Russell, Rana help KKR survive Klaasen fury for thrilling four-run win over SRH
Kolkata, Mar 23: Harshit Rana's resilience in the final over and Andre Russel's muscling fifty helped Kolkata Knight Riders survive Heinrich Klaasen's six-hitting spree and score a thrilling four-run victory over Sunrisers Hyderabad in their IPL match here on Saturday.
Klaassen almost turned the match on its head with a 29-ball 63 in which he moussed eight sixes without a single four.
But SRH bravely chased KKR's imposing 208/7, which was built around Russell's (64, 25b) and Phil Salt's 54 (40b), but could only make 204 for seven.
The South African took IPL's costliest buy Mitchell Starc to cleaners smashing him for three sixes, while Bengal cricketer Shahbaz Ahmed ended the Aussie left-arm quick's over with another six.
That 26-run over meant Starc, who joined the Knight Riders for a record Rs 24.75 crore, finished with woeful figures of 4-0-53-0.
Needing 13 off the last over, KKR gambled with rookie pacer Rana as he was hammered for seven runs off the first two balls.
But first he dismissed Shahabaz and then Klaassen off his penultimate delivery, which came through a superb backward diving catch by Suyash Sharma, to give the local side a fantastic win.
The Hyderabad outfit needed five runs off the last ball but skipper Pat Cummins failed to connect the ball, as Rana finished with fine figures (3/33).
Chasing the imposing target on a beautiful batting deck at Eden Gardens, Hyderabad found themselves at 145/5, needing 61 runs from 19 balls before Klaasen came in.
Earlier, openers Mayank Agarwal and Abhishek Sharma, who both scored identical 32, gave SRH a perfect start.
The duo made 60 runs in 33 balls before Agarwal was dismissed by Rana.
Before Rana got into the act, KKR's trump card Narine dished out his sorcery. The West Indian bowled from seventh to 13th over, and gave away just 19 runs in four overs.
He took only one wicket but stifled SRH's progress in the middle-overs.
However, KKR's fielding was an eyesore. Varun Chakravarthy's fitness was always a concern and it came to fore when he dropped a dolly to deprive Narine the wicket of Rahul Tripathi.
The former KKR batter got another reprieve in the next over and this time impact player Suyash failed to hold on to a return catch.
It would have been a boundary, but umpire Yeshwant Barde got in the way of the ball, leaving him grounded.
Earlier, Salt got third IPL fifty in just 38 balls before being dismissed by Mayank Markande (2/39).
The Englishman made 54 off 40 after Narine (2), Venkatesh Iyer (7), Shreyas Iyer (0) and Nitish Rana (9) fell cheaply with pacer T Natarajan (3/32) making early dents.
But KKR had the Dre Russ' power in their ranks.
Russell teed off against Markande when he launched the SRH leg-spinner deep into the stands -- three sixes in five balls.
Markande for a moment thought that he had the last laugh when Aiden Markram took a blinder at long-on but replays showed he grounded the forward diving catch, giving Russell a breather on 20.
The warning signs were on for SRH and the Jamaican went ballistic in Bhuvneshwar Kumar's penultimate over hitting him for two fours and two sixes, taking 26 runs.
Rinku Singh, at the other end, made a 15-ball 23 as the duo put together 81 runs from 33 balls as Kolkata scored 85 runs in the last five overs.
However, credit should also go to Salt and Ramandeep Singh.
Salt remained firm despite early wickets and got handy support from debutant Ramandeep who quickly ran off the blocks in an entertaining 54-run partnership.
Ramandeep slammed Cummins for a boundary and then pulled a short one for a six.
He also hit Markande and Marco Jansen and Shahbaz Ahmed for three more sixes in his 17-ball 35 before being dismissed by Cummins.
The partnership set the tone for the final assault by Russell and Rinku.
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.
