MSME Return

The Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises had vide its notification dated 2nd November, 2018 directed that all companies who get supplies of goods or services from micro and small enterprises and whose payments to micro and small enterprise suppliers exceed 45 days from the date of acceptance or the date of deemed acceptance of the goods or services shall submit a half yearly return to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs stating inter alia the amount of payments due and the reasons for the delay.

So this MSMED notification was to be regulated by the MCA.

Now MCA has vide its order dated 22nd January, 2019 effectuated this notification of MSMED. MCA has gazetted an order called Specified Companies (Furnishing of information about payment to micro and small enterprise suppliers), Order, 2019.

The Order states that every "specified company" shall file in MSME Form 1 details of all outstanding dues to micro or small enterprise suppliers existing on the date of notification of this order i.e. on 22nd January, 2019 within 30 days from the date of publication of this notification i.e. within 21st February, 2019. 

The Order further states that every "specified company" shall file a half yearly return for the period April to September by 31st October and for the period October to March by 30th April, every year. 

So ONE immediate compliance of outstanding micro and small suppliers within 30 days and TWO half yearly returns every year.

What is "Specified company" is not clarified in any of the notification but it is safe to assume that it means that all companies who supplies of goods or services from micro or small enterprises.  

deposits rules - amendment

MCA has vide its notification dated 22nd January, 2019 amended the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits), Rules, 2014. The salient features of the amendments are as follows:

1) Any amount received by a company from Real Estate Investment Trusts will be treated as exempt deposits as per amendment to 2(1)(c)(xviii);

2) In Rule 16, an explanation has been added which says that form DPT-3 shall be used for filing return of deposit or particulars of transaction not considered as deposit, or both, by every company, other than government company.

This means that particulars of exempted deposits such as unsecured loans from directors, their relatives, shareholders (within the limit), inter-corporate borrowings etc. all need to be reported in this format.

Further, fail to understand why government companies are exempted from this requirement. If the government is serious about corporate governance, then in my view even government companies should have been asked to comply.

Rule 16 pertains to a return of deposits to be filed with the Registrar in form DPT-3.

3) Rule 16A has been amended by inserting a sub-rule (3), which states that every company, other than a government company,  shall file a one time return of outstanding receipt of money or loan by a company but not considered as deposits, from 1st April, 2014 to the date of the notification of this amendment i.e. 22nd January, 2019 in form DPT-3 within 90 days from the date of publication of this notification alongwith fees.

Rule 16A pertains to disclosures in the financial statements and Rule 16 pertains to return of deposits. Unable to comprehend why this amendment has been carried out in Rule 16A rather than Rule 16 which is the correct rule for this subject matter, which is yet another return. Especially when they have made an amendment to Rule 16 giving an explanation as above, amendment of this item in the Rule 16 would have been apt. Another feature I have observed is the bad drafting in the sub-rule (3). They have mentioned "outstanding receipt of money or loan by a company" it should have been "outstanding receipt of money or loan received by a company."

It is also not clear, "outstanding" as on what date - 22nd January, 2019 or the last audited financial year ended date i.e. 31st March, 2018.

It is also not clear whether this one time return is required to be audited by the auditors of the company as normally DPT-3 is required to be so audited if filed every financial year.

Here also unable to comprehend why the government companies are exempt from this requirement. Frankly, if the Indian government is serious about corporate governance then they should make an example out of  the government companies in asking them to comply equally with non government companies.

So another one time return to be filed by all the companies in India along with the requisite fees. So an added one time compliance like the KYC one which came in August- September, 2018. This form DPT-3 to be filed within 90 days i.e. on or before 21st April, 2019. Its going to be mayhem in India Inc. because the 2nd round of KYC compliance will start from 1st April, 2019 onwards and that will run for a month and then this compliance will simultaneously run in April 2019. Knowing the tendency and propensity of companies to sleep until the last minute, its going to be mayhem in April, 2019

So much for ease of doing business in India.

filing of resolutions

MCA has amended section 117(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 vide Companies Ordinance 2019 which has been gazetted on 12th January, 2019.

The amended section 117(2) reads as follows:

"(2) If any company fails to file the resolution or agreement under sub-section (1) before the expiry of the period specified therein, such company shall be liable to a penalty of Rs.100,000 and in case of continuing failure, with a further penalty of Rs.500 for each day after the first during which such failure continues subject to a maximum of Rs.25 lakhs and every officer of the company including the liquidator of the company, if any, shall be liable to a penalty of Rs.50,000/- and in case of continuing failure, with a further penalty of Rs.500 for each day after the first during which such failure continues subject to a maximum of Rs.5 lakhs."

What has changed is that earlier the phrase was "shall be punishable with fine", now it is replaced with "shall be liable to penalty". There must be some implications for this change.

Earlier the penalty on the company was ranging from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.25 lakhs, now it is fixed as Rs.100,000/-. The provision of continuing failure penalty has been brought in, which was not there earlier.

