Consider the following statements : Statement-I : India does not import apples from the United States of America. Statement-II : In India, the law prohibits the import of Genetically Modified food without the approval of the competent authority. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements ?

Describes apples as a temperate fruit grown in India (J&K, HP, Uttarakhand, Arunachal) and gives domestic production and area.

A student could compare India's domestic production/seasonality (from this) with US apple harvest seasons and known trade flows to judge whether offseason or variety gaps might lead India to import US apples.

Gives that North America is a significant source region in India's import trade (showing substantial import values from North America).

Using a world trade map or commodity-specific import data, a student could check whether agricultural/fruit imports from North America include apples or are concentrated in other goods.

Notes that India imports certain agricultural items (example: edible oil) despite being agriculturally rich — showing a pattern that domestic production does not preclude imports.

Apply this general rule to apples: even though India produces apples, consider factors (variety, quality, seasonality, price) that could plausibly lead to apple imports from countries like the USA.

Explains India imports raw agricultural or commodity inputs (e.g., raw cashewnuts, crude diamonds) for processing and re-export — illustrating trade patterns where specific goods are imported for niche purposes.

A student could infer that if the US supplies specific apple varieties or processing-grade apples not available in India, India might import them; they could then check commodity-level trade statistics.

Uses apples as an illustrative traded commodity in explaining 'terms of trade', implying apples are a standard example of internationally traded fruits.

Use this conceptual example to motivate checking price/terms differences and market incentives that could prompt India to import apples from higher-price suppliers like the US.

Mentions the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) as the body that recommends environmental release of a GM food crop, and that GEAC nod is a step in an approval process.

A student could check whether GEAC (or related statutes under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986) has legal powers over import/entry of GM organisms or if separate import approvals are required.

Notes that Bt brinjal passed field trials but was not allowed commercial production and a moratorium was imposed, indicating regulatory controls and possible government-level blocks on GM crops.

One could infer that India exerts regulatory control over GM crops and extend this to investigate whether similar controls apply to imported GM food absent competent-authority approval.

Explains FSSAI is the single statutory authority for food safety and standards and enforces provisions through state authorities.

Use this to test whether FSSAI rules or notifications require prior approval/certification for importing novel/GM food products.

States FSSAI regulates manufacture, sale, distribution and import of organic food and published import regulations, showing FSSAI exercises regulatory control over imports of specific food categories.

A student could analogously check whether FSSAI (or another competent authority) has specific import rules for GM food, given its role over other food-import categories.

Notes the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill (to regulate biotech products including GM organisms) has been pending, implying an existing regulatory framework and potential legislative attention to biotech/GM governance.

This suggests looking for existing interim rules under other Acts (e.g., Environment (Protection) Act, FSSAI rules) that might currently govern GM food imports pending new legislation.