Citroën offers discounts of up to R$ 22,700 on the 7-seater Aircross and R$ 16,200 on the Basalt

The US Senate approved the bill by a majority, which provides for penalties for major buyers of Russian oil and petroleum products, such as China and India. The argument in favor of this decision was that such trade contributes to the continuation of the war in Ukraine.

This bill has been given a new name—the 'Lindes O. Graham Act on Sanctions Against Russia and Iran 2026'—and was approved by the Senate with a vote of 86 in favor and 11 against. It allows President Donald Trump to impose 100 percent tariffs on goods from countries that are the five largest importers of Russian oil and gas.

Currently, the main buyers of Russian oil and gas are recognized as China, India, Azerbaijan, Hungary, and Slovakia. In addition to imposing sanctions against Russia, this law will extend the 'Iran Sanctions Act of 1996' until 2031. This act imposes fines on companies investing in Iran's energy sector.

The bill, supported by both parties, was promoted by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (who passed away on July 11) and Democrat Richard Blumenthal. After Graham's sudden death following a trip to Kyiv, leaders of both parties took steps to pass the law with renewed enthusiasm to honor the late senator's legacy as an ally of Ukraine.

The late senator's sister, Darling Graham, who was appointed to his seat after his death, stated: 'This law forces key countries supporting the Russian economy to make a simple but important choice. A choice between doing business with America or buying cheap Russian energy.'

The bill also aims to introduce restrictions on Russian leaders and officials, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, wealthy industrialists (oligarchs), and financial institutions. After the vote, Senator Blumenthal told journalists that 'these harsh sanctions and tariffs will stop everyone involved in this deadly, criminal, and aggressive war.'

Some Democrats warn that this law grants Trump new tariff powers, even though they themselves include such duties in their trade policy. The bill will now be sent to the House of Representatives for approval when it reconvenes on August 31.

A new report prepared by NCAER suggests lifting the ban on the sale and consumption of alcohol in Bihar. The aim of this proposal is to generate resources for financing development and capital expenditures.

The report asserts that the ban has not led to a decrease in violence against women, but rather has encouraged the shift from legal alcohol consumption to illegal spirits and narcotics. The team of economists, led by Ratna Sahai, believes that lifting the ban could help the state increase tax revenue by 14–15% while reducing enforcement costs.

The report also advocates for increased central transfers to states to support flood control measures. It notes that despite a significant rise in illicit alcohol trade, overall data does not indicate a widespread reduction in violence against women since the ban was implemented. Furthermore, the prohibition regime was accompanied by concerns regarding the expansion of illegal hard liquor trade, complicating law enforcement tasks and corruption, as well as an increase in the use of alternative intoxicants, including prohibited drugs.

After returning to office with promises to introduce a ban, Nitish Kumar imposed a strict prohibition on the sale and consumption of alcohol in one of the country's most stringent regimes. Although the report acknowledges Kumar's achievements as Chief Minister in restoring law and order and setting Bihar on a path of development, it points out that the state lags behind many others in mobilizing revenue and relies on funds from the Centre.

The report identifies six priority areas for the state: gaps in education, healthcare issues, deficiencies in governance and law enforcement, recurring floods and natural disasters, lack of private sector, and gender discrimination and violence. To achieve these goals, it proposes increasing capital expenditure, reducing subsidies, boosting resources, and securing more funds from the Centre.

It was noted that Bihar's debt burden, at 39% of the state's GDP, is higher than that of high and low-income groups, with the exception of Punjab (47%) and Bengal, which is in a similar situation. The report concludes that raising state revenue alone is insufficient to finance reforms due to a limited tax base, necessitating additional transfers from the Centre depending on the reforms undertaken.