From which date is the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Bill 2026 proposed to come into effect?

The correct answer is Vanijya Bhawan, New Delhi, which houses the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and where the board met in hybrid mode, with some members present and others joining online. The board functions under the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade of that ministry, so its meeting place follows naturally. Udyog Bhawan houses other ministries and was not the venue, which makes option A wrong. Vigyan Bhawan is the government's large conference venue used for conferences and summits rather than for a board meeting of this kind, so option C is wrong. Krishi Bhawan is associated with agriculture and allied departments and has no connection with this board, so option D is wrong too. The meeting was chaired by Sunil J. Singhi and opened by the DPIIT Director, Yuvraj Ravindra Patil.

The correct answer is 40,000. The chairman of the board cited the Jan Vishwas Act as a reform that has rationalised that many compliances, and placed it alongside the ease of doing business measures and the creation of state level traders' welfare boards as the main steps taken for the trading community. The other three options are figures of a similar shape, offered to test whether the number has been memorised exactly rather than approximately, and none of them was mentioned. A related figure worth holding on to from the same meeting is that DigiDukaan, an initiative of the open network for digital commerce, has more than nineteen thousand retailers live in Hyderabad and Jaipur, while the board also asked for a single loan portal that would decide applications within a month.

The correct answer is the Price to Distributors and the Maximum Retail Price, usually written as PTD and MRP. The advisory issued to the edible oil associations and other industry stakeholders asks them to bring both of these down in step with the lower landed cost, and to advise member firms to act without delay, so that the gain from the tariff cut is not retained in the supply chain. Option A lists prices paid to farmers for crops, which are fixed by the government and are not what a refiner or a packer revises. Option C names two price indices, which measure inflation rather than set it, so they cannot be revised by a company at all. Option D refers to prices in the public distribution system, a separate arrangement for subsidised foodgrain.

The correct answer is the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, which put out this announcement along with the advisory to the edible oil associations. The reason it and not another ministry speaks here is that the stated purpose of the step is to moderate retail prices of cooking oil and to shield the household budget from imported inflation, which falls squarely within the consumer affairs and food distribution mandate. Option A is tempting because customs duty is a tax matter, and it is a useful reminder that the ministry which announces a measure need not be the one that collects the levy. Option B deals with trade policy and option C with the interests of the oilseed grower, and both of those interests are mentioned in the announcement, but neither ministry issued it.

The correct answer is 19.25%. While cutting the duty on crude oils, the government also trimmed the duty on the matching refined oils, but it kept the distance between the two rates at this level rather than letting it shrink. The purpose is stated plainly: a gap of this size keeps domestic refining capacity in use, discourages excessive imports of refined oil and gives Indian refiners a more level playing field, so the value addition takes place within the country. Options A, B and D are plausible only because they look like tariff percentages of the same order, and none of them is the figure named in the announcement. This is the single number from the decision that a paper setter is most likely to ask for, because it carries a policy reason with it rather than being a bare rate.