Minimum trade at Nathu-la

Gangtok, Sikkim: The four-member team from the Chinese embassy in New Delhi may face a lot of complaints from traders from the other side when the delegates visit the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) on Monday.

For the Chinese businessmen, who have transactions at the 14,400-ft border outpost at Nathu-la, the main stumbling block is apparently the current list of items.

On Monday, the team is expected to head to Sherathang and inspect the trade mart on the Indian side. They will then cross over to TAR through Nathu-la and go to Renquinnggang. They will halt at Renquinnggang for a day and then return to India.

A month after trade through the border outpost re-started on May 1 this year, the transactions remains minimal at Rs 3 lakh for the past month, a source said. He added that the entire volume comprised exports from India. The import from China, according to the Indo-China Traders’ Association, has been reported as nil with even raw wool, the most traded item by the Chinese last year having failed to do any business this time.

To make the situation worse, the Chinese traders have reportedly stopped dealing with any of the items included in the trade list. Those are old and obsolete articles, the traders have claimed. Indian traders are allowed to deal with 29 articles while China 15, which included goods like wool, goat skin, yak tail, horses and silk.

Last year, besides the sanctioned articles, the Customs had relaxed regulations on small “gift” items and a few other commodities, a source said. This year, however, the Customs has become stricter and are allowing trade of only sanctioned goods.

The commerce ministry has already taken up the issue of listed articles, which is likely to be amended soon, said an official source.

Earlier this year, the increase in the ceiling for Indian traders from Rs 25,000 per person per day to Rs 1 lakh came as a huge relief. “The volume is not expected to go up if business is still limited to old and obsolete items,” a businessman said.

Source: The Telegraph

0 comments: