Saturday, April 29, 2017

Tata-DoCoMo case: Delhi HC okays $1.18-billion damages, Rejects RBI's plea

Tata-DoCoMo case: Delhi HC okays $1.18-billion damages, Rejects RBI's plea

Upholds settlement to realise London Court of International Arbitration's award in favour of DoCoMo

Tata-DoCoMo case


FACTS OF THE CASE

Signalling an end to a long-drawn regulatory tussle, the Delhi High Court (HC) on Friday upheld a settlement agreement between Tata Sons and NTT DoCoMo to realise the $1.18-billion London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) award in favour of the Japanese telecom giant. 
Tata-DoCoMo case


This is a significant development as the DoCoMo settlement is learnt to have been priority for the new Tata Sons chairman, N Chandrasekaran. 

The Tata Teleservices-DoCoMo joint venture (JV) was scripted in 2008 when Ratan Tata was the chairman of the group.
Tata-DoCoMo case

Rejecting the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) intervention in the enforcement proceedings, Justice S Muralidhar pronounced the verdict after coming to the conclusion that there was nothing contrary to any provision of Indian law in the February 2017 settlement plan submitted by the two companies to resolve their dispute. 

“It appears to be a well-settled legal position that parties to a suit, or as in this case, an award, may enter into a settlement even at the stage of execution of the decree or award,” said Justice Muralidhar in a single-Bench judgment. 
Tata-DoCoMo case


Honouring the International Covenants

Friday’s decision held that the issue of an Indian company honouring its commitment under a contract with a foreign entity would have a bearing on its goodwill and reputation in the international arena and have an indubitable impact on strategic relationships between countries. 

It also concluded that a third party (the RBI) could not be allowed to oppose the compromise arrived at between the two companies in such a manner.
Tata-DoCoMo case
Grounds for RBIs Objection

The RBI had opposed the enforcement of the LCIA award in the high court, saying it was void in law, as it had failed to consider the existent regulatory prohibitions and would effectively allow something that could not be done directly to be done in an indirect manner. 

According to the RBI, the award was in violation of Regulation 9 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000 (as amended in 2013), which prohibited the transfer or sale of shares at a price exceeding the market price of shares arrived at by any international valuation methodology. The banking regulator had also said that the award was in violation of Section 6 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, which empowers the RBI to prohibit, restrict or regulate the transfer of any security by a person outside India. 

Stating that the award had allowed a restricted capital account transaction in the garb of a breach of contract, the RBI had claimed that the award (and the settlement agreement) was against the fundamental policy of India and incapable of enforcement in any circumstance. The lawyer for the RBI had also highlighted its apprehensions of the issue becoming a dangerous precedent for similar cases in the future, if the award was eventually enforced.

DoCoMo’s lawyer, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, had opposed the RBI stance by highlighting that the banking regulator could not object to civil proceedings between two private parties for the enforcement of a valid international arbitration award. After initially opposing the enforcement, Tata’s counsel, senior advocate Darius Khambata, had also supported the enforcement in line with their joint settlement agreement and said that the realisation of the award would send a strong signal for future foreign direct investments to come into India.

However , if you go through my earlier blog posting on the heading
“Enforcement of a foreign arbitral award cannot be made in India if it opposes the provisions of FEMA” 


The same Delhi High Court has given a different analysis and findings.

More comments on the contradictions in the above mentioned cases are always welcome. 

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Enforcement of a foreign arbitral award cannot be made in India if it opposes the provisions of FEMA

Enforcement of a foreign arbitral award cannot be made in India if it opposes the provisions of FEMA


On 11 April 2017, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (High Court), pronounced its judgment in a case where the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award was opposed inter alia on the ground that the enforcement of the said award would be contrary to the public policy of India as it violated the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA).

Enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in India


Factual Background

 In 2008, Mauritius-based Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings (Cruz City) entered into a Shareholders’ Agreement (SHA) dated 6 June 2008 with Cyprus-based Arsanovia Ltd. and Mauritius-based Kerrush Investments Ltd. (Kerrush) under which Cruz City and Arsanovia Ltd. agreed to invest in Kerrush, which in turn, agreed to invest in a real estate project captioned as ‘Santacruz Project’ in India. On the same date, Cruz City also entered into a Keepwell Agreement with India-based Unitech Limited (Unitech) and Mauritius-based Burley Holdings Ltd.
Enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in India



(Burley), a wholly owned subsidiary of Unitech. Unitech and Burley, although not parties to the SHA, signed the SHA for confirmation of certain obligations accepted by them. Under Clause 3.9.2 of the SHA, Cruz City was entitled to exercise a ‘put option’ to call upon Arsanovia and Burley, to purchase all equity shares of Kerrush held by it, at the purchase price that yield a post tax IRR of 15% on the capital contribution made by Cruz City (Put Option).

