Investments From Neighbouring Countries? Government Nod Is A Must

The key to making acquisitions is being ready because you really never know when the right big one is going to come along. – James McNerney

Governments, regulators, citizens all over the globe are trying hard to coupe up with the effects caused by the deadly virus – COVID – 19, on the health of both individuals as well as the economy. Government of each and every country is trying hard to strike the right balance between the deflating economy as well the lives of people. In the recent times, various countries have expressed (subtly or otherwise) concerns about being vulnerable to takeover or acquisition by one of the world’s fastest growing economy – China.

As per media reports China already has foreign exchange reserves of more than 3 trillion dollars- equal to the GDP of India for 2019. Accordingly, cash rich countries with huge foreign exchange reserves may be perceived to be in a position to make huge investments, in the nature of ‘opportunistic takeovers / acquisitions’ and derive the benefits of low valuations across corporate sector, as rightly advised in the above quote by Mr. James McNerney, former President and CEO of The Boeing Company.

In order to avoid hostile takeover from any foreigner, various countries such as Spain, Italy and Germany are in the process of or have already strengthened the foreign inflow investment laws to make foreign takeover harder.

The Government of India through the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (“DIPP“) has issued Press Note No. 3(2020 Series) dated April 17, 2020 (“Press Note“) which has amended the Consolidated Foreign Direct Investment Policy, 2017 (“FDI Policy“) and the Ministry of Finance with a view of aligning the Press Note with the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-Debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 (“Non-Debt Rules“) through Notification dated April 22, 2020 (“Notification“) has amended the Non-Debt Rules.

The amendments in the FDI Policy and the Non-Debt Rules are effective from April 22, 2020. The said amendments have been introduced with a view of ‘curbing opportunistic takeovers/ acquisitions of Indian companies due to COVID – 19 pandemic’.

A relook at the FDI Policy and the Non-Debt Rules in the times such as the current scenario becomes important, moreover because of the fact that several sectors and industries were open to 100% foreign ownership under the FDI Policy and the Non-Debt Rules without the need for any prior scrutiny or regulatory approval.


Prior to the amendment brought in the FDI Policy and the Non-Debt Rules, the FDI Policy and the Non-Debt Rules required government approval only for investments sought to be made by a citizen or entity from Bangladesh and Pakistan.

However, the FDI Policy and the Non-Debt Rules have been revised as under:

Primary investments – The amended FDI Policy and the Non-Debt Rules provides that any investments by an entity or a beneficial owner of an investment into India is situated in or is a citizen of any country which shares land border with India shall require prior government approval.

Secondary investments – Transfer of ownership in any existing or future FDI in an Indian entity, whether directly or indirectly, which results in the beneficial ownership falling in the hands of entities / citizens of the neighbor countries shall also require prior government approval.


While the prompt response of the Government of India is applaudable, the Press Note and the Notification leaves certain areas unclear, for which a better clarity, which may be through further amendments in the Non-Debt Rules being the relevant rules applicable to foreign investments into India under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (“FEMA“) is awaited:

1. Land Border Countries

The Press Note and the Notification has laid down the restrictions in respect of countries that share land border with India. No specific countries have been mentioned in this regard. It is pertinent to note that India shares land border with Pakistan, Bangladesh, China, Nepal, Myanmar, Bhutan and Afghanistan. Accordingly, the restrictions may be well applied to investments from the said countries.

Hong Kong is a special administrative region under China. However, it is treated as a separate jurisdiction for transaction and tax purposes. India has an independent tax treaty with Hong Kong and investments coming from the region are recorded separately from that of China.

However, since the Press Note and the Notification are not detailed ones, it is ambiguous if the restrictions brought in shall be applied to investments from Hong Kong as well, moreover when the Securities and Exchange Board of India has asked the custodian banks to disclose details of ultimate beneficial owners of Foreign Portfolio Investors (“FPIs“) based in China and Hong Kong.

2. Meaning of beneficial owner

The term ‘beneficial owner’ has not been defined in the FDI Policy nor in the Non-Debt Rules and not even in FEMA. However, the said term has been defined in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, as the natural person who ultimately owns or controls a client and/or the person on whose behalf the transaction is being conducted, and includes a person who exercises ultimate effective control over a juridical person.

The threshold limit for different kinds of entities have been stated under the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005, in order to determine controlling ownership interest. The said limits are ownership / entitlement to:

  • more than 25 percent of shares or capital or profits in case of a company;
  • more than 15% of the capital or profits in case of a partnership; or,
  • more than 15% of the property or capital or profits in case of an unincorporated association or body of individuals.

The Reserve Bank of India applies the aforementioned thresholds for the purpose of determining beneficial ownership of entities in its ambit.

In absence of any thresholds in the FDI Policy and the Non-Debt Rules, it seems that funds / companies in which even a single beneficiary holding a single share is an entity / individual to whom the said restriction apply, such entities shall be required to seek prior government approval, which may not be the intent. Accordingly, a clarity regarding the threshold of beneficial ownership, beyond which government approval shall trigger is required.


While the amendments made in the FDI Policy and the Non-Debt Rules are welcome, it shall be interesting to see how will the same be applied in practical scenarios, in order to achieve the intent of such regulatory amendments in true letter and spirit, which will help India tide over the spill-over effects on account of the COVID – 19 pandemic.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Media Coverage

About Dhaval Vussonji

Ask a question

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Legal Disclaimer

User Acknowledgement

By proceeding further and clicking on the “AGREE” button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about Dhaval Vussonji & Associates for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from Dhaval Vussonji & Associates or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this knowledgesite. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below.


This knowledgesite ( is a resource for informational purposes only and is intended, but not promised or guaranteed, to be correct, complete, and up-to-date. Dhaval Vussonji & Associates (DVA) does not warrant that the information contained on this knowledgesite is accurate or complete, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or any other cause.

DVA further assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the information contained on this knowledgesite, nor does it offer a warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The owner of this knowledgesite does not intend links from this site to other internet knowledgesites to be referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with the linked entities. DVA is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties about, the contents of Web sites to which links may be provided from this Web site.

This knowledgesite is not intended to be a source of advertising or solicitation and the contents of the knowledgesite should not be construed as legal advice. The reader should not consider this information to be an invitation for a lawyer-client relationship and should not rely on information provided herein and should always seek the advice of competent counsel licensed to practice in the relevant country/state. Transmission, receipt or use of this knowledgesite does not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship. No recipients of content from this knowledgesite should act, or refrain from acting, based upon any or all of the contents of this site.

Furthermore, the owner of this knowledgesite does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based solely upon viewing this knowledgesite or in a country/state where this knowledgesite fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. Finally, the reader is warned that the use of Internet e-mail for confidential or sensitive information is susceptible to risks of lack of confidentiality associated with sending email over the Internet.