial, a venture he co-founded, and over $600 million from CIC Digital LLC, which sells souvenir ‘meme’ coins. These earnings have prompted criticism, with former Trump White House special counsel Ty Cobb suggesting the President’s involvement in these ventures, coupled with policy creation that benefits himself and his family, raises legal and ethical questions.

    Despite political hurdles, the SEC proposed a new Crypto Assets Rule on Tuesday that aims to facilitate capital raising for crypto entrepreneurs in the US. SEC Chairman Paul Atkins affirmed the agency’s support for the Clarity Act, viewing it as a critical step. Similarly, the CFTC is set to hold its first innovation advisory committee meeting on Thursday to discuss its regulatory plans, with Chairman Michael Selig underscoring that clear rules foster confidence, attract investment, and create jobs.

  • Abu Dhabi’s Financial Regulator Issues Urgent Advisory Amid Market Concerns

    Abu Dhabi’s Financial Regulator Issues Urgent Advisory Amid Market Concerns

    The Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), the capital of the UAE’s thriving financial sector, recently hit 23 resident firms with fines totaling 610,000 dirhams (around 166,000 dollars). While the amounts may seem minor, the implications behind them are anything but.

    According to the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA), these penalties stem from breaches of accounting standards introduced back in 2017. Moreover, several of the firms involved also neglected to meet foreign tax compliance regulations put forth in 2022, underscoring a potentially troubling trend.

    No Tax Haven Here

    The FSRA has taken a firm stance, clearly stating on its website that the regulations were designed to align with international frameworks requiring entities to report information about foreign account holders. This is all part of a broader effort to combat tax evasion on a global scale. The regulator highlighted violations related to both the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) and the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).

    The Common Reporting Standard, created by the OECD, aims for the efficient exchange of financial account data for tax purposes worldwide. In tandem, FATCA mandates U.S. financial entities to identify and report on accounts held by American taxpayers, ensuring that no one slips through the cracks when it comes to tax obligations.

    “Robust Regulations” in Play

    Emmanuel Givanakis, CEO of the FSRA at ADGM, emphasized the authority’s dedication to tackling tax evasion. He stated, “We are committed to identifying and addressing practices that fall short of our efforts to combat tax evasion by implementing robust and effective regulations in line with leading global compliance and reporting standards.” This is a wake-up call for firms operating in a landscape increasingly wary of tax dodgers.

    In a world where financial transparency is becoming the norm, it seems the days of tax havens are fading faster than a mirage in the desert. Will companies heed the warning and adjust their sails accordingly?

    Questions & Answers

    What is the total amount of the fines imposed by the FSRA? The FSRA imposed fines totaling 610,000 dirhams (approximately 166,000 dollars).

    What regulations did the fined firms violate? Firms were penalized for violating accounting standards established in 2017 and failing to comply with foreign tax compliance regulations introduced in 2022.

    What two major frameworks are mentioned in the article? The Common Reporting Standard (CRS) and the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) are the two frameworks highlighted.

  • Tencent posts slowest-ever sales rise; regulation impact set to ease

    Tencent posts slowest-ever sales rise; regulation impact set to ease

    Chinese social media and gaming giant posted its slowest ever growth since going public in 2004. The company grew just 8 percent in the fourth quarter. This is reflecting regulatory scrutiny which has affected has hurt its gaming and advertising sales.

    China has frozen game approvals since August last year and curtailed gaming time for under-18s, part of Beijing’s move to strengthen control over its society and industries including technology, after years of unbridled growth.

    This has also led to a slowdown in advertising as businesses have cut spending.

    Tencent Holdings, which gets much of its revenue from gaming and develops games such as ‘Honour of Kings’ and ‘Call of Duty Mobile’, said domestic gaming sales grew 1% in the quarter ended Dec. 31.

    The restrictions on minors were effective as the total time spent by minors on its games sank 88%, Tencent said, adding that the impact of this factor on revenue growth would ease later in the year.

    “As we move into the latter half of 2022 it should cease to impact the revenue growth rate,” Chief Strategy Officer James Mitchell told reporters on a call on Wednesday, referring to the minor-protection measures.

    Tencent President Martin Lau said regulators were still supportive of the gaming industry, adding that the company had a ready pipeline of games for when approvals resumed.

    The company, which also posted its slowest ever annual revenue growth at 16%, said revenue in its online advertising business fell 13% in the fourth quarter.