Owing to delays in commencement of the construction of the Santa Cruz Project beyond a specified period, Cruz City exercised the put option under the SHA. However, the put option was not honoured and accordingly, Cruz City moved the London Court of International Tribunal (LCIA) under the SHA as well as Keepwell Agreement.

Enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in India


The LCIA Tribunal passed an award in favour of Cruz City and inter alia directed Unitech and Burley to pay Cruz City the purchase price for the shares held by Cruz City in Kerrush against delivery of all such shares (Award). In view thereof, a petition for the enforcement of the said Award was filed by Cruz City before the High Court. Main Submissions on Behalf of Unitech The enforcement of the Award was opposed by Unitech inter alia on the following grounds:  FEMA, being an enactment of exchange control laws in replacement of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA), would form a part of the public policy of India.

Therefore, the enforcement of the Award would be contrary to the public policy of India in terms of Section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) as it contravened the provisions of FEMA for the following reasons: The obligation under the Keepwell Agreement was in the nature of a guarantee issued by Unitech on behalf of Burley, which was not permissible under the Foreign Exchange Management (Guarantees) Regulations, 2000.

The SHA was structured to ensure a pre-determined return on equity which was prohibited under FEMA as it amounted to Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) on an assured return basis. Reliance was placed on RBI circulars dated 9 January 2014 and 14 July 2014 to contend that a foreign investor could exit the investment made in India only at a valuation as on the date of exit. Further, as per the Foreign Exchange Management (Permissible Capital Account Transactions) Regulations, 2000, the shares of Kerrush could only be purchased at the fair market value of such shares. The Award effectively directed Unitech to invest in the shares of Kerrush, which could not be made without valuation of the shares by a Category-I Merchant Banker/Investment Banker.

Enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in India

 Thus, the Award was in violation of the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of any Foreign Security) Regulations, 2004.  The Award in as much as it directs Unitech to make payment against the delivery of shares of Kerrush, in effect, directs Unitech to make an investment in Kerrush, which was not permissible without the approval of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).  Cruz City had not claimed any relief that Unitech purchase its shareholding in Kerrush. Consequently, no notice was issued to Unitech either from Cruz City or the Arbitral Tribunal in respect of any claim against Unitech.

Therefore, the Award was beyond the relief claimed by Cruz City and without notice to Unitech and hence, its recognition and enforcement ought to be declined in terms of Sections 48(1)(b) and 48(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act. Main Submissions on Behalf of Cruz City  The Award did not require Unitech to purchase the shares of Kerrush but only to pay the purchase price in accordance with Unitech’s obligations under the Keepwell Agreement.  Violation of FEMA would not amount to a violation of public policy under Section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act.

 In any case, there was no violation of FEMA in entering into the Keepwell Agreement.  Further, the question whether any permissions from the RBI were required for remitting of the money recovered from Unitech in the enforcement of the Award, would be a question to be addressed after the amount awarded had been recovered.

 Unitech was precluded from raising any plea to the effect that the Keepwell Agreement was illegal or that the approval of the RBI had not been obtained since, under the Keepwell Agreement, Unitech had expressly represented that the transactions were in compliance with all applicable laws.  Unitech was also precluded from raising the objection that it was not given an opportunity to present its case on the principles of res judicata since it was open for Unitech to raise these issues before the Court in the United Kingdom (UK), wherein it had challenged the Award or before the Arbitral Tribunal.

Decision of the High Court, New Delhi

The High Court rejected the objections raised by Unitech against the enforcement of the Award and decided the issues as follows: On whether Unitech was required to purchase the shares of Kerrush  The premise that the Award requires Unitech to purchase the shares of Kerrush is fundamentally flawed. The Arbitral Tribunal having found that Unitech had breached its obligations, directed it to pay the purchase price. The Award only seeks to enforce Unitech’s obligations undertaken under the Keepwell Agreement. There is no stipulation in the Award that the shares must be delivered only to Unitech. Although, the Award requires Burley and Unitech to pay the purchase price, it does not require that the delivery of shares of Kerrush be made to Unitech and not Burley.