Similarly, the penalty for the officer in default was ranging from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.5 lakhs, but now it has been fixed at Rs.50,000/- and here also the continuing failure provision has been introduced.

Section 117 pertains to filing of special resolutions and agreements which is required for key important matters such as special resolutions passed in general meetings, Board resolution for appointment, re-appointment, or renewal of appointment or variation in terms of appointment of managing director. Resolution which requires the company to be would up voluntarily and resolutions passed in pursuance to section 179(3) - these are Board resolutions for important items such as borrowings, buy-back, issue of securities, making calls on shareholders, investment, grant loans or give guarantee or provide security in respect of loans, approve financial statement & Board report, diversify the business, amalgamation, merger, reconstruction, take over etc.

These resolutions are filed in form MGT-14 and the normal time for filing the same is 30 days from the date of passing the resolutions.  

annual return

MCA has vide the Companies Ordinance 2019 which has been gazetted on 12th January, 2019 amended section 92 as follows:

Section 92 pertains to annual return to be filed by every company in India. This is one of the two mandatory annual filings to be done by every company in India. It is required to be filed within 60 days from the date of the annual general meeting or where no AGM is held, within 60 days from the last date on which AGM should have been held. It contains details of the Directors, shareholders, debt, managerial remuneration, share transfers, board meetings, general meetings, etc.

Section 92(5) is the penalty section, which has been modified. The amended section 92(5) states as follows:

"If a company fails to file its annual return under sub-section (4) before the expiry of the period specified therein, such company and its every officer who is in default shall be liable to penalty of Rs.50,000/- and in case of continuing failure, with a further penalty of Rs.100 per day during which the failure continues, subject to maximum of Rs.500,000/-."

What has changed is that earlier the company was subject to a penalty of not less than Rs.50,000/- but which may extend to Rs.500,000/- and every officer of the company who is in default shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months OR fine of Rs.50,000/- which may extend to Rs.5000,000/- or with both.

So the imprisonment has been removed and penalty for both the company and officer in default has been made common i.e. Rs.50,000/-. Penalty for continuing failure has been added, which was not there hitherto.

registration of charges

MCA has made changes to section 77 of the Companies Act, 2013 vide the Companies Ordinance, 2019 which has been gazetted on 12th January, 2019.

Earlier section 77 allowed charges to be filed within 300 days of its creation. Now that 300 days period has been reduced to 60 days. Under the old Companies Act, 1956, the charges were required to be filed within 30 days of its creation failing which the matter has to be settled by filing a extension of time application to the then Company Law Board.

Under the Companies Act, 2013 when it was first enacted, this period was enhanced to 300 days as a measure of ease of doing business.

Now again it has been reduced to 60 days from the date of its first creation.

If the charges are created before the Companies Act Ordinance 2019 then still the charges can be filed within 300 days, but if the charges are created after the Ordinance has come into force, i.e. 12th January, 2019, then 60 days is the time limit. Even for the 60 days, there will be additional filing fees after 30 days.

If the registration is not made within 300 days under the old provision, then it can still be made within 6 months of the Ordinance coming into force with additional filing fees being paid. This means that the government has given sufficient time for filing of the charges, if the charges were created before the Ordinance came into force - 300 days + 6 months after the ordinance

If the charges are created after the Ordinance has come into force and still the form is not filed within 60 days, then on application further 60 days is given, but here the additional fees will be on ad valorem basis. The ad valorem basis will be prescribed by the government.

appointment of KMP

Section 203(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 has been amended vide Companies Ordinance, 2019 as follows:

Section 203(5) after amendment reads as follows:

"If any company makes a default in complying with the provisions of this section, such company shall be liable to a penalty of Rs.500,000 and every director and KMP of the company who is in default, shall be liable to a penalty of Rs.50,000 and where default is a continuing one, with a further penalty of Rs.1000/- per day after the first day, during which such default continues but not exceeding Rs.500,000/-.

The earlier section mentioned penalty of not less than Rs.100,000 on the company, but which may extend to Rs.500,000/- Now it is one figure of Rs.500,000/- All other provisions are the same except the wordings earlier was "shall be punishable with fine" has been replaced with  "shall be liable to penalty".

Unable to comprehend the meaning of this phrase change.

Section 203 pertains to appointment of managing director, CEO or manager, company secretary and chief financial officer in certain specified companies. The specifications are contained in Rule 8 of the Companies (Appointment and Remuneration of Managerial Personnel) Rules, 2014 wherein it is stated that every listed company and every public company having paid up share capital of Rs.10 crore or more shall have whole-time key managerial personnel. It also applies to private company having paid up share capital of Rs.5 crores or more and they are required to appoint whole time company secretary.

External Commercial Borrowings

RBI has vide its notification dated 16th January, 2019 rationalised the ECB framework to improve the ease of doing business.

