FTAs have led to more imports than exports: Economic Survey

The 42 free trade agreements signed by India so far have led to more imports than exports as the country has had to go for larger tariff reductions than its FTA partners 

 The 42 free trade agreements (FTAs) signed by India so far have led to more imports than exports as the country has had to go for larger tariff reductions than its FTA partners because of relatively high tariffs, the Economic Survey 2015-16 said.

Mint reported on 16 February that the survey will assess the impact of FTAs on India.
The survey said that in the current context of slowing demand and excess capacity, with threats of circumvention of trade rules, progress on FTAs, if pursued, must be combined with strengthening of India’s ability to respond with measures consistent with the World Trade Organization, such as anti-dumping and conventional duties and safeguard measures.
“Analytical and other preparatory work must begin in earnest to prepare India for a mega-regional world,” it said.
The survey said in the case of the Asean (Association of South East Asian Nations) FTA, India has benefitted on both sides of trade flows, with a statistically significant 33% increase in exports and 79% increase in imports.
“The trade increases have been much greater with Asean than other FTAs and they have been greater in certain industries such as metals on the import side. On the export side, FTAs have led to increased dynamism in apparel, especially in Asean markets,” it said.
The survey said the overall effect of an FTA on trade is positive and statistically significant. “The cumulative effect between the year of the FTA and 2013 on trade with ASEAN, Japan, and Korea is approximately equal to 50%. India’s increased trade with FTA countries is not due to diversion of imports from more efficient non-FTA countries,” it said.
On the import side, a 10% reduction in FTA tariffs for metals and machinery increased imports by 1.4% and 2.1%, respectively, compared to other products from FTAs or all products from non-FTA countries, the survey said.

Economic Survey calls for pumping investment to better India’s human capital

The Economic survey points to the need to focus on the quality of education in both ‘public and private sectors’ and to leverage private investment in social sectors 

 Admitting that India’s education quality is worsening, the Economic Survey on Friday called for “more investment in human capital” in order to arrest the trend and improve healthcare delivery.

It also drew a link between human capital investment and improving productivity.
“On the education front, the declining educational outcomes reflected in lower reading levels in both public and private sector schools are areas of concern,” the Economic survey said.
The survey points to the need to focus on the quality of education in both “public and private sectors” and to leverage private investment in social sectors.
Presented in Parliament by finance minister Arun Jaitley, the survey said that the “social infrastructure scenario in the country reflects gaps in access to education, health and housing amenities”.
It said “inclusive growth in India requires bridging gaps in educational outcomes and improved health attainments across the population”.
India spends around 4% of its gross domestic product on education—against a long standing target of 6%. India’s education sector with over 45,000 colleges and universities is one of the biggest sectors in the world but faces many challenges on quality. It caters to over 300 million students who are key to helping the country reap its human capital advantage.
In order to reap the so-called “demographic dividend”, the survey called for “increasing investment in human capital” as it is a “key requirement to improve productivity of the population”.
The Economic Survey also said that the total expenditure on social services, including education, health, social security, nutrition, and the welfare of underprivileged during 2014-15 (revised estimate), was 7% of the gross domestic product (GDP), while it was 6.5% the year ago.
The survey said the immunization coverage of children, health of pregnant women, declining role of public health delivery systems and the lack of adequate skilled personnel are the biggest challenges in the health sector.
Health and access to sanitation are closely related issues which can improve productivity and the living environment of the population to a great extent, the survey said, indicating a huge disparity in social indicators across states.

Economic Survey says new mission on climate change in the works

Apart from the National Action Plan on Climate Change, a new mission on climate change and health is currently under formulation, says survey 

 Lauding 2015-16 as a landmark year for climate change initiatives in India, the Economic Survey released on Friday said a new mission on climate change and health is currently under formulation.