 The payment of purchase price for the shares of Kerrush by Unitech would be on behalf of Burley which is in conformity with the obligations that were undertaken by Unitech in the Keepwell Agreement. On violation of FEMA ipso jure being in conflict with Public Policy  The objections to enforcement on the ground of public policy must be such that offend the “core values of a member State's national policy and which it cannot be expected to compromise”.  A simpliciter violation of any particular provision of FEMA cannot be considered synonymous to offending the fundamental policy of Indian law.

The expression “fundamental policy” must mean only the fundamental and substratal legislative policy and not a provision of any enactment.  There has been a material change in the fundamental policy of exchange control as enacted under FERA and as now contemplated under FEMA. The objective of FERA was to ensure that the nation does not lose foreign exchange essential for economic survival of the nation whereas under FEMA, the focus had shifting from prohibiting transactions to a more permissible environment.

 The enforcement of a foreign award will invariably involve considerations relating to exchange control or remittance outside the country for enforcement of foreign award or the initial agreement pursuant to which award required permission of RBI. However, these concerns can be addressed by ensuring that no funds are remitted outside India from RBI, which addresses the issue of public interest and foreign exchange.  Thus, the High Court held that the question of declining enforcement on the ground of a simpliciter violation of any provision of FEMA cannot be considered synonymous to offending the fundamental policy of Indian Law but, any remittance of money recovered from Unitech in enforcement of Award would necessarily require compliance of regulatory provision and/or permissions.

On whether the Award violated the provisions of FEMA  The Award does not contravene the Foreign Exchange Management (Guarantees) Regulations, 2000 since Regulation 5 specifically permits the giving of guarantees in certain circumstances, including by a company in India for and on behalf of a wholly owned subsidiary. In the instant case, Burley is a wholly owned subsidiary incorporated by Unitech in Mauritius and, therefore, it was entitled to give guarantees for Burley’s business to stand as surety for obligations undertaken by Burley within the limits prescribed in the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of any Foreign Security) Regulations, 2004.

Unitech cannot take the argument that Burley has no business and therefore, Regulation 5 (b) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Guarantees) Regulations, 2000 would not be applicable since it is not bonafide, a complete afterthought and runs contrary to the express representations made by Unitech in the Keepwell Agreement. On whether the SHA provided an assured return.

The Put Option was not an open ended assured exit option and could be exercised only within a specified time and was contingent on the Santa Cruz project not being commenced within the prescribed period.  RBI only restricts assured return instruments brought in India under the guise of equity. However, in the present case, Cruz City is only seeking to enforce its obligations against Burley.

Even if it is accepted that the Keepwell Agreement was designed to induce Cruz City to make investments by offering assured returns, Unitech cannot escape its liability as Cruz City had invested in Kerrush on the assurances held out by Unitech. Hence, even if Unitech may be liable to be proceeded against for violation of provisions of FEMA, the enforcement of the Award cannot be declined. On whether Unitech was precluded from raising the plea that it was unable to present its case.

The principle of res judicata is applicable only where the issue/controversy is finally considered and decided by a ‘court of competent jurisdiction’ and the question whether the award will be recognised/enforced in India cannot be adjudicated by any other forum in any country except the courts of India.

The Learning from the Case

 This judgment rendered by the High Court may have far reaching consequences for other pending disputes on similar issues. The High Court came down heavily on Unitech and observed that it must ‘bear the consequences of violating the provisions of law, but cannot be permitted to escape their liability under the Award’. The message is that parties representing that the transaction is in compliance with all applicable laws cannot be permitted to derogate from their obligations under the contract in the garb of an alleged violation of a provision of law at a later stage. Further, this again reflects the approach of the courts in India to not interfere in the arbitral proceedings and awards.


Courtesy : Sanjeev Kapoor (Partner), Aakash Bajaj (Senior Associate) and Aayush Jain (Associate) of khaitan & Co 

Friday, March 10, 2017

Now 100% FDI is Allowed for B2B E-commerce activities

No. FEMA.387/2017-RB
Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident outside India) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2017

Now 100% FDI is Allowed for B2B E-commerce activities

“(ii E) E-commerce:

a. ‘E-commerce’ means buying and selling of goods and services including digital products over digital & electronic network.

 b. ‘E-commerce entity’ means a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 or the Companies Act, 2013 or a foreign company covered under section 2 (42) of the Companies Act, 2013 or an office, branch or agency in India as provided in Section 2 (v) (iii) of FEMA 1999, owned or controlled by a person resident outside India and conducting the e-commerce business.



c. ‘Inventory based model of e-commerce’ means an e-commerce activity where inventory of goods and services is owned by e-commerce entity and is sold to the consumers directly.

d. ‘Market place model of e-commerce’ means providing of an information technology platform by an ecommerce entity on a digital & electronic network to act as a facilitator between buyer and seller.”