Salient features of the new ECB framework are as follows:

1. Merging of Tracks: Merging of Tracks I and II as “Foreign Currency denominated ECB” and merging of Track III and Rupee Denominated Bonds framework as “Rupee Denominated ECB”.
2. Eligible Borrowers: This has been expanded to include all entities eligible to receive FDI. Additionally, Port Trusts, Units in SEZ, SIDBI, EXIM Bank, registered entities engaged in micro-finance activities, viz., registered not for profit companies, registered societies/trusts/cooperatives and non-government organisations can also borrow under this framework.
3. Recognised Lender: The lender should be resident of FATF or IOSCO compliant country. Multilateral and Regional Financial Institutions, Individuals and Foreign branches / subsidiaries of Indian banks can also be lenders as detailed in Annex.
4. Minimum Average Maturity Period (MAMP): MAMP will be 3 years for all ECBs. However, for ECB raised from foreign equity holder and utilised for specific purposes, as detailed in the Annex, the MAMP would be 5 years. Similarly, for ECB up to USD 50 million per financial year raised by manufacturing sector, which has been given a special dispensation, the MAMP would be 1 year as given in the Annex.
5. Late Submission Fee (LSF) for delay in Reporting: Any borrower, who is otherwise in compliance of ECB guidelines, except for delay in reporting drawdown of ECB proceeds before obtaining LRN or Form ECB 2 returns, can regularize the delay by payment of LSF as per the laid down procedure.

4. ECB up to USD 750 million or equivalent per financial year, which otherwise are in compliance with the parameters and other terms and conditions set out in the new ECB framework, will be permitted under the automatic route not requiring prior approval of the Reserve Bank. The designated AD Category I bank while considering the ECB proposal is expected to ensure compliance with applicable ECB guidelines by their constituents. Any contravention of the applicable provisions will invite penal action or adjudication under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.

The copy of the RBI notification can be found here

Cartelisation - Dry Cell batteries market

The Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) passed a Final Order imposing penalty on Panasonic Energy India Co. Limited (‘Panasonic’) and Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Limited (‘Godrej’) for colluding to fix prices of zinc-carbon dry cell batteries in India. In respect of Panasonic, CCI granted 100 percent reduction in penalty by invoking the provisions of Section 46 of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘the Act’) read with the Competition Commission of India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009 (‘Lesser Penalty Regulations’).  

The case was taken-up by CCI suo motu under the provisions of Section 19 of the Act based on the disclosure made by Panasonic under Section 46 of the Act read with the Lesser Penalty Regulations. From the evidence collected in the case, which included an anti-competitive clause in the written agreement entered into between Panasonic and Godrej for supply of batteries, and e-mail communications between the key managerial personnel of the two of them, CCI found existence of a bi-lateral ancillary cartel between Panasonic and Godrej in the market of institutional sales of dry cell batteries. It was found that Panasonic, which had a primary cartel with Eveready Industries India Ltd. and Indo National Limited as established in Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2016 by CCI, having fore-knowledge about the time of price increase to be affected by this primary cartel, used such fore-knowledge as leverage to negotiate and increase the basic price of the batteries sold by it to Godrej. Further, Panasonic and Godrej, in accordance with the prices of the primary cartel, used to agree on the market price of the batteries being sold by them, so as to maintain price parity in the market.

Based on the above, CCI found that Panasonic and Godrej have indulged in the anti-competitive conduct of price co-ordination, in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 (3) (a) read with Section 3 (1) of the Act. It was observed that such conduct continued from 13.01.2012, when Panasonic and Godrej entered into a written agreement, till 30.11.2014, when Godrej terminated the said agreement.

Considering all the relevant factors, penalty on Panasonic was levied at the rate of 1.5 times of its profit for each year from January 2012 to November 2014 amounting to INR 31.76 crores, and on Godrej at the rate of 4 percent of its turnover for each year from January 2012 to November 2014 amounting to INR 85 lacs. Also, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, penalty leviable on the individual officials of Panasonic and Godrej was computed at the rate of 10 percent of the average of their income for the preceding three years. As to Panasonic, to the officials of Panasonic also, 100 percent reduction in penalty was granted under the provisions of Section 46 of the Act read with the Lesser Penalty Regulations.

penalty on Chemists & Druggists

The Competition Commission of India (‘Commission’) has found the Chemists and Druggists Association of Baroda (‘CDAB’) to be in contravention of the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act’). A complaint/information was filed with the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC) in 2009 alleging that the CDAB has indulged in restrictive trade practices. The allegations were that the CDAB, through its practices, is limiting and controlling the supply of drugs and medicines in the market by mandating ‘No Objection Certificate’ (‘NOC’) prior to appointment of stockists and payment of ‘Product Information Service’ (‘PIS’) charges prior to introduction of new products in the market by pharmaceutical companies. Besides, there were allegations that CDAB was fixing the trade margins for the wholesalers/retailers. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Commission by MRTPC under the provisions of Section 66(6) of the Act. The Commission after forming a prima-facie opinion directed the office of Director General (hereinafter, the ‘DG’) to conduct investigation into the matter. 