“Apart from the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), a new mission on climate change and health is currently under formulation and a National Expert Group on Climate Change and Health has been constituted,” said the survey while highlighting that India has been taking ambitious domestic actions against climate change.
It said the National Mission on Coastal Areas (NMCA) for integrated coastal resource management and the proposed waste-to-energy mission are other major components of India’s domestic actions to tackle climate change.
The 2015-16 survey, released by finance minister Arun Jaitley, said that India also played an important role in the 21st Conference of Parties (COP 21) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and in the adoption of the Paris Agreement—a new global climate deal—in December 2015.
“The Paris Agreement sets a road map for all nations in the world to take actions against climate change in the post-2020 period. Also, Prime Minister Narendra Modi played a leading role at COP 21 in the launch of the International Solar Alliance (ISA), and also volunteered to host its secretariat,” noted the survey while adding that 2015 has been a landmark year for India in terms of climate change initiatives both nationally and internationally.
It also highlighted that (as of 4 January 2016) with 1,593 out of 7,685 projects registered under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the UNFCCC, India had the second highest number of projects registered under the mechanism, showing its commitment to fighting climate change.
CDM allows emission-reduction projects in developing countries to earn certified emission reduction (CER) credits, each equivalent to one tonne of CO2 (carbon di-oxide), which can then be traded or sold, and used by industrialized countries to a meet a part of their emission-reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol.
Talking about other green measures taken by the government, the survey noted that India is one of the few countries around the world to have a carbon tax in the form of a cess on coal.

Economic Survey FAQ

Economic Survey FAQ: What’s going for India, what isn’t, and how does the future look if…

Here, in a Q&A form, is the essence of Economic Survey 2015-16, which sets the context for Union Budget 2016-17 

How is India doing?
Pretty good for an economy where exports have declined and private investment remains weak
How much will India grow by in 2015-16?
7-7.75%
Next year, 2016-17?
7-7.75%
Is that the fastest India can grow?
No. India’s long-term potential is 8-10% real rate of GDP growth. But the state of the global economy will weigh on the country’s ability to achieve it in the medium term when 7-7.5% will be the norm.
What has India done to boost growth?
It has tackled corruption; reformed its foreign direct investment policy; made it easier to do business in the country; increased public investment; launched a powerful crop insurance scheme; controlled inflation; worked on the cause of financial inclusion; restructured the power sector; and worked on removing some subsidies.
Why then are people so negative?
Maybe because they don’t realise that the sum is greater than the parts. And maybe because there have been disappointments.
Such as?
The inability to pass the Goods and Services Tax legislation. Not divesting as much as expected. Not moving fast enough on the next stage of removing subsidies. And the continuing stress on bank and corporate balance sheets
What can India do to get to the next stage of growth?
Become pro-entrepreneurship by becoming pro-competition. Invest in health and education. And not ignore agriculture which is still very important
In conclusion?
There are reasons for hope. Competitive federalism has made states pro-business and reformist. There is a growing realisation that good economics is good politics. There is always hope that GST will be passed. The sweet spot is still there.

Section 124A should stay

The immediate fallout of the recent arrest of Kanhaiya Kumar, an All India Students Federation leader and president of the JNU students’ union, was the demand to abolish Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as being an abhorrent colonial legacy. The electronic and print media have reacted as if Kanhaiya Kumar has been convicted and punished under this section. The fact is that a complaint was lodged that alleges Kumar’s conduct was seditious. Does this justify a call for

the abolition of this provision? This article doesn’t discuss the correctness of the JNU arrests as the matter is in court; it only

submits that there’s a strong case to retain Section 124A.

Chapter Six of the IPC is titled “Offences against the state” and originally consisted of Sections 121-130, which included the offences of waging war against the government of India and, among other things, collecting arms with the intention of waging such war. Interestingly, Section 124A was Section 113 of Macaulay’s Draft Penal Code of 1837-39 but was inexplicably omitted when the IPC was enacted in 1860. Section 124A was inserted in 1870 by an amendment introduced by Sir James Stephen.

