Cigarette smuggling: India
(→Nicotine addiction) |
|||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
Singh said illegal trade of tobacco products facilitated increased use of tobacco by youth and adults from low-income groups by bringing down the cost and making them more accessible. Moreover, health regulations such as pictorial warnings or increased taxes are also not applied on illegal products. | Singh said illegal trade of tobacco products facilitated increased use of tobacco by youth and adults from low-income groups by bringing down the cost and making them more accessible. Moreover, health regulations such as pictorial warnings or increased taxes are also not applied on illegal products. | ||
| − | = | + | =Cigarette smuggling= |
| + | [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=Implement-85-warning-rule-SC-tells-Big-Tobacco-05052016017044 ''The Times of India''], May 05 2016 | ||
| − | + | Amit Anand Choudhary | |
| + | | ||
| − | + | The Supreme Court directed companies that manufacture tobacco products to comply with the 2014 rules to have pictorial warnings covering 85% of the surface of packets of cigarettes and other commodities till the validity of the law is decided by the court. | |
| − | + | Holding that the health warning was meant to educate people about the harmful effects of tobacco consumption and smoking, a bench of Justices P C Ghose and Amitava Roy said the manufacturers had a duty towards society to spread the message and directed the companies, in an interim order, to implement the rules. | |
| − | + | The court passed the order on a batch of petitions filed by the manufacturers challeng ing the rules. Taking into account that multiple petitions have been filed in different high courts against the 2014 rules, the bench directed that all petitions be transferred to the Karnataka high court, which would adjudicate on the issue within eight weeks. | |
| − | + | “We request all the petitioners that till the disposal of matters by the Karnataka high court, it will be the endeavour of all the parties to implement the rules whatever as amended. This order will not stand in the way of the HC de ciding the matter on merit.Any stay granted by any court shall not be implemented until the final order is passed by the HC,“ the bench said. | |
| − | + | The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Amendment Rules, 2014 were brought into force by the Centre on April 1. Challenging the rules, Tobacco Institute of India (TII), which represents the interest of cigarette-makers, told the bench that the mandatory warnings were “unreasonable, drastic and impractical“ to implement and enforce. It said the existing graphic health warnings at 40% are adequate to inform and caution a person. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
Revision as of 19:43, 24 January 2018
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
On a rise: 2012-15
The Times of India, May 30 2015
Sushmi Dey
Four-fold rise in cigarette smuggling into India: WHO
Cigarette smuggling into the country increased four-fold (by value) between 2012 and 2014, seizure data from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) shows. The data has been cited in a latest draft working paper prepared by the World Health Organization (WHO) to contend that illicit trade in tobacco products undermines tobacco control policies and leads to significant revenue loss. WHO has pegged the import duty evasion from smuggling cigarettes into the country at Rs 2,363 crore for 2014-15.
According to the paper, titled `Illicit Tobacco Trade In India: Forms, Trends and Potential Actions', the smuggled cigarettes are suspected to be from Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, China and the United Arab Emirates and common transit points are Delhi, Singapore and Dubai.
“In the south-east Asia region, many countries have porous borders that provide easy opportunity for the smuggling of tobacco products. All south-east Asian countries have enacted stringent laws to control tobacco consumption both on pricing and sale of tobacco products in-country as well as against import of foreign brands and despite these efforts, there is still a thriving trade in smuggled tobacco products,“ Poonam Khetrapal Singh, regional director of WHO in south-east Asia region, said.
Singh said illegal trade of tobacco products facilitated increased use of tobacco by youth and adults from low-income groups by bringing down the cost and making them more accessible. Moreover, health regulations such as pictorial warnings or increased taxes are also not applied on illegal products.
Cigarette smuggling
The Times of India, May 05 2016
Amit Anand Choudhary
The Supreme Court directed companies that manufacture tobacco products to comply with the 2014 rules to have pictorial warnings covering 85% of the surface of packets of cigarettes and other commodities till the validity of the law is decided by the court.
Holding that the health warning was meant to educate people about the harmful effects of tobacco consumption and smoking, a bench of Justices P C Ghose and Amitava Roy said the manufacturers had a duty towards society to spread the message and directed the companies, in an interim order, to implement the rules.
The court passed the order on a batch of petitions filed by the manufacturers challeng ing the rules. Taking into account that multiple petitions have been filed in different high courts against the 2014 rules, the bench directed that all petitions be transferred to the Karnataka high court, which would adjudicate on the issue within eight weeks.
“We request all the petitioners that till the disposal of matters by the Karnataka high court, it will be the endeavour of all the parties to implement the rules whatever as amended. This order will not stand in the way of the HC de ciding the matter on merit.Any stay granted by any court shall not be implemented until the final order is passed by the HC,“ the bench said.
The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Amendment Rules, 2014 were brought into force by the Centre on April 1. Challenging the rules, Tobacco Institute of India (TII), which represents the interest of cigarette-makers, told the bench that the mandatory warnings were “unreasonable, drastic and impractical“ to implement and enforce. It said the existing graphic health warnings at 40% are adequate to inform and caution a person.