Investigation carried-out by the DG established contravention on part of the CDAB. After detailed enquiry, the Commission passed an order dated 05.09.2012 wherein it was found that the CDAB was imposing the requirement of mandatory NOC and was also fixing margins for the wholesalers and retailers by enforcing the norms laid down by AIOCD. The same was found to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Commission imposed a monetary penalty, in addition to cease and desist directions, under Section 27 of the Act.

Pursuant to an appeal filed by CDAB, the erstwhile Hon’ble COMPAT, vide its order dated 18.11.2016, set aside the Commission’s order dated 05.09.2012 on a procedural issue and remanded the matter back to the Commission for fresh adjudication.

Accordingly, the matter was considered afresh. After allowing CDAB with an opportunity to cross-examine various witnesses, the Commission allowed parties to file their written submissions and conducted a detailed hearing in the matter. Based on the material available on record, the Commission found that the CDAB was indulging in the anti-competitive practice of insisting NOC prior to the appointment of new stockists by pharmaceutical companies and was also fixing/prescribing the trade margins during the relevant time period, in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b) read with Section 3(1) of the Act.

Accordingly, CDAB was directed to cease and desist from indulging in the aforesaid anti-competitive practice. Further, the Commission imposed a monetary penalty of Rs. 32,724/- calculated at the rate of 10% of the average relevant income of CDAB for the relevant period, under the provisions of Section 27 of the Act.

The detailed Order can be seen at the Commission’s website www.cci.gov.in.

Interest Equalisation Scheme for exporters

RBI circular dated 11th January, 2019 wherein they have now included merchant exporters also in the category to be eligible for interest equalisation scheme on post and pre shipment export credit. The merchant exporters will be allowed interest equalisation @ 3% on credit for export of products covered under 416 identified tariff lines under the Scheme.

Basically the exporters will get a rebate on the interest on their borrowings for exports.

This notification is available here

The modus operandi of the interest equalisation scheme is as follows:

A. Procedure for passing on the benefit of interest equalisation to exporters:

1. For the period April 1, 2015 to November 30, 2015, banks shall identify the eligible exporters as per the Government of India scheme and credit their accounts with the eligible amount of interest equalisation.
2. From the month of December 2015 onwards, banks shall reduce the interest rate charged to the eligible exporters as per our extant guidelines on interest rates on advances by the rate of interest equalisation provided by Government of India.
3. The interest equalisation benefit will be available from the date of disbursement up to the date of repayment or up to the date beyond which the outstanding export credit becomes overdue. However, the interest equalisation will be available to the eligible exporters only during the period the scheme is in force.

B. Procedure for claiming reimbursement of interest equalisation benefit already passed on to eligible exporters

1. The sector-wise consolidated reimbursement claim for the period April 1, 2015 to November 30, 2015 for the amount of interest equalisation already passed on to eligible exporters should be submitted to RBI by December 15, 2015.
2. The sector-wise consolidated monthly reimbursement claim for interest equalisation for the period December 2015 onwards should be submitted in original within 15 days from the end of the respective month, with bank’s seal and signed by authorised person, in the prescribed format given in Annex I.
3. The claims should be accompanied by an External Auditor’s Certificate (with stamp and membership number) certifying that the claim for interest equalisation of Rupees…………….. for the month ended ………….. has been verified and found to be strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Government scheme enclosed with the circular DBR.Dir.BC.No.62/04.02.001/2015-16 dated December 4, 2015. Claims for reimbursement will be considered for settlement only after receipt of this certificate.
4. The claims may be submitted to the Chief General Manager, Department of Banking Regulation, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort Mumbai – 400 001.
5. The reimbursement of interest equalisation claim will be made as and when the funds are received from Government of India

Copy of this notification can be accessed from here

For urban co-operative banks, the procedure is as follows:

A. Procedure for passing on the benefit of interest equalisation to exporters:

(i) For the period April 1, 2015 to January 31, 2016 banks shall identify the eligible exporters as per the Government of India scheme and credit their accounts with the eligible amount of interest equalisation.

(ii) From the month of February 2016 onwards, banks shall reduce the interest rate charged to the eligible exporters as per our extant guidelines on interest rates on advances by the rate of interest equalisation provided by Government of India.

(iii) The interest equalisation benefit will be available from the date of disbursement up to the date of repayment or up to the date beyond which the outstanding export credit becomes overdue. However, the interest equalisation will be available to the eligible exporters only during the period the scheme is in force.

B. Procedure for claiming reimbursement of interest equalisation benefit already passed on to eligible exporters:

(i) The sector-wise consolidated reimbursement claim for the period April 1, 2015 to January 31, 2016 for the amount of interest equalisation already passed on to eligible exporters should be submitted to RBI by February 29, 2016.