The section, in its original form, was invoked in the celebrated case of Queen Empress vs Bal Gangadhar Tilak in 1897. Soon thereafter, the section was redrafted and it now reads: “124A. Sedition. — Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.

Explanation 1. The expression ‘disaffection’ includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.

Explanation 2. Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without, exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.

Explanation 3. Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.”

The Federal Court, in Niharendu Dutt Majumdar vs The King Emperor (1942), understood the dangers of misusing this section and made it clear that the section could not be used to stifle criticism. Interestingly, this decision was rendered in 1942 and at the height of World War II. Sir Maurice Gwyer observed that the use of violent, frothy and irresponsible language in a speech cannot be termed as sedition. He said: “There is an English saying that hard words break no bones; and the wisdom of common law has long refused to regard as actionable any words which, though strictly and literally defamatory, would be regarded by reasonable men as no more than mere vulgar abuse. Abusive language, even when used about a Government, is not necessarily sedition and there are certain words and phrases which have so long become the stock-in-trade of the demagogue as almost to have lost all real meaning”.

This sensible interpretation was reversed by the Privy Council in 1947 (King Emperor vs Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao), which adopted the narrow view taken by Justice Strachey in the Tilak trial. Mercifully, in 1962, the Supreme Court restored

the view of the Federal Court while expressly holding that Section 124A was not violative of the fundamental right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

This section would apply only to those activities involving incitement to violence or intention to create public disorder or cause disturbance of public order (Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar).

The day after the assassination of Indira Gandhi, two persons raised slogans of “Khalistan zindabad” and “Raj karega Khalsa”. The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, observing that the raising of some slogans a few times, which did not evoke any response and did not create any law and order problem, did not attract Section 124A. The court rightly observed that sometimes the arrest of individuals, rather than the slogans shouted, could lead to tension and a law and order problem and cautioned that over-sensitiveness could be counter-productive. Indeed, the explanations to Section 124A make it clear that criticism or disapproval of actions of the government do not amount to sedition.

The Law Commission of India had undertaken a careful re-examination of Section 124A. In its 42nd report, published in 1971, it wanted the section to be extended to include disaffection towards the Constitution of India, Parliament and state legislatures and the administration of justice. It also wanted the punishment to be reduced to a maximum of seven years. While the sentence can be restricted to seven years, there is no reason to expand the ambit of the definition. The present section has stood the test of time and the courts have restricted its application to serious acts that incite violence or create a major law and order problem.

Indeed, the call for its abolition may be incorrect. There is no data on the number of complaints that have been filed under this section in different states. What were the seditious utterances or activities? How many persons have been convicted? Without an analysis of the empirical evidence on the implementation of this section, it would be perilous to abolish it as an anachronistic colonial provision.

We cannot forget that dozens of districts in different states face a Maoist insurgency and rebel groups virtually run a parallel administration. These groups openly advocate the overthrow of the state government by revolution. Against the backdrop of this stark reality, the abolition of Section 124A would be ill-advised merely because it has been wrongly invoked in some highly publicised cases

-

The immediate fallout of the recent arrest of Kanhaiya Kumar, an All India Students Federation leader and president of the JNU students’ union, was the demand to abolish Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as being an abhorrent colonial legacy. The electronic and print media have reacted as if Kanhaiya Kumar has been convicted and punished under this section. The fact is that a complaint was lodged that alleges Kumar’s conduct was seditious. Does this justify a call for
the abolition of this provision? This article doesn’t discuss the correctness of the JNU arrests as the matter is in court; it only
submits that there’s a strong case to retain Section 124A.
Chapter Six of the IPC is titled “Offences against the state” and originally consisted of Sections 121-130, which included the offences of waging war against the government of India and, among other things, collecting arms with the intention of waging such war. Interestingly, Section 124A was Section 113 of Macaulay’s Draft Penal Code of 1837-39 but was inexplicably omitted when the IPC was enacted in 1860. Section 124A was inserted in 1870 by an amendment introduced by Sir James Stephen.