3. Amendment of Schedule 1 In the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident outside India) Regulations, 2000, (Notification No. FEMA 20/2000-RB dated 3rd May 2000), in Schedule 1, in the existing Annex B, the existing entry 16.2 shall be substituted by the following:

16.2
E-Commerce
% of equity/FDI Cap
Entry route
16.2.1
B2B E-commerce activities
100 %
Automatic

Such companies would engage only in Business to Business (B2B) e-commerce and not in retail trading, inter alia implying that existing restrictions on FDI in domestic trading would be applicable to e-commerce as well.
16.2.2
Market place model of e-commerce
100 %
Automatic
16.2.3
Other Conditions



a) Digital & electronic network will include network of computers, television channels and any other internet application used in automated manner such as web pages, extranets, mobiles etc.



 b) Marketplace e-commerce entity will be permitted to enter into transactions with sellers registered on its platform on B2B basis.

 c) E-commerce marketplace may provide support services to sellers in respect of warehousing, logistics, order fulfilment, call centre, payment collection and other services.

d) E-commerce entity providing a marketplace will not exercise ownership over the inventory i.e. goods purported to be sold. Such an ownership over the inventory will render the business into inventory based model.

e) An e-commerce entity will not permit more than 25% of the sales value on financial year basis affected through its marketplace from one vendor or their group companies.

f) Goods/services made available for sale electronically on website should clearly provide name, address and other contact details of the seller. Post sales, delivery of goods to the customers and customer satisfaction will be responsibility of the seller.

g) Payments for sale may be facilitated by the e-commerce entity in conformity with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India.

 h) Any warranty /guarantee of goods and services sold will be responsibility of the seller.

 i) E-commerce entities providing marketplace will not directly or indirectly influence the sale price of goods or services and shall maintain level playing field.

 j) Guidelines on cash and carry wholesale trading as given in S.No. 16.1.2 (stated above) shall apply to B2B e-commerce activities.

 Note: FDI is not permitted in inventory based model of e-commerce
16.2.4
Sale of services through e-commerce shall be under automatic route subject to the sector specific conditions, applicable laws/regulations, security and other conditionalities.


Reference

 G.S.R. 224 (E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 6 and Section 47 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999), the Reserve Bank of India hereby makes the following amendments in the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or issue of Security by a Person Resident outside India) Regulations, 2000 (Notification No. FEMA. 20/2000-RB dated 3rd May 2000) namely:-

Monday, January 23, 2017

Comments and Photos taken at FULL DAY FEMA WORKSHOP HELD AT BENGALURU ON 21 JANUARY 2017 AT HOTEL CHALUKYA , RACE COURSE ROAD , BENGALURU



Comments and Photos taken at Full Day Workshop on FEMA  Held At Bengaluru on 21st January 2017 at Hotel Chalukya 


We enjoy learning from you. Wish you all the very best.-
Naresh Kumar K  - Asst. Manager | Corporate Secretarial & Compliance, Wipro Limited


CS - ASHOK KUMAR TRIPHTHY - PCS - Thank you So much for seminar and also sharing for PPT. I hope the Seminar will helps us  a lot .

CS Suresh Sitaram - Thanks a lot for the sharing your valuable knowledge and expertise.