    It expects its ad business to resume growth in late 2022 after companies adjust to regulatory requirements.

    Total revenue rose to 144.2 billion yuan ($22.63 billion) in the quarter, below an average of 147.6 billion yuan expected by 17 analysts, Refinitiv data showed.

  • Binance Halts Singapore Products

    Binance Halts Singapore Products

    Cryptocurrency exchange Binance has responded to a warning by Singapore’s regulator by removing some of its offerings in the city-state.

    Binance will cease Singapore dollar trading pairs and payment options, according to a blog post over the weekend, alongside the removal of its app from Singapore’s online stores.

    The halt will begin as of Friday and users have been advised to complete all related peer-to-peer trades and remove related trade ads by Thursday to avoid disputes.

    Consumer protection is important to all of us, Binance.com said in a statement. We are ready to assist regulators from around the world and together find the optimal way to set a fair playing field.

    The latest move only relates to Binance.com with no services changes on Binance.sg, Binance’s Singapore entity, according to a spokesperson.

    Binance Asia Services, which operates Binance.sg, recently submitted a license application to the Monetary Authority of Singapore. It is currently exempt from holding a license for the provision of digital payment token services until the review of its license application is completed.

  • China to Step Up Fintech Regulation

    China to Step Up Fintech Regulation

    The People’s Bank of China will introduce new standards in 17 areas, including blockchain, cloud services and artificial intelligence.

    China has plans to step up regulation in 17 areas of fintech to «guide the application of new technologies» applied across the financial industry, according to an article published by state news portal Xinhua.

    Speaking at the 2019 working conference of the National Financial Standardization Technical Committee on Wednesday, Fan Yifei, deputy governor of the People’s Bank of China, said the introduction of new standards is urgently needed to fill shortcomings in key areas, with a particular focus on data security, the publication reported.

    Fan noted that China currently has 65 national financial standards and 252 financial industry standards, which include mobile financial payment client technical specifications, voiceprint identification and more, but financial services and management standards are still weak.

    Explaining the rationale behind the regulatory push, Fan said that high-quality financial development requires high-quality financial standards.

    He also highlighted the need to expedite the internationalization of financial standards, actively carry out financial standardization research, cultivate a new generation of regulators savvy in this field, and to use fintech regulation to modernize financial governance systems and governance capabilities, the report said.

    China recently passed a new law on cryptography aimed to facilitate development concurrently with the country’s central banking efforts to launch its own digital currency, which will be effective January 1, 2020.

     

  • Foreign e-tailers must have registered entity in India: Draft policy

    Foreign e-tailers must have registered entity in India: Draft policy

    E-commerce sites or apps available for download in India must have a registered business entity in the country, according to latest draft e-commerce policy, which also proposes regulation of cross-border flow of data collected by sector players in India.

    According to analysts, the move to make it mandatory for foreign online retailers to register entities in India follows the relatively recent spread and expansion in the country of Chinese e-commerce platforms which do not have an Indian presence.

    These include Chinese portals such as Shein, Romwe and AliExpress and the proposed registration norms come after complaints made to the government by traders’ bodies like the All India Online Vendor Association about Chinese online operators shipping cheaper products to Indian customers as gifts in order to avoid customs duty.

    As per the proposed norms, all foreign e-commerce sites must have a registered business entity in India as the importer on record or as the entity through which all sales in India are transacted.

    The draft policy has also proposed a ban on all parcels designated as gifts, with the exception of life-saving drugs.

    Moreover, as per the draft policy, all data collected by e-tailers in India and stored abroad should not be made available to other business entities outside the country, for any purpose, even with customer consent.

    However, the government will have the right to access the data of Indian consumers stored abroad.

    Restrictions on cross-border flows of data would not apply to data which is not collected in India, business-to-business (B2B) data sent to India as part of a commercial contract between a business entity located outside India and an Indian business entity.

    Software and cloud computing services involving technology-related data flows, which have no personal or community implications and multi-national companies, moving data across borders, which is largely internal to the company and its ecosystem, would not have to follow the regulations.

    New foreign direct investment (FDI) norms, which prohibit the e-tailers from selling products of companies in which they have stakes, came into effect on February 1 despite both Amazon and Walmart seeking a six-month delay in their implementation.

    The second e-commerce draft policy has been welcomed by sector players like Snapdeal and trader associations such as the Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT).