The section, in its original form, was invoked in the celebrated case of Queen Empress vs Bal Gangadhar Tilak in 1897. Soon thereafter, the section was redrafted and it now reads: “124A. Sedition. — Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
Explanation 1. The expression ‘disaffection’ includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
Explanation 2. Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without, exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Explanation 3. Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.”
The Federal Court, in Niharendu Dutt Majumdar vs The King Emperor (1942), understood the dangers of misusing this section and made it clear that the section could not be used to stifle criticism. Interestingly, this decision was rendered in 1942 and at the height of World War II. Sir Maurice Gwyer observed that the use of violent, frothy and irresponsible language in a speech cannot be termed as sedition. He said: “There is an English saying that hard words break no bones; and the wisdom of common law has long refused to regard as actionable any words which, though strictly and literally defamatory, would be regarded by reasonable men as no more than mere vulgar abuse. Abusive language, even when used about a Government, is not necessarily sedition and there are certain words and phrases which have so long become the stock-in-trade of the demagogue as almost to have lost all real meaning”.
This sensible interpretation was reversed by the Privy Council in 1947 (King Emperor vs Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao), which adopted the narrow view taken by Justice Strachey in the Tilak trial. Mercifully, in 1962, the Supreme Court restored
the view of the Federal Court while expressly holding that Section 124A was not violative of the fundamental right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
This section would apply only to those activities involving incitement to violence or intention to create public disorder or cause disturbance of public order (Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar).
The day after the assassination of Indira Gandhi, two persons raised slogans of “Khalistan zindabad” and “Raj karega Khalsa”. The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, observing that the raising of some slogans a few times, which did not evoke any response and did not create any law and order problem, did not attract Section 124A. The court rightly observed that sometimes the arrest of individuals, rather than the slogans shouted, could lead to tension and a law and order problem and cautioned that over-sensitiveness could be counter-productive. Indeed, the explanations to Section 124A make it clear that criticism or disapproval of actions of the government do not amount to sedition.
The Law Commission of India had undertaken a careful re-examination of Section 124A. In its 42nd report, published in 1971, it wanted the section to be extended to include disaffection towards the Constitution of India, Parliament and state legislatures and the administration of justice. It also wanted the punishment to be reduced to a maximum of seven years. While the sentence can be restricted to seven years, there is no reason to expand the ambit of the definition. The present section has stood the test of time and the courts have restricted its application to serious acts that incite violence or create a major law and order problem.
Indeed, the call for its abolition may be incorrect. There is no data on the number of complaints that have been filed under this section in different states. What were the seditious utterances or activities? How many persons have been convicted? Without an analysis of the empirical evidence on the implementation of this section, it would be perilous to abolish it as an anachronistic colonial provision.
We cannot forget that dozens of districts in different states face a Maoist insurgency and rebel groups virtually run a parallel administration. These groups openly advocate the overthrow of the state government by revolution. Against the backdrop of this stark reality, the abolition of Section 124A would be ill-advised merely because it has been wrongly invoked in some highly publicised cases
- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/section-124a-should-stay-2/#sthash.JGWfnNaY.dpuf

Section 124A should stay

It would be perilous to abolish it without analysing the empirical evidence on its implementation.

- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/section-124a-should-stay-2/#sthash.JGWfnNaY.dpuf

India’s solar plan flouts global trade rules: WTO

Domestic content restrictions on the production of solar cells and modules as part of the National Solar Mission was deemed a violation of global trade rules 

 World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement panel has struck a blow to India’s solar power programme, ruling that New Delhi violated global trade rules by imposing domestic content restrictions on the production of solar cells and modules as part of its National Solar Mission.