FORMALITIES FOR THE TRANSFER OF SHARES OF A PRIVATE / UNLISTED COMPANY FROM RESIDENT TO NON-RESIDENT

FORMALITIES FOR THE TRANSFER OF SHARES OF A PRIVATE / UNLISTED COMPANY FROM RESIDENT TO NON-RESIDENT

a) Is the transfer of shares allowed to non-residents?
·         Subject to the FDI Sectoral Cap policy, non-resident investors can invest in Indian Companies by purchasing/acquiring existing shares from resident shareholders.
·         A person resident in India can transfer shares by way of sale under private arrangement to a person resident outside India subject to the FDI guidelines issued in this regard.
·          
b) What are the RBI reporting obligations under FEMA in a case of transfer of shares between resident and non-resident?
·         The transaction of transfer of shares between resident and non-resident should be reported by submission of form FC-TRS to the AD Category – I bank, within 60 days from the date of receipt/remittance of the amount of consideration. The onus of submission of the form FC-TRS within the given timeframe would be on the person resident in India, i.e. the transferor in the case of sale of shares by a resident to non-resident.


c) What are guidelines for valuation of shares in case of transfer of shares of existing companies?
·         In case of unlisted companies/Private Companies, the valuation of shares shall not be less than the fair value of shares arrived at as per the internationally accepted pricing methodology on arm’s length basis to be determined by a SEBI registered Category-I Merchant Banker/Chartered Accountant.
·         The most common methodology used for the valuation of shares is Direct Cash flows method.
·         A certificate from a practising Chartered Accountant/SEBI registered Category-I Merchant Banker for determining the value of shares is required in this regard.

d) What is the method of payment or remittance/credit of sale proceeds in case of transfer of shares between resident and non-resident?
·         The sales consideration in respect of the shares purchased by a person resident outside India shall be remitted to India through normal banking channels.
·         The sales consideration so remitted into India shall be subject to the Know Your Customer (KYC) check by the AD-I Category Bank receiving the remittance.
·          
e) What are the documents required for transfer of shares from resident to non-resident under the existing RBI/FEMA Guidelines?
·         The documents required for transfer of shares from resident to non-resident will be as follows:

1) Share Valuation certificate by a SEBI registered Category-I Merchant Banker/Chartered Accountant.
2) (Share Purchase agreement between the buyer and the seller of shares.
3) KYC documents of non-resident making the remittance of sales consideration.
4) Foreign Inward remittance certificate (FIRC) issued by the recipient bank.
5) Consent Letter duly signed by the seller and buyer or their duly appointed agent and in the latter case the Power of Attorney Document.
6) The shareholding pattern of the investee company after the acquisition of shares by a person resident outside India.
7) Declaration from the buyer to the effect that he is eligible to acquire shares / compulsorily and mandatorily convertible preference shares/debentures/others under FDI policy and the existing sectoral limits and Pricing Guidelines have been complied with.
8) No Objection/Tax Clearance Certificate from Income Tax Authority/ Chartered Account.
f) What are the compliances to be done under the Companies Act’2013 in respect of the transfer of shares?
·         Once the transaction is settled, the transferee or his duly appointed agent shall approach the investee company to record the transfer in their books/registers along with the certificate in Form FC-TRS from the AD Bank branch.
·         The transfer of shares shall be done through form SH-4 (instrument of transfer) duly stamped, dated and executed as prescribed under section 56 of The Companies Act’ 2013 within 2 months from the date of transfer of shares.
·         On receipt of the certificate from the AD Bank (FC-TRS) and duly signed, stamped and dated Form SH-4, the company may record the transfer in its books/registers by delivering the share certificates of all securities transferred within a period of one month from the date of receipt by the company of the instrument of transfer.
·          
g) What is tax implication of transfer of shares from resident to non-resident?
·         The transfer of shares of an unlisted company from resident to non-resident will attract capital gains for the seller.
·         Here the fair market value of shares has to be determined by the prescribed methods.
·         Any sale of shares above the fair market value will be subject to capital gains tax.
·         Capital gains will be calculated as follows:
Capital gains= Price at which shares are sold Less Fair market value
·         The gains will be taxed @ 20% or 30% depending on the whether it is Long term capital gain or short term. Long terms gains are taxed at 20% while short term at 30% (or at the slab rates in case of an Individual transferor).

·         Since, here we are analysing the sale of shares of an unlisted/private company therefore period of holding to determine whether the gains are long term or short term will be 24 months. So, if the transferor held the shares for more than 24 months before transfer, the capital gains will be long term and will be subjected to 20% tax otherwise it will be short term.


Article Courtesy: CA Pratik Anand

Monday, January 16, 2017

Will the Reserve Bank of India honour the Press Note No 7 (2015 series) dated 18.6.2015 issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry thereby treating the investments made by the NRIs will be considered at par with Investments made by Resident Indians?

Will the Reserve Bank of India honour the Press Note No 7 (2015 series) dated 18.6.2015 issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry thereby treating the investments made by the NRIs will be considered at par with Investments made by Resident Indians?

