Punjab Kings beat Delhi Capitals by four wickets in IPL
Chandigarh, Mar 23: It was not the comeback Rishabh Pant had wished for as English all-rounder Sam Curran's counterattacking half-century powered Punjab Kings to a four-wicket win over Delhi Capitals in their Indian Premier League (IPL) opener here on Saturday.
Curran blazed away to a 47-ball 63 and got excellent support from compatriot Liam Livingstone (38 not out off 21 balls), as Punjab completed a chase of 175 with four balls to spare.
This was after the returning Pant failed to set the stage on fire as Punjab Kings rallied to stop Delhi Capitals at 174 for nine.
Batting at number nine, Abhishek Porel top-scored for DC with an unbeaten 32 off only 10 balls, helping the side to a total that did not pose any problem for Punjab on a pitch with no demons.
Punjab Kings began their chase in earnest and raced to 34 in three overs when Shikhar Dhawan (22 off 16 balls) charged down the wicket only to miss and see his middle stump getting disturbed by Ishant Sharma.
Impact Sub Prabhsimran walked in at number three and Ishant squared him up with one that hit the perfect length and left the batter in two minds. Prabhsimran's riposte was a boundary through mid-off as the batter showed aggressive intent.
Having struck two fours in three balls, Jonny Bairstow was run out in an unfortunate fashion as Ishant managed to get his fingertips to a Prabhsimran drive before the ball went on to hit the stumps at the non-striker's end.
Bairstow dived, but had backed up too far and couldn't win the race against the ball.
Prabhsimran (27 off 17 balls) struck Khaleel Ahmed for two successive fours to relieve the pressure but, after having steadied the ship, the batter fell to in-form wrist spinner Kuldeep Yadav who snared him with a googly.
Kuldeep also accounted for Jitesh Sharma to leave Punjab in a spot of bother at 100 for four in the 12th over.
Earlier, Punjab were put under pressure straightaway by the flamboyant Australian opening duo of David Warner (29 off 21 balls) and Mitchell Marsh (20 off 12 balls), who were dealing in fours and sixes.
Marsh worked a poor Sam Curran delivery off his pads for the day's first boundary. Another mediocre offering from Curran was expertly flicked by Marsh for a four and the Capitals were on their way.
Not to be left behind when it comes to playing strokes, Warner pulled left-arm pacer Arshdeep Singh (2/28) for a six in front of square and then played the bowler between cover-point and cover to find a four.
The flurry of boundaries forced Punjab Kings skipper Shikhar Dhawan to effect a bowling change but Kagiso Rabada's introduction did little to stem the flow of runs as Marsh pulled a short ball over deep backward square for a big six.
Arshdeep came back and was whacked over long-off for another gigantic six by Marsh.
However, the left-arm seamer had the last laugh as he had Marsh caught by an agile Rahul Chahar at cover point, after the batter played a booming drive in the air.
Unperturbed by the departure of his opening partner, Warner continued to play in his usual aggressive fashion, hitting Rabada for a four through mid-off and then sat down to use the scoop shot for an incredible maximum over shot fine.
Harpreet Brar checked the flow of runs by bowling a fine first over but Chahar started with a 14-run over with Shai Hope hitting the bowler for a six and a four.
Harshal Patel (2/47) got the big wicket of Warner in his first over as comeback-man Pant (18 off 13 balls) arrived at the crease to loud applause from the stands.
The weekend crowd acknowledged his tale of perseverance after surviving a horrific car accident in December 2022 with cheers of joy.
Pant got himself a couple of boundaries before walking back to the dugout after a rather soft dismissal off Harshal.
Meanwhile, Rabada accounted for Hope and Chahar got rid of Tristan Stubbs as Delhi slipped to 128/6 in the 16th over.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Sigh and Pay: What the New US Import Tax Means for India’s Export Giants
When you go to a shop and the shopkeeper says, “Price badh gaya hai, naya tax laga hai,” you usually do only one thing — you sigh and pay more. You do not argue with the government; you simply adjust your household budget. That is exactly what is happening in the United States right now. And when prices and taxes change in America, the effect does not stay there. It slowly travels across oceans and reaches India too.
On 21 February, American President Donald Trump announced a new 15% import tax on almost all goods entering the US from other countries. An import tax, also called a tariff, is simply extra money charged when a product crosses the border — like a gate fee. A T-shirt from Tiruppur, a medicine from Hyderabad, or an electronic item from China — if it wants to enter the US market, it must now pay 15% extra. Companies usually pass this extra cost to customers. So in the end, it is the ordinary American buyer in a supermarket who pays more.