The ruling comes three years after the US launched a dispute against India at the WTO, complaining that its domestic content requirement (DCR) measures violated core norms of trade-related investment provisions, national treatment provisions for treating imported products on a par with domestically manufactured products, and financial subsidy rules.
The three-member panel, chaired by former New Zealand trade envoy David Walker, said India’s domestic content requirement measures “are inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TRIMS (Trade-Related Investment Measures) and Article III:4 of the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) 1994”.
The DCR measures are not “justified” under the general exceptions in Article XX (j) or Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994, the panel ruled in its 140-page report.
The panel, however, did not pronounce a verdict on the financial subsidies provided by India for its solar power projects.
Its final report, which was delayed by more than two months, was issued on Wednesday after India and the US were unable to reach an agreement on the changes suggested by New Delhi to its solar power programme, according to a person familiar with the dispute.
India proposed that it would use the domestic content requirement measures for buying solar panels for its own consumption such as by the railways and defence and would not sell the power generated from such subsidized panels for commercial use.
A commerce ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the US may have rejected India’s offer because of a difference in perception and expectations.
“We have the option of going for an appeal against the ruling at WTO. It is too early. We will take a final call on the matter in due course of time,” he added.
The office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) said in a statement that the US has consistently made the case that India can achieve its clean energy goals faster and more cost-effectively by allowing solar technologies to be imported from the US and other producers.
“This is an important outcome, not just as it applies to this case, but for the message it sends to other countries considering discriminatory ‘localisation’ policies,” USTR Michael Froman said.
Under the previous United Progressive Alliance government, India embarked on an ambitious solar power programme as part of the National Solar Mission, aimed at adding 100,000 megawatts (MW) of solar power capacity by 2022. However, the local content requirement is only for 5,000 MW each of rooftop and land-based projects where the government provides a subsidy.
The government has offered financial support of up to Rs.1 crore per MW to the implementing agency for setting up large solar capacities by placing orders with domestic manufacturers.
WTO members are not supposed to insist on national content requirements that discriminate against foreign products. Governments are also required to provide “national” treatment, under which imports must be treated on a par with domestically manufactured products.
In a confidential report issued to the US and India in August last year, a three-member dispute settlement panel headed by Walker, pronounced that New Delhi violated global trade rules by imposing local content requirements for solar cells and solar modules under the National Solar Mission, Mint reported on 27 August 2015.
Significantly, the final ruling comes at a time when there is growing international pressure for promoting green industries to address climate change. It will hinder India’s solar power programme and will hold consequences for other countries planning to embark on renewable energy programmes, according to global environmental groups such as the Sierra Club.
Environmental groups were critical of the preliminary ruling, saying it threatened the clean energy economy and undermined actions to tackle the climate crisis.
“Today, we have more evidence of how free trade rules threaten the clean energy economy and undermine action to tackle the climate crisis,” said Ilana Solomon, director of Sierra Club’s Responsible Trade Programme, on the preliminary ruling when it was issued in August last year.
India’s national solar programme, said Solomon, “has driven dramatic growth of India’s solar capacity that will help reduce its reliance on dirty coal and spur the development of new clear energy jobs”.
“The US should be applauding India’s efforts to scale up solar energy, not turning to the WTO to strike the programme down,” she had maintained.
Global environmental pressure groups led by Sierra Club and others have repeatedly called on WTO to exit the business of hampering climate action in countries around the globe.
The final ruling comes soon after the Paris climate agreement, where developing countries were promised technological and financial assistance for promoting renewable energy programmes.
At Paris, Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched the ambitious International Solar Alliance, with the aim of switching “sunshine nations” in tropical areas to solar energy.
The government has also scaled up its renewable energy target from 30 gigawatts (GW) by 2016-17 to 175GW by 2021-22, which could result in the abatement of 326.22 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Of this 175GW, solar power will account for 100GW.

Productivity of Shipyards

Productivity of Shipyards

As regards mechanization and productivity levels of shipyards in the country, the Central Public Sector Shipyards, CSL is sufficiently mechanised and modernised on par with good quality medium size international standards. Defence Public Sector shipyards are sufficiently mechanised and comprehensive modernisation has been undertaken to augment their capacity. About HDPEL, Government of India has decided to restructure the shipyard through joint venture with private sector shipyards.