    Snapdeal said the draft policy’s rejection of inventory based e-commerce must be followed by effective implementation of FDI norms to ensure marketplaces do not own or control inventory, directly or indirectly.

    “The recognition of data as a strategic national asset is well-timed and will lead to the development of required regulation in this regard,” a Snapdeal spokesperson said.

    US giants Amazon and Walmart, which recently acquired a 77 percent majority stake in the Indian e-retail major Flipkart, said they are reviewing the draft e-commerce policy and will share their inputs on the proposals in course of time.

    Amazon has been forced to remove an array of products from its India website in order to comply with the new FDI regulations in e-commerce.

  • Vietnam prosecutors support Grab appeal against Vinasun

    Vietnam prosecutors support Grab appeal against Vinasun

    Prosecutors in Ho Chi Minh City have appealed a verdict ordering Grab to pay compensation to domestic taxi firm Vinasun. They want the appeal court to quash the order requiring the Singapore ride-hailing firm to pay VND4.8 billion ($206,000) in compensation for alleged losses and reject all of Vinasun’s demands. Grab violated a pilot transport ministry scheme and government decree for ride-hailing services, according to the verdict.

    But the prosecutors argue this is groundless since Grab is a passenger transport firm licensed by competent authorities under the pilot scheme and its activities did not violate the law.

    They also dismiss the contention that Grab had caused Vinasun losses of nearly VND42 billion ($1.81 million) as one-sided with no practical or legal basis since it was based solely on an assessment by the court-appointed Cuu Long Inspection Company.

    “In reality, Vinasun’s decline in revenue involves many factors such as the corporate governance capability and the government’s policies and laws.”

    “Therefore, Vinasun’s demand for compensation from Grab is completely groundless.”

    They say Grab’s business activities are legal and Vinasun’s decline in revenues and profits have been partially due to consumers switching to Grab as they found the ride-hailing firm’s services to be superior to those provided by Vinasun and other traditional taxi firms.

    “Grab did not violate the law, there is no causal link between Grab’s allegedly illegal activities and Vinasun’s losses, Grab is not at fault.”

    Vinasun filed the suit against Grab at the HCMC People’s Court in June 2017, accusing it of abusing the Ministry of Transport’s pilot scheme and committing violations.

    The trial began last February, but was adjourned several times before the court last December accepted parts of Vinasun’s demands and ordered Grab to pay the compensation. Grab has appealed.

  • Walmart may exit Flipkart due to new FDI rules: Morgan Stanley

    Walmart may exit Flipkart due to new FDI rules: Morgan Stanley

    Retail giant Walmart may exit Flipkart after India’s new Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) norms for e-commerce companies came into force, US investment banker Morgan Stanley has warned. “An exit is likely, not completely out of the question, with the Indian e-commerce market becoming more complicated,” the report by Morgan Stanley said late Monday.

    According to the report, Walmart-Flikkart saga might turn out to similar to what happened with Amazon in China in late 2017.

    “There is a precedent for an exit as Amazon retreated from China in late 2017 after seeing that the model no longer worked for them,” the report read.

    “We estimate that Flipkart derives 50 per cent of its revenue from this category, meaning Flipkart could face meaningful disruption and top-line pressure in the near term,” it added.

    The new FDI rules may require Flipkart to remove as much as 25 per cent products from its platform including smartphones and electronics that constitute a bulk of sales, said Morgan Stanley.

    On February 1, disruption was caused in the e-commerce operations in India of the two companies after the new FDI norms for the e-commerce sector came into effect.

    The norm prohibited the online retailers from mandating any company to sell their products exclusively on its platform.

    In the new policy, the Commerce Ministry also noted that the online retail firms would not directly or indirectly influence sale price of goods and services and would maintain a level playing field.

    Amazon India had to withdraw many of its products and they were listed as “currently unavailable” as the new norms prohibit the e-retailers from selling products of companies in which they have stakes.

    The two companies have together lost market capitalisation of $50 billion.

    Amazon lost market capitalisation of over $45 billion on Nasdaq while Walmart lost over $5 billion on the NYSE.