There is always ambiguity when the NRIs invest in Indian companies from their NRO account or from their Indian bank accounts, whether there is a need to report such investments to RBI or not?



To obviate the ambiguity on the subject, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry of Government of India came out with a Press Note No 7 (2015 series) dated 18.6.2015 issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry treats investments by NRIs under schedule 4 of FEMA (Transfer or Issue of Security by Persons Residents Outside India) Regulations  and it will be deemed to be domestic investment at par with investment made by residents.



Press Note also says a copy forwarded to, among others, RBI for suitably incorporating the policy changes in FEMA (Transfer or Issue of Security by Persons Residents outside India) Regulations 2000 and relevant schedules thereof.

However, necessary modification in the Regulations is not yet issued by Reserve Bank of India  as on date as one can learn from by the latest Regulations down loaded from RBI web site.
RBI officials at various branches also say RBI has not accepted Press Note. This is really perplexing!!!

When Prime Minister of India, Mr. Modiji is more interested in NRIs investments in India as proclaimed by him in the recent NRIs Meet at Bengaluru , the attitude of Reserve Bank of India is not tune with the Prime Minister’s anticipations, aspirations and policies.



Will the Reserve Bank of India will come with the immediate notification in confirming the Press Note No 7 (2015 series) dated 18.6.2015 issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry  thereby treating the  investment by NRIs from their NROs accounts or from their Indian bank accounts as investment under non-repatriation basis and will be treated as similar to investments by Indian residents.

It is to be noted when NRIs have transferred the FDI amount from their NRE accounts and if specifically express that they are making the investments with the repatriation benefits , then , investee companies in India , has to report the same to RBI under FEMA.

This will remove doubts on the subject that such investments ( NRIs NRO account or from their Indian bank accounts)  will not require any reporting formalities such as ARF or FC-GPR by investee companies in India.

Will the RBI clarify on the subject on war footing basis?


Monday, January 2, 2017

ONE FULL DAY SEMINAR ON FEMA AT BENGALURE on JANUARY 21, 2017 SATURDAY

ONE FULL DAY SEMINAR ON FEMA AT BENGALURE   on 

 JANUARY 21, 2017 SATURDAY



By R V Seckar, F.C.S, ICSA (UK), LLB


DATE: JANUARY 21, 2017 SATURDAY

FEE: Rs 1000/= per participant including lavish Lunch ¸two tea-breaks and materials


HOTEL CHALUKYA ,


44, Racecourse Road , High Grounds , Sampangi Rama Nagar , 

Bengaluru – Phone 22256576

Payment to be sent to: Axis Bank - Koyambedu branch- Savings Bank Account Number  910010030395067 -IFSC Code : UTIB0001009- Beneficiary Name - R V Sekar

Or

You can pay through your mobile through

SBI BUDDY – 9848915177

Or


BHIM -9848915177@UPI


Morning Session

10 A.M to 11.30 A.M – Various Compliances under FEMAuseful to Compliance officers of Listed Companies , Public companies and private limited companies which has FDI , ECB , ODI , etc.

11.45 A.M To 12.15 NoonHow to Make Compounding Application to RBI? What are all to be included in the pleadings?

12.15 Noon to 1 P.M RECENT AMENDMENTS IN FEMA AND WHAT THE follow-up actions to be taken by the  PROFESSIONALS LIKE COMPANY SECRETARIES , CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS , CMAS & ADVOCATES in compliance of the same

Afternoon Session

2 P.M to 2.30 PM   How to Upload FC-GPR, FC-TRS in the ebiz Portal and what are the practical issues faced by the professionals and how to over-come

2.3O-3.30 AVAILING ECB, MAKING ODI – PROCEDURES , COMPLIANCES

3.30 to 4.30 P.M  -Compliance for Investment by NRI & Foreign Entities and Transfers

4.30 P.M to 5.00 P.MQuestions and answers on the topic discussed in the seminar


Feedback of my full day seminar on FEMA at Chennai held on 17th September 2016- click here


Feedback on my FEMA seminar at Mysore ICSI chapter on 2nd December 2016, click here


Seminar will be handled by

R.V.Seckar, F.C.S, ICSA (UK), LLB, M.com

Director, Chandra Oil & Gas Project Services Private Limited, Kakinada

Interested can contact: 09848915177, rvsekar2007@gmail.com

Please rush your registration as limited seats only available