Should india permit fdi in retail sector

Subsequent investment in backend infrastructure would be made by the MBRT retailer as needed, depending upon its business requirements.

This valuation refers to the value at the time of installation, without providing for depreciation. Sourcing from agricultural co-operatives and farmers co-operatives would also be considered in this category. Thereafter, it would have to be met on an annual basis. Accordingly, the investors shall maintain accounts, duly certified by statutory auditors. Andhra Pradesh 2. Assam 3.

Delhi 4. Haryana 5. Himachal Pradesh 6. Karnataka 8. Maharashtra 9. Manipur Rajasthan Uttarakhand Maintenance and Repair organizations; flying training institutes; and technical training institutions. The onus for ensuring compliance with this condition will rest with the Indian entity carrying out singlebrand product retail trading in India.

The requisite evidence should be filed with the RBI for the automatic route and to competent authority for cases involving approval. The quantum of domestic sourcing will be self-certified by the company, to be subsequently checked, by statutory auditors, from the duly certified accounts which the company will be required to maintain.

Nifty 18, Zomato Ltd. Market Watch. ET NOW. Brand Solutions. Video series featuring innovators. ET Financial Inclusion Summit. Malaria Mukt Bharat. Wealth Wise Series How they can help in wealth creation. Honouring Exemplary Boards. Deep Dive Into Cryptocurrency. ET Markets Conclave — Cryptocurrency. There is no proposal under consideration of the Government to increase Foreign Direct Investment FDI in multi brand retail sector in the country. The retail market sector depends on a number of factors, including FDI.

However, FDI is largely a matter of private business decisions. Inexplicably, the Indian government discriminates between foreign funded e-commerce marketplaces and domestic funded e-commerce marketplaces.

Similarly, foreign-funded entities operating as marketplaces have to comply with certain prescribed conditions, however, domestic-funded marketplaces are exempted from such requirements. Ostensibly, the intent for restrictions on the inventory-based model is to protect the conventional brick and mortar stores from the deep-pocketed e-commerce marketplace entities.

However, there is then an inherent fallacy in the discrimination between foreign funded and domestic funded e-commerce entities, as there is no reason to believe that deep-pocketed domestic players cannot cause equivalent harm to the conventional brick and mortar stores. While brick and mortar stores have some natural limitations such as narrow geographical reach, limitation on inventory and variety of items stocked, high maintenance cost, lack of access to consumer data etc.

For instance, consider the pharmaceutical sector, where offline pharmacy shops are required to comply with various conditions such as maintaining adequate storage requirements for different drugs, licensing requirement for selling specific drugs, selling certain drugs only under the personal supervision of registered pharmacist, etc.

Even assuming these limitations are applicable, it would be practically very difficult to ensure that they are actually complied with. Such differential applicability of legal regulations has made it tougher for physical stores to effectively compete with their online counterparts.

As such, a uniform set of regulations applicable to both markets may prove to be beneficial for the retail industry in India. However, no FDI is permitted in e-commerce multi-brand retail.