  • Snapdeal bats for new FDI policy in e-commerce from Feb 1

    Snapdeal bats for new FDI policy in e-commerce from Feb 1

    Leading Indian e-tailer Snapdeal on Tuesday supported the implementation of revised Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) policy on e-commerce from February 1. “Snapdeal supports the immediate implementation of the current FDI policy on e-commerce so that marketplaces are not misused to run inventory operations,” Delhi-based Snapdeal told IANS in a statement.

    The Ministry of Commerce and Industry on December 26 issued revised policy guidelines on FDI in e-commerce.

    The policy revision, which will be in force from February 1, dictates that e-commerce platforms providing a marketplace will not exercise control or ownership over the inventory.

    E-tail majors Flipkart and American online retailer Amazon’s Indian arm, however, sought an extension on the implementation of the new norms, amid protesting voices from retail traders’ bodies against granting the extension.

    “Government policy changes will have long-term implications in the evolution of the promising sector and the whole ecosystem,” American retail giant Walmart-owned Flipkart told IANS through a statement earlier.

    The new norms also barred e-tail firms from allowing any company to sell its products exclusively on their e-commerce platforms alone.

    While Amazon India had said in a statement to IANS that “it has always operated in compliance with the laws of the land”, it did not respond to queries on the changes it may have to make to its business model to suit the new norms.

    On the other hand, the Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has asserted that delaying the execution of the policy will allow the e-tailers to continue with their “dominance over retail trade”.

    “The modus operandi of these e-commerce companies for seeking extension (on implementation of new FDI norms) is to keep delaying fair execution of the policy,” CAIT wrote in a letter to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry this month.

    “They (e-commerce platforms) may continue with their sinister designs of operating all kinds of malpractice including predatory pricing, deep discounting and exclusivity, in order to ensure their control and dominance over retail trade and wipe out the competition,” the letter said.

    The Ministry, however, has not indicated any possible extension of deadline to implement the new norms.

  • Global business leaders raise concerns over e-commerce policy changes in India

    Global business leaders raise concerns over e-commerce policy changes in India

    Several global business leaders have raised concerns over the evolving regulatory challenges concerning the e-commerce sector in India and said they want a stable policy regime to help this space achieve its robust growth and investment potential. According to a report, multiple business leaders attending the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting here said there are confusions in their mind in the backdrop of recent policy changes for e-commerce players having FDI in India.

    They did not want to be named, given the sensitivity of the subject and the evolving nature of the proposed rules, but said they have directly, or through their representatives, raised their concerns with the Government. They wanted to raise the issue directly with Commerce and Industry Minister Suresh Prabhu in Davos, but his plan to come here got changed at the last moment.

    At a session here at the WEF meeting, WTO Chief Roberto Azevedo also said there was a need for a global multilateral framework on e-commerce business.

    India’s FDI policy allows 100 percent foreign direct investment in marketplace model, but investors also want a stable policy and regulatory regime, a senior official of a leading online retailer said.

    An industry lobby group official said there is a fear that certain new rules proposed by the Government could lead to discrimination against investors as this policy is only for foreign players and not for domestic ones in the e-commerce sector.

    Another executive claimed it is being seen as a non-consultative approach even with investors who bring in huge foreign direct investment.

    However, Government officials rejected these allegations and said the new changes seek to safeguard competition and the interest of domestic players. The rules have been made after due consideration and consultations with concerned stakeholders, they added.

    The Commerce and Industry Ministry brought certain changes to Press Note 2 on December 26, 2018 which prohibited e-commerce companies from entering into an agreement for exclusive sale of products along with tightening norms for firms having foreign investment.

    The Government has also barred online marketplaces like Flipkart and Amazon from selling products of companies where they hold stakes and banned exclusive marketing arrangements that could influence product prices.

    The revised policy on foreign direct investment in online retail also requires these firms to offer equal services and facilities to all its vendors without discrimination. The policy would be effective from February 2019.

    In India, the policy as such does not permit FDI in inventory-based model of e-commerce.

    Companies have been seeking more time to implement the changes even as some of them have warned that these substantial modifications in the way they do business pose risks of derailing the e-commerce sector that has been a big job creator.

    Executives from another global retail major said the impact could also be felt by several connected sectors such as advertising, logistics, warehousing and manufacturing.

  • Walmart, Amazon India seek extension of Jan 31 deadline on e-commerce compliance

    Walmart, Amazon India seek extension of Jan 31 deadline on e-commerce compliance

    There is trouble in paradise. The Government’s drastic intervention in e-commerce at the behest of vested domestic interests and the powerful traders lobby has created consternation in the bulge bracket world of e-commerce in India. With the big players having reached out to the Government to give them breathing space on the new compliance measures beyond the January 31 deadline, the Industry ministry has not responded, leading to panic attacks across the board.

