CA Kamal Garg
The Cabinet has vide PRESS RELEASE, DATED 14-9-2012, approved the proposal of the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion for amendment of the existing policy on Foreign Direct Investment in Single-Brand Product Retail Trading.
Vide Press Note 1 (2012 Series) dated 10-1-2012, Government had permitted FDI, up to 100%, in single brand product retail trading, subject to specified conditions, including, interalia, the conditions that:
(i) The foreign investor should be the owner of the brand.
(ii) In respect of proposals involving FDI beyond 51%, 30% sourcing would mandatorily have to be done from SMEs/ village and cottage industries artisans and craftsmen. ‘Small industries’ would be defined as industries which have a total investment in plant & machinery not exceeding US $ 1.00 million. This valuation refers to the value at the time of installation, without providing for depreciation. Further, if at any point in time, this valuation is exceeded, the industry shall not qualify as a ‘small industry’ for this purpose. The compliance of this condition will be ensured through self-certification by the company, which could be subsequently checked, by statutory auditors, from the duly certified accounts, which the investors will be required to maintain.
The CCEA has approved modification of the above mentioned conditions, for the activity of single brand product retail trading, as under:
(i) Only one non-resident entity, whether owner of the brand or otherwise, shall be permitted to undertake single brand product retail trading in the country, for the specific brand, through a legally tenable agreement, with the brand owner for undertaking single brand product retail trading in respect of the specific brand for which approval is being sought. The onus for ensuring compliance with this condition shall rest with the Indian entity carrying out single-brand product retail trading in India. The investing entity shall provide evidence to this effect at the time of seeking approval, including a copy of the licensing/ franchise/sub-licence agreement, specifically indicating compliance with the above condition.
(ii) In respect of proposals involving FDI beyond 51%, sourcing of 30%, of the value of goods purchased, will be done from India, preferably from MSMEs, village and cottage industries, artisans and craftsmen, in all sectors, where it is feasible. 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. For the purpose of ascertaining the sourcing requirement, the relevant entity would be the company, incorporated in India, which is the recipient of FDI for the purpose of carrying out single-brand product retail trading.
Amendment in the condition relating to brand-ownership has been felt necessary, in view of the fact that, globally, single brand retailers often adopt a variety of business models, wherein the brand owning entity and investor entities are kept separate, even though in some cases, they may be having the same parent. Some single brand retailers adopt models where there is no link between the investing arm and the brand owning arm. In such cases, the brand owner entity could issue an exclusive licence/franchise to the investor entity, to use the brand for the purpose of retail trading, either globally or for a specific region, through appropriate agreement/(s). Such business models were not found to be in consonance with the condition that the foreign investor should be the brand owner. In view of the fact that the global business models do not strictly conform to this condition, a number of investors, who would otherwise have looked at investments in India, may not be able to do so. Therefore, keeping in view the constraints being faced by genuine foreign investors with different business models, as mentioned above, it would facilitate investment if this condition is liberalised.
However, in order to address the concern that more than one franchisee/licensee may apply for undertaking SBRT for the same brand, which could lead to difficulties in monitoring compliance and fixing responsibility for non-compliance of the specified conditions, it has been mandated that, only one non-resident entity, whether owner of the brand or otherwise, shall be permitted to undertake single brand product retail trading in the country, for the specific brand, through a legally tenable agreement, with the brand owner in respect of the specific brand for which approval is being sought. The onus for ensuring compliance with this condition shall rest with the Indian entity carrying out single-brand retail trading in India. The investing entity shall provide evidence to this effect at the time of seeking approval from Government, including a copy of the licensing/ franchise/sub-license agreement, specifically indicating compliance with the above condition.
Regarding the condition that 30% sourcing be mandatorily done from Indian small industry, investors have pointed out that it would be difficult to comply with this condition in the case of very specialized/high technology items. Global single brand retailers are often engaged in the business of retailing specialty/high-tech products. Such products are niche products, wherein it may not be viable for the foreign investors to build capacities wherever they engage in retailing, owing to the specialized requirements of quality and precision which the local small industry may not be able to provide. Investors are, therefore, of the view that the condition of 30% mandatory sourcing from Indian small industries/ village and cottage industries, artisans and craftsmen, is acting as a deterrent to the desired foreign investment in this activity.
The other category of products relate to the entire range from household appliances, utensils, furniture, crockery to furnishings, etc. These products are far more amenable to sourcing from MSMEs, village and cottage industries, artisans and craftsmen. Therefore, the proposed modification of the condition is envisaged to take into account the circumstances of both the specialized/high technology niche products, as well as the general category, covering a wide range of items. The fact that 30% domestic sourcing is being mandated would imply that the single brand retailers would have to build production capacities in the country, either in existing units, or set up new ones, catering specifically to their sourcing requirements. Hence, even the 30% domestic sourcing is expected to develop production capacities in the country, with the attendant global best practices, relating to design, production and quality. Since single brand retailers are global players, Indian suppliers and vendors to these retailers would have an opportunity of becoming a part of their global supply chains. Thus, Indian products could find their way in the stores of these single brand retailers located in other countries, thereby augmenting exports from India as well.
Thus, the amended condition relating to sourcing of 30%, of the value of goods purchased, being done from India, preferably (and not ‘mandatorily’, as mentioned in erstwhile Press Note 1 (2012 Series) dated 10-1-2012) from MSMEs, village and cottage industries, artisans and craftsmen, in all sectors, where feasible, is expected to benefit Indian producers, including the Indian handicrafts sector, which provides livelihood to millions and is important from the point of low capital investment, high value-addition and high potential for export, as also to meet the critical need to integrate Indian producers with the domestic and global markets. Skill integration with craftsmen abroad is likely to help develop synergies with international brands and generate more employment. The consequential benefits, arising from the integration of global best practices in management, along with global standards in quality, design, packaging and production, would help build capacities of local producers, by making it worthwhile for them to scale-up their production, thereby creating a multiplier effect on employment and income generation. This would also lead to up-gradation of technology, which, in turn, would have a further multiplier effect on the economy.
Complied by FCA Kamal Garg. He is the fellow member of ICAI. He is engaged in IFRS – Audit and Advisory, FEMA, Valuation and XBRL Services. For any queries and suggestions, he can be approached at firstname.lastname@example.org