(ii) The sector-wise consolidated monthly reimbursement claim for interest equalisation for the period February 2016 onwards should be submitted in original within 15 days from the end of the respective month, with bank's seal and signed by authorised person, in the prescribed format given in Annex I.

(iii) The claims should be accompanied by an External Auditor's Certificate (with stamp and membership number) certifying that the claim for interest equalisation of Rupees…………….. for the month ended ………….. has been verified and found to be strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Government scheme enclosed with the circular DCBR.CO.SCB.Cir. No.1/13.05.000/2015-16 dated February 11, 2016. Claims for reimbursement will be considered for settlement only after receipt of this certificate.

(iv) The claims may be submitted to the Principal Chief General Manager, Department of Cooperative Bank Regulation, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, C-7 Bandra Kurla Complex, 1st and 2nd Floor, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051.

(v) The reimbursement of interest equalisation claim will be made as and when the funds are received from Government of India.

This notification is available here

Earlier vide its notification dated 29th November, 2018 the interest equalisation rate was increased from 3% to 5% to units belonging to the MSME sector in respect of pre and post shipment rupee export credit.

This notification is available here

Many Lives, Many Masters

Just finished reading Many Lives Many Masters by Dr. Brian Weiss, a psychiatrist. Its about his treatment of a chronically depressed patient who was having recurring nightmares including fears etc. Normal psychiatric treatment did not help so the Dr. regressed her to hypnosis in which she did reveal past instances of abuse by her father when she was young, which probably explained her torment. But the patient went further into her past lives and starting narrating incidents from it including names, places, scenery etc. This became a fascination for Dr. who kept on probing her including the state when she left her body and floated above it.  Quite an interesting book for those interested in the subject or not so interested also. Goodreads 5/5

GST simplification

Press release by Ministry of Finance on GST simplification.

Major Decisions taken by the GST Council in its 32nd Meeting held today under the Chairmanship of the Union Minister of Finance & Corporate Affairs, Shri Arun Jaitley 

Posted On: 10 JAN 2019 6:18PM by PIB Delhi

The GST Council in its 32^nd Meeting held today under the Chairmanship of the Union Minister of Finance & Corporate Affairs, Shri Arun Jaitley in New Delhi took the following major decisions to give relief to MSME (including Small Traders) among others -

1.   Increase in Turnover Limit for the existing Composition Scheme: The limit of Annual Turnover in the preceding Financial Year for availing Composition Scheme for Goods shall be increased to Rs 1.5 crore. Special category States would decide, within one week, about the Composition Limit in their respective States.

1.1    Compliance Simplification: The compliance under Composition Scheme shall be simplified as now they would need to file one Annual Return but Payment of Taxes would remain Quarterly (along with a simple declaration).

2.    Higher Exemption Threshold Limit for Supplier of Goods: There would be two Threshold Limits for exemption from Registration and Payment of GST for the suppliers of Goods i.e. Rs 40 lakhs and Rs 20 lakhs. States would have an option to decide about one of the limits within a weeks’ time. The Threshold for Registration for Service Providers would continue to be Rs 20 lakhs and in case of Special Category States at Rs 10 lakhs.

3.   Composition   Scheme for Services: A Composition Scheme shall be made available for Suppliers of Services (or Mixed Suppliers) with a Tax Rate of 6% (3% CGST +3% SGST) having an Annual Turnover in the preceding Financial Year up to Rs 50 lakhs.

3.1  The said Scheme Shall be applicable to both Service Providers as well as Suppliers of Goods and Services, who are not eligible for the presently available Composition Scheme for Goods.

3.2  They would be liable to file one Annual Return with Quarterly Payment of Taxes (along with a Simple Declaration).

4.     Effective date: The decisions at Sl. No. 1 to 3 above shall be made operational from the 1^st of April, 2019.

5.    Free Accounting and Billing Software shall be provided to Small Taxpayers by GSTN.

 6.   Matters referred to Group of Ministers:

        i.   A seven Member Group of Ministers shall be constituted to examine the proposal of giving a Composition Scheme to Boost the Residential Segment of the Real Estate Sector.

      ii.    A Group of Ministers shall be constituted to examine the GST Rate Structure on Lotteries.

7.  Revenue Mobilization for Natural Calamities: GST Council approved Levy of Cess on Intra-State Supply of Goods and Services within the State of Kerala at a rate not exceeding 1% for a period not exceeding 2 years.

Gold monetisation scheme

RBI has vide its notification dated 9th January, 2019 made the following amendments to the Gold Monetisation Scheme 2015.

