'Azhar designation proof of commitment against terror'

Washington, Apr 11: China is considered a developing country, make the United States too a developing one, US President Donald Trump said on Friday, alleging that Beijing has taken advantage of his country.

"China has been unbelievably taken advantage of us and other countries. You know, for instance, they are considered a developing nation. I said well then make us a developing nation too,” Trump told reporters at his daily White House news conference on coronavirus.

The president was responding to a question on China.

“They get big advantages because they are a developing nation. India, a developing nation. The United States is a big developed nation. Well, we have plenty of development to do,” he said.

Reiterating that United States was taken advantage of by the World Trade Organization, Trump said the Chinese economy started booming after it joined WTO with the help of the US.

“If you look at the history of China, it was only since they went into the WTO that they became a rocket ship with their economy. They were flatlined for years and years,” he said.

“Frankly, for many, many decades. And it was only when they came into the WTO that they became a rocket ship because they took advantage of all -- I'm not even blaming them. I'm saying how stupid were the people that stood here and allowed it to happen,” he said.

For latest updates on coronavirus outbreak, click  here

The Trump Administration will now allow that to happen, he said.

“If they don't treat us fairly, will leave. But now we're starting to win cases,” he said.

Alleging that China has taken advantage of the United States for 30 years, he said, China has taken advantage of the US through WTO and using rules that are unfair to the United States.

"They should have never been allowed it, this should have never been allowed to happen", he added.

“When China joined and was allowed to join under those circumstances the WTO, that was a very bad day for the United States because they have rules and regulations that were far different and far easier than our rules and regulations,” he said.

“Plus. They took advantage of them down to the last. China took advantage of them like few people would even think to take advantage of them and again they are considered right a developing nation,” he added.

The United States, he rued, is not considered a developing nation.

“The were given advantages (for being a developing nation). For many years China has ripped off the United States. Then I came along and right now, as you know, China is paying 25 percent," said Trump, adding that the US is now gaining "billions and billions and billions of dollars in tariffs from China”.

The US is not paying, he asserted.

“Not every country is China but China would devalue their currency and they would also pour out money and they essentially were paying most of those tariffs not us,” he said.

Dubai, Apr 26: The Central Bank of the UAE (CBUAE) has instructed financial institutions in the country to search and freeze all bank accounts of Indian billionaire BR Shetty and his family along with those of companies where he has a stake.

The apex bank has also blacklisted several firms associated with Shetty along with their entire senior management.

In an advisory issued last week, CBUAE cited decisions of the Federal Attorney General and asked financial institutions to search and freeze any bank accounts, deposits or investments in the name of Shetty or his family members.

Financial institutions have been directed to stop transfers from these accounts and deny access to deposit boxes.

Currently in India and facing a string of charges, Shetty is the founder of NMC Health.

The heathcare provider was placed into administration by a UK court recently following an application by the Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank (ADCB) which alone has an exposure of $981 million (Dh3.6 billion).

Overall, UAE banks have a combined exposure of more than Dh8bn to NMC which owes money to Oman-based banks and financial institutions as well.

Probing credit facilities
The Central Bank has sought information about credit facilites extended to the Shettys along with details of their safe deposit boxes and the financial transfers they have made till date.

A similar advisory has been issued for NMC Healthcare and NMC Holding, based on the decision of the Head of Plenary Fund Prosecution.

The Central Bank has also blacklisted several companies associated with Shetty. Key staff members of these firms have been similarly blacklisted.

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.