    Powerful stakeholders led by Walmart and Amazon from the e-commerce eco system have sought a six-month extension since lakhs of sellers – small and medium-sized – in the market place need to be educated, IT-enabled and connected to meet the statutory audit requirements. Moreover, contracts have to be re-negotiated so that the compliance measures remain ongoing with time being of the essence.

    It is believed that the DIPP or Industry Secretary Ramesh Abhishek, who was earlier encouraging the major players to ramp up their investments in India, has not responded to their pleas and petitions.

    The situation has become precarious primarily because the clarification to press note 2 was even more confusing. On a granular level, the market place cannot have any equity in the seller.

    Hence, Amazon which has five percent equity in Shoppers Stop has to comply with the new standards. The new government directive does not allow private labels, nor does it allow big brands to have commercial tie-ups with the market place. Basically, the rules of engagement have been turned on their head.

    Bain Capital reckons that the heavy lifting e-com players have generated three lakh jobs in India. Over and above this, there are lakhs of vendors.

    Further, the eco system has multiple spin-offs like advertisements, courier companies, logistics companies, supports innumerable manufacturing operations and caters to large scale supply chains. Flipkart has 80,000 employees, 80 fulfilment centres (warehouses), nearly one lakh plus sellers and artisans of all hues across the land. Ditto for Amazon, which has similar numbers across its business spectrum.

    Walmart paid US$ 14 billion for Flipkart stock with a promise of an additional US$ 2 billion in physical structure investment. So, there is a lot riding on these heavy lifters for both know that this is the last frontier in terms of a consumption market, since India consumes 67 percent of its own US$ 2.6 trillion GDP. Interestingly, Walmart runs Flipkart as a stand-alone entity.

    For Walmart this is a priority market and it is keen that the January 31 compliance window deadline is extended. Its commitment to the Indian market can be gauged from the fact that it recently got 100 acres in Bengal for warehousing as a pivot to the northeast market. Hence the size of the commitment is seeing enlargement almost daily.

    It is on the verge of closing another 100 acre fulfilment centre in Telengana to service the southern market. Remarkably, the Indian retail market is estimated to be US$ 650 billion, of which 90 percent is the kirana stores while nearly eight per cent is made up of Indian retail players and only two percent is e-commerce. However, since the biggies in e-com are global behemoths, impediments are being placed in their path.

    At the kernel of the government notification and clarificatory statement is the targeting of e-commerce giants who are quick to retort that they helping small sellers with a channel that is tech-enabled to put their products on the marketplace.

    At the time same time, even as they try and get the government to listen to their litany of woes on immediate compliance, the process of evaluation of sellers will continue and remain ongoing so that they are effectively compliant every single day. The government’s intervention is perceived to be through a non-consultative process and the global giants want more time for compliance and enhanced level of dialogue.

    The audit requirement on the sellers by opening their books to the marketplace in such a short time is reminiscent of the haste in the launch of GST, which threw small businesses out of gear.

    Many of the sellers will now have design IT systems and the marketplace cannot be liable for this. In parallel, there is no clarification on how to conduct the private label business.

  • BMW Korea announces recall of 99,000 additional vehicles

    BMW Korea announces recall of 99,000 additional vehicles

    BMW on Wednesday announced another recall of an additional 99,000 vehicles, with 20,000 of them recalled immediately on concerns of engine fires. The remaining 79,000 will be recalled if replacement parts are found to be faulty. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on Wednesday announced that it has told the German carmaker to follow up with a recall plan that it submitted last week.

    The recall plan followed the investigation results announced by a joint investigation team on Dec. 24 in regard to BMW vehicle catching fire in Korea.

    The investigation team at the time announced that the fires were not only caused by the emission reduction system, or exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system, but also by the intake manifold.

    The 20,363 vehicles that were in the first recall in July last year will be the first in line to be re-recalled, this time to check the intake manifold.

    These are vehicles with EGR modules that have not been replaced.

    The government said it will also inspect 80,000 BMWs to see if they have any leakage problems.

    Last year, BMW recalled 106,000 vehicles after they began bursting into flames last summer.