1. The existing sub-paragraph 2.1.1 (iv) shall be amended to read as follows:

“Persons eligible to make a deposit - Resident Indians [Individuals, HUFs, Proprietorship & Partnership firms, Trusts including Mutual Funds/Exchange Traded Funds registered under SEBI (Mutual Fund) Regulations, Companies, charitable institutions, Central Government, State Government or any other entity owned by Central Government or State Government] can make deposits under the scheme. Joint deposits of two or more eligible depositors are also allowed under the scheme and the deposit in such case shall be credited to the joint deposit account opened in the name of such depositors. The existing rules regarding joint operation of bank deposit accounts including nominations will be applicable to these gold deposits.”

Earlier charitable institutions, Central Government, State Government or any other entity onwed by Central or State Government were not allowed to make the deposits under the Scheme. 

For those who want to read the Gold Monetisation Scheme, it can be found here

The objective of the Gold Monetisation Scheme is to mobilise gold held by households and institutions of the country, and to facilitate its use for productive purposes. 

The RBI notification as above can be accessed here

Weekend Miracle

Just finished reading this interesting book "Weekend Miracle" by Ravi Nair. In the initial pages, the book seems heavy, but as you go along it becomes immensely interesting. It is written in the form of a dialogue between four individuals and talks about the power of visualisation in getting to one's goals or achieving something which someone immensely desires. We are all born with no prejudices but with schooling and college and work environment, family and all, become prejudiced towards lots of things with the result that we are not able to achieve our full potential no matter how hard we try. The answer lies deep in subconscious mind. Basically the subconscious mind is powerful so if one is able to use of the power of the subconscious mind he or she can lead powerful lives. Goodreads rating 4/5

AFC Asian Cup Challenge

9.82 kms for the AFC Asian Cup challenge. We are doing a challenge to run x kms for every goal scored by India in the ongoing AFC Asian Cup Challenge in UAE. India is participating in this tournament after more than 4 decades and in the first match itself they scored 4 goals against Thailand. So my commitment is 6 kms for every goal scored by India. That makes it 24 kms to be done. The challenge to be completed within one week of India exiting the tournament or the last date of the tournament, whichever is later. 

Today's run is dedicated to India's win in football against Thailand 

AI/ ML reporting -

SEBI circular dated 4th January 2019 on Artificial Intelligence/ Machine Learning being used by market intermediaries

Background

1. There is increasing usage of AI (Artificial Intelligence) and ML (Machine Learning) as product offerings by market intermediaries and participants (eg: “robo advisors”) in investor and consumer facing products. SEBI is conducting a survey and creating an inventory of the AI / ML landscape in the Indian financial markets to gain an in-depth understanding of the adoption of such technologies in the markets and to ensure preparedness for any AI / ML policies that may arise in the future.

2. As most AI / ML systems are black boxes and their behavior cannot be easily quantified, it is imperative to ensure that any advertised financial benefit owing to these technologies in investor facing financial products offered by intermediaries should not constitute to misrepresentation

Scope definition
3. Any set of applications / software / programs / executable / systems (computer systems) – cumulatively called application and systems,

a. that are offered to investors (individuals and institutions) by market intermediaries to facilitate investing and trading, OR

b. to disseminate investments strategies and advice, OR

c. to carry out compliance operations / activities, where AI / ML is portrayed as a part of the public product offering or under usage for compliance or management purposes, is included in the scope of this circular. Here, “AI” / “ML” refers to the terms “Artificial Intelligence” and “Machine Learning” used as a part of the product offerings. In order to make the scope of this circular inclusive of various AI and ML technologies in use, the scope also covers Fin-Tech and Reg-Tech initiatives undertaken by market participants that involves AI and ML

4. Technologies that are considered to be categorized as AI and ML technologies in the scope of this circular, are explained in Annexure B. 

Regulatory requirements

5. All registered Stock Brokers / Depository Participant offering or using applications or systems as defined in Annexure B, should participate in the reporting process by completing the AI / ML reporting form (see Annexure A).

6. With effect from quarter ending March 2019, registered Stock Brokers / Depository Participant using AI / ML based application or system as defined in Annexure B, are required to fill in the form (Annexure A) and make submissions on quarterly basis within 15 calendar days of the expiry of the quarter.

7. Stock Exchanges and Depositories have to consolidate and compile a report, on AI / ML applications and systems reported by registered Stock Brokers / Depository Participants in the reporting format (Annexure C) on quarterly basis. The said report (Annexure C) shall be submitted in soft copy only at AI_SE@sebi.gov.in (for Stock Exchange) / AI_DEP@sebi.gov.in (for Depositories) to SEBI within 30 calendar days of the expiry of the quarter, starting from quarter ending March 2019.

Full copy of the circular can be accessed here

transmission of securities

SEBI has vide its circular dated 4th January, 2019 clarified that in case of transmission of shares held in demat mode, it shall follow the same procedure in respect of documentation as is specified in case of transmission of shares in physical mode. In physical mode, it has been specified that succession certificate or probate of will or will or letter of administration or court decree etc. as may be applicable in terms of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 are the documentary requirements.

