It also said the investment part of gold import, a little over 16 per cent, was unproductive. The committee proposed the government see gold with the above perspective and offer alternatives for gold investments without imports. It proposed revamping the gold monetisation scheme (GMS) and that all banks and their branches offer the service, reducing minimum quantity of gold to be offered by customers under the GMS. The committee also proposed making GMS attractive enough for banks by linking gold metal loans with international lease rates. As of now, some banks hedge working capital finance cost by importing gold on lease from overseas banks and lending the same gold as gold metal loans to Indian jewellers. In yet another proposal to give an alternative for gold investment, the committee proposed to replace sovereign gold bonds (SGB) with gold saving accounts, with all conditions and provisions similar to the current SGB. However, after banks make proper arrangements, gold investment in rupee terms in proposed savings accounts should be backed by physical gold lying with Indian households. Another important recommendation is to set up a gold domestic council in line with export promotion council chaired by a joint secretary level official. The report proposed a liberal PAN (permanent account number) limit and a new limit for providing data to respective organisation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The gold trade had different reactions to the proposal with many expecting jewellers’ role to be enlarged in schemes like GMS and gold savings account, while they are divided on duty front. Some say that including GST and import duty, the tax on gold is over 13 per cent, which should come down to discourage smuggling, but another section says the cost benefit ratio to cut total duty on gold, which is otherwise coming through illegal route doesn’t benefit as revenue forgone for 100-150 tonnes of gold in duty terms is less than revenue loss if overall duty is reduced.