This 15% tax did not come out of nowhere. Just one day earlier, on 20 February, Trump had announced a 10% global import tax. Before that, he had introduced even higher tariffs, which the US Supreme Court struck down. The court said he was misusing a law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). That law is meant for genuine emergencies — like dealing with hostile nations or blocking dangerous financial flows — not for imposing wide import taxes on almost the entire world. In simple terms, the court said normal trade cannot be labelled an emergency just to collect extra tax.
So Trump turned to another legal option: Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This rarely used law allows a president to impose temporary import surcharges when there is a serious trade imbalance. It permits tariffs of up to 15%, but only for 150 days — roughly five months. That is why it feels like a 150-day fuse. The law was originally designed for situations when the US was buying far more from other countries than it was selling to them — what economists call a trade deficit. Trump argues that America’s large and long-standing trade deficit justifies this step.
However, legal experts are divided. Some believe today’s trade deficit may not fully match the conditions envisioned when Section 122 was written decades ago. That means the new tariff could also face legal challenges. But until any court decision changes it, the 15% tariff is active.
The numbers explain the shift clearly. Before the Supreme Court struck down the earlier tariffs, the average import tax in America had risen to about 16%. After the court ruling, it fell sharply to around 9%. Now, with the new 15% global tariff, analysts expect the overall average to settle somewhere between 13% and 14%. In simple words, tariffs are lower than last year’s peak but higher than they were just days ago. They have not returned to old normal levels.
Why does this matter for India? Because the US is one of India’s largest export markets. India sends medicines, IT services, textiles, gems and jewellery, engineering goods, and auto components to America. If a 15% tariff is applied, Indian exporters face a difficult choice. Either they absorb the extra cost and accept lower profits, or they raise prices and risk losing customers. Lower profits often mean slower hiring, reduced investment, and cautious spending. Trade policy may look distant, but it quietly influences jobs and incomes here at home.
Earlier discussions between India and the US involved a possible 18% tariff structure. On paper, 15% seems better. But the earlier framework was clearer and more stable. The new 15% tariff comes with a 150-day time limit and the possibility of court battles. In business, predictability is often more valuable than small numerical advantages. Companies can manage higher costs if they are stable; uncertainty is harder to manage.
There are some exemptions. Certain medicines, critical minerals, defence-related goods, and some products from Canada and Mexico are excluded under special agreements. So the rule is not entirely universal. But for a large share of imports — including many low-cost online products — the 15% tariff applies.
Another important change concerns the “de minimis” rule. Earlier, goods valued at 800 dollars or less could enter the US without paying import tax. This allowed online sellers and platforms to ship small packages directly to American consumers easily. That benefit is now effectively suspended. The administration has confirmed that even these small parcels will face the new tariff. In addition, a major tax bill passed recently will permanently phase out the de minimis system for commercial shipments by around mid-2027.
Trump has also mentioned other legal tools. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows tariffs on industries linked to national security, such as steel, aluminium, and automobiles. Some of these sectors already face tariffs of 25% to 50%. The new 15% global tariff will not be added on top of those existing Section 232 tariffs. Another option, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, allows long-term tariffs on countries accused of unfair trade practices. However, both Section 232 and Section 301 require detailed investigations and take months to implement. Section 122, in contrast, acts quickly.
What happens on the ground? Studies from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York suggest that most of the cost of earlier tariffs was ultimately paid by American companies and consumers. When importers pay more, they try to pass that cost along the supply chain. This leads to higher prices for goods like home appliances, furniture, and vehicles. Some companies delay hiring or postpone expansion plans.
Not everyone loses. Certain domestic industries benefit from protection. For example, US shrimp fishermen have said that higher tariffs on imported shrimp made their local products more competitive. In trade policy, one sector’s protection often means another sector’s higher cost.
The broader issue is stability. Tariffs are powerful economic tools. But when they change frequently or face repeated legal challenges, businesses struggle to plan. They hesitate to invest, hire, or sign long-term contracts. Uncertainty itself becomes a cost.
Trump believes America has been disadvantaged in global trade and wants to strengthen domestic manufacturing. Many supporters agree that protecting key industries and reducing dependence on foreign supply chains is important. The debate is less about the objective and more about the method. A major trading nation needs policies that are clear, predictable, and legally sound.
Trade policy may appear technical, but it has everyday consequences. It can influence the price of shoes in a shop, the hiring decision of a factory in Chennai, or the expansion plan of an exporter in Gujarat.
Trump’s 15% global tariff and its 150-day timeline are not just political headlines. They represent a shift in how trade costs are distributed across countries and consumers. And in global economics, the final bill almost always reaches ordinary people — whether they wrote the rules or not.
(Girish Linganna is an award-winning science communicator and a Defence, Aerospace & Geopolitical Analyst. He is the Managing Director of ADD Engineering Components India Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of ADD Engineering GmbH, Germany.)
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views, policies, or position of the publication, its editors, or its management. The publication is not responsible for the accuracy of any information, statements, or opinions presented in this piece.