Now in terms of the aforesaid circular, the same documentary requirements shall be applicable to transmission of securities held in demat made. So basically the successors or heirs have to produce the above set of documents to prove their title and submit the same to the depository participant.

Copy of SEBI circular is enclosed here

Brave Param Vir Chakra Stories

Just completed this absolutely brilliant and breath taking book on the soldiers who were accorded the highest gallantry award by the Indian government i.e. the Param Vir Chakra. Written by Rachna Bisht Rawat in the form of independent stories covering each recipient of the award. She has done a painstaking job in researching the subjects, going across to the family members or the battalion to get more details on the soldiers. The narrative she has kept as moving back and forth between the situation of the war and their past childhood, but it is quite engrossing. 

Most of the Param Vir Chakra were given posthumously and few lived to tell their tale. The stories starts from 1947-18 war over Kashmir with Pakistan, touches briefly on Indian soldiers' deployment as part of the UN force in Congo, the disastrous and unplanned Indo-China war of 1962, the second Kashmir war of 1965, the Indo-Pak war of 1971 which resulted in Bangladesh independence, the retaking of the Saltoro ridge in Siachin glacier in 1987, again another disastrous and unwarranted interference by Indian soldiers in Sri Lanka as part of the Indian Peace Keeping Force and the Kargil war of 1999. 

All stories have goosebumps moment in them, but in my view the most daring and courageous feat is that of Bana Singh who was awarded the Param Vir Chakra for the retaking of Saltoro ridge in the Siachen glacier in 1987 a war which was fought at 18000 feat in sub zero temperatures where man can hardly breathe for a few minutes at the most. The most daring breath taking and courageous feat ever in history of mankind. 

These are stories of soldiers who are ill equipped with poor equipment, clothing, helmets, bullet proof jackets, boots, ammunition etc. but who had abundance of courage to not let down their duty.

Goodreads review 5/5 

customer protection

Gist of RBI notification dated 4th January, 2019 on customer protection for authorised non banks pre-paid instruments.

Please refer to paragraph 9 of Statement on Developmental and Regulatory Policies regarding framework for limiting customer liability in respect of unauthorised electronic payment transactions involving PPIs, announced in the Fifth Bi-monthly Monetary Policy Statement for 2018-19 by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

2. As you are aware, a framework for ‘Risk Management’ and ‘Customer Protection’ has already been laid down in paragraphs 15 and 16 of Master Direction on Issuance and Operation of Prepaid Payment Instruments (PPI MD) issued vide DPSS.CO.PD.No.1164/02.14.006/2017-18 dated October 11, 2017 (updated as on December 29, 2017). With a view to further strengthen customer protection for the PPIs which are issued by entities other than banks, the criteria for determining the customers’ liability in unauthorised electronic payment transactions resulting in debit to their PPIs have been reviewed as under:

Applicability

3. The provisions of these directions will be applicable to all authorised non-bank PPI issuers (referred to as ‘PPI issuer’ hereafter). Bank PPI issuers will continue to be guided by DBR.No.Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/2017-18 dated July 6, 2017 or DCBR.BPD.(PCB / RCB). Cir.No.06/12.05.001/2017-18 dated December 14, 2017, as applicable. PPIs issued under the arrangement of PPI-MTS (PPIs for Mass Transit Systems) as per paragraph 10.2 of PPI MD will be outside the purview of these directions except for the cases of contributory fraud / negligence / deficiency on the part of the PPI-MTS issuer.

Categories of electronic payment transactions

4. For the purpose of this circular, electronic payment transactions have been divided into two categories:

1. Remote / Online payment transactions (transactions that do not require physical PPIs to be presented at the point of transactions e.g. wallets, card not present (CNP) transactions, etc.).
2. Face-to-face / Proximity payment transactions (transactions which require the physical PPIs such as cards or mobile phones to be present at the point of transactions e.g. transactions at Point of Sale, etc.).

5. Reporting of unauthorised payment transactions by customers to PPI issuers

1. PPI issuers shall ensure that their customers mandatorily register for SMS alerts and wherever available also register for e-mail alerts, for electronic payment transactions.
2. The SMS alert for any payment transaction in the account shall mandatorily be sent to the customers and e-mail alert may additionally be sent, wherever registered. The transaction alert should have a contact number and / or e-mail id on which a customer can report unauthorised transactions or notify the objection.
3. Customers shall be advised to notify the PPI issuer of any unauthorised electronic payment transaction at the earliest and, shall also be informed that longer the time taken to notify the PPI issuer, higher will be the risk of loss to the PPI issuer / customer.
4. To facilitate this, PPI issuers shall provide customers with 24x7 access via website / SMS / e-mail / a dedicated toll-free helpline for reporting unauthorised transactions that have taken place and / or loss or theft of the PPI.
5. Further, a direct link for lodging of complaints, with specific option to report unauthorised electronic payment transactions shall be provided by PPI issuers on mobile app / home page of their website / any other evolving acceptance mode.
6. The loss / fraud reporting system so established shall also ensure that immediate response (including auto response) is sent to the customers acknowledging the complaint along with the registered complaint number. The communication systems used by PPI issuers to send alerts and receive their responses thereto shall record time and date of delivery of the message and receipt of customer’s response, if any. This shall be important in determining the extent of a customer’s liability. On receipt of report of an unauthorised payment transaction from the customer, PPI issuers shall take immediate action to prevent further unauthorised payment transactions in the PPI.