Some Indian shipyards in the private sector lack mechanization and have low productivity levels due to lack of shipbuilding orders resulting in lack of economies of scale and hence benefits from high mechanization; low financial resources ; lack of ancillary industry support leading to delays in procurement of requisite equipment; lack of established vendors/contractors for outsourcing for hull and outfitting works; lack of concurrent design, engineering and construction capabilities to factor in changing user requirements leading to wasted efforts and reduced productivity; lack of modular construction approach resulting in less productivity at difficult confined space.

Based on the recommendations of the High Power Steering Committee (HPSC), cruise shipping policy had been approved by the Government in June, 2008. The salient features of the policy include conducive fiscal regime, development of facilities at Ports and connectivity through rail, road transport, air and metro, quick completion of immigration formalities, hassle free customs clearance, etc. The steps taken to implement the policy include the following:

• Foreign flag vessels carrying passengers have been allowed to call at Indian ports for a period of 10 years with effect from February 6, 2009 without obtaining a license from Director General of Shipping.

• Cruise Terminals are being developed in Cochin, Chennai and Mormugao Ports with the financial assistance from Ministry of Tourism.

• Major ports are providing rebates to cruised vessels calling at their ports. Mumbai Port provide rebate of 40% on Vessel Related Charges (VRC). Chennai Port provide rebate of 20% on VRC while Cochin Port provide 20% on VRC for GT 30,000 and less and 30% on VRC for GT above 30,000. At Mormugao port 50% rebate is provided on Port dues & 70% on pilotage, berth hire & anchorage charges.

• Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) has permitted Green Channel facility to all the international passengers who come onshore for tourism purposes and has also decided to permit Indian Nationals to travel from one Indian port to another Indian port in a foreign cruise ships/vessels during its domestic leg for tourism purposes.

The steps taken by the Government to rejuvenate the shipping industry in the country include the following:

• To bring parity in tax regime of Indian seafarers employed on Indian flag ships vis-à-vis those on foreign flag ships, the period of stay in India is to be counted as per the entries made in his Continuous Discharge Certificate (CDC).

• Government has exempted Customs and Central Excise duty on the bunker fuel used in Indian flag vessels for transportation of EXIM, empty and domestic containers between two or more ports in India. This tax incentive will enhance Indian tonnage as well as promote use of transshipment hubs in India.

• Service Tax incidence on coastal transportation has been brought at par with road and rail in the Union Budget 2015-2016. This has reduced cost of domestic transportation through coastal shipping for shipper and encouraged use of coastal shipping as a mode of transport.

• Indian flag vessels have been given Right of First Refusal (RoFR) by removing the earlier 10% price band with respect to L1 for operation in coastal waters. Similar benefit has been extended to Indian dredgers for undertaking dredging works in non-major ports. This would help Indian flag vessels as well as dredgers to get more business.

• Facility for online application for registration, chartering permission, Multi-modal Transport Operator license and for e-payment of requisite fee has been introduced.

• Registration process for Ship Repair Units dispensed with.

• To counter cost disadvantage vis-à-vis imported ships, Government of India, has, on November 24, 2015 exempted Customs and Central Excise duties on inputs used in shipbuilding.

• Financial assistance policy for Indian shipyards has been approved for ten years commencing from April 1, 2016. All government departments or agencies including CPSUs are being instructed to provide Right of First Refusal to Indian shipyards while procuring or repairing vessels.

• Institutional Mechanism on Infrastructure has recommended grant of Infrastructure Status to shipyards.

• To bring down the cost of construction of barges, river sea vessels and port and harbor crafts and to meet demand for steel by ship and barge builders, the Government has decided that re-rolled steel obtained from re-cycling yards/ship breaking units would be certified for use in construction of these vessels.

The Maritime Agenda 2010-2020 has identified steps required to upgrade port infrastructure to provide world class facilities.

The above information was given by Minister of State for Shipping Shri Pon Radhakrishnan in a written reply to a question in Lok Sabha today.