Jewellery industry anxious over Donald Trump's proposed 50% tariff on Indian imports
MUMBAI: India's bullion and jewellery industry has expressed anxiety over US President Donald Trump's proposed imposition of 50% tariff on imports from India.
No less than 85% of SEEPZ SEZ jewellery manufactured in Mumbai is exported to the USA.
The United States is India's single largest market, accounting for over $10 billion in exports, nearly 30% of Indian industry's total global trade.
You Can Also Check:
Mumbai AQI
|
Weather in Mumbai
|
Bank Holidays in Mumbai
|
Public Holidays in Mumbai
Rajesh Rokde, chairman, All India Gem and Jewellery Domestic Council (GJC), said, "The imposition of a 25% tariff on Indian gold jewellery exports already in effect and the additional 25% set to be enforced from Aug 27 represents a compounded blow to the sector. This steep escalation not only renders our products significantly less competitive in the US market, but more critically, it jeopardises the livelihoods of thousands of skilled artisans who depend on export demand for their survival.
"These craftsmen, many from marginalised communities, are the backbone of India's jewellery ecosystem, preserving centuries-old techniques through small workshops and family-run enterprises," Rokde added.
"A cumulative 50% tariff threatens widespread job losses, destabilises local economies, and risks eroding a rich cultural heritage. We urge the [Indian] govt to act swiftly and engage in trade negotiations that protect these livelihoods and uphold India's global leadership in handcrafted jewellery," Rokde added further.
Avinash Gupta, vice chairman, GJC, said, "This tariff shock is also pressuring the Indian rupee, likely making gold costlier for domestic consumers and dampening demand within India, further straining the industry."
Kirit Bhansali, chairman, GJEPC (Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council) said, "The US announcement of a sweeping 50% tariff on all Indian goods is a deeply concerning development. This move will have far-reaching repercussions across India's economy, disrupting critical supply chains, stalling exports, and threatening thousands of livelihoods.
The Indian gem and jewellery sector, in particular, stands to be severely impacted.
The United States is our single largest market, accounting for over $10 billion in exports, nearly 30% of our industry's total global trade. A blanket tariff of this magnitude is severely devastating for the sector."
"There is significant dependency on the US market, as 85% of exports from SEEPZ SEZ, which provides 50,000 jobs, is directed there.
For cut and polished diamonds, half of India's exports are US-bound. With revised tariff hike, the entire industry may come to a standstill, placing immense pressure on every part of the value chain, from small karigars (artisans) to large manufacturers."
"What adds to the concern is that competing manufacturing hubs such as Turkey, Vietnam and Thailand continue to enjoy significantly lower tariffs of 15%, 20% and 19% respectively, making Indian products relatively less competitive in the US market. This imbalance, if unaddressed, could erode India's long-standing position as a key supplier to the US."
"We are also concerned about the possibility of trade rerouting through low-tariff destinations such as Mexico, Canada, Turkey, UAE or Oman undermining the spirit of legitimate trade and impacting transparency."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
11 minutes ago
- Mint
Can the US still be Europe's peacemaker?
For over a century, no European peace treaty has been signed without the participation of the United States. Woodrow Wilson's vision shaped the Treaty of Versailles after World War I, and Harry Truman hammered out the post-World War II order with Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the Potsdam Conference. More recently, in 1995, U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke led the talks that ended the wars in the former Yugoslavia. Perhaps this tradition was on Donald Trump's mind when he agreed to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday to discuss an end to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, among other subjects. After all, the U.S. is a European power, standing at the center of