Limited liability of a customer

6. A customer’s liability arising out of an unauthorised payment transaction will be limited to:

Customer liability in case of unauthorised electronic payment transactions through a PPI
S. No.	Particulars	Maximum Liability of Customer
(a)	Contributory fraud / negligence / deficiency on the part of the PPI issuer, including PPI-MTS issuer (irrespective of whether or not the transaction is reported by the customer)	Zero
(b)	Third party breach where the deficiency lies neither with the PPI issuer nor with the customer but lies elsewhere in the system, and the customer notifies the PPI issuer regarding the unauthorised payment transaction. The per transaction customer liability in such cases will depend on the number of days lapsed between the receipt of transaction communication by the customer from the PPI issuer and the reporting of unauthorised transaction by the customer to the PPI issuer -
	i. Within three days#	Zero
	ii. Within four to seven days#	Transaction value or ₹ 10,000/- per transaction, whichever is lower
	iii. Beyond seven days#	As per the Board approved policy of the PPI issuer
(c)	In cases where the loss is due to negligence by a customer, such as where he / she has shared the payment credentials, the customer will bear the entire loss until he / she reports the unauthorised transaction to the PPI issuer. Any loss occurring after the reporting of the unauthorised transaction shall be borne by the PPI issuer.
(d)	PPI issuers may also, at their discretion, decide to waive off any customer liability in case of unauthorised electronic payment transactions even in cases of customer negligence.
# The number of days mentioned above shall be counted excluding the date of receiving the communication from the PPI issuer.

The above shall be clearly communicated to all PPI holders.

Reversal timeline for zero liability / limited liability of a customer

7. On being notified by the customer, the PPI issuer shall credit (notional reversal) the amount involved in the unauthorised electronic payment transaction to the customer’s PPI within 10 days from the date of such notification by the customer (without waiting for settlement of insurance claim, if any), even if such reversal breaches the maximum permissible limit applicable to that type / category of PPI. The credit shall be value-dated to be as of the date of the unauthorised transaction.

8. Further, PPI issuers shall ensure that a complaint is resolved and liability of the customer, if any, established within such time, as may be specified in the PPI issuer’s Board approved policy, but not exceeding 90 days from the date of receipt of the complaint, and the customer is compensated as per provisions of paragraph 6 above. In case the PPI issuer is unable to resolve the complaint or determine the customer liability, if any, within 90 days, the amount as prescribed in paragraph 6 shall be paid to the customer, irrespective of whether the negligence is on the part of customer or otherwise.

Board approved policy for customer protection

9. Taking into account the risks arising out of unauthorised debits to PPIs owing to customer negligence / PPI issuer negligence / system frauds / third party breaches, PPI issuers need to clearly define the rights and obligations of customers in case of unauthorised payment transactions in specified scenarios. PPI issuers shall formulate / revise their customer relations policy, with approval of their Boards, to cover aspects of customer protection, including the mechanism of creating customer awareness on the risks and responsibilities involved in electronic payment transactions and customer liability in such cases of unauthorised electronic payment transactions. The policy must be transparent, non-discriminatory and should stipulate the mechanism of compensating the customers for the unauthorised electronic payment transactions and also prescribe the timelines for effecting such compensation. PPI issuers shall provide the details of their Board approved policy in regard to customers’ liability formulated in pursuance of these directions, as well as the provisions of paragraph 15 and 16 of PPI MD, to all customers at the time of issuing the PPI. PPI issuers shall display their Board approved policy, along with the details of grievance handling / escalation procedure, in public domain / website / app for wider dissemination.

Burden of proof

10. The burden of proving customer liability in case of unauthorised electronic payment transactions shall lie on the PPI issuer.

Reporting and monitoring requirements

11. The PPI issuers shall put in place a suitable mechanism and structure for reporting of the customer liability cases to the Board or one of its Committees. The reporting shall, inter-alia, include volume / number of cases and the aggregate value involved and distribution across various categories of cases. The Board or one of its Committees shall periodically review the unauthorised electronic payment transactions reported by customers or otherwise, as also the action taken thereon, the functioning of the grievance redressal mechanism and take appropriate measures to improve the systems and procedures.

12. Directions contained in paragraph 16.4 of PPI MD as applicable to non-bank PPI issuers are being modified accordingly.

13. The directive is issued under Section 10(2) read with Section 18 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (Act 51 of 2007), and shall come into effect from March 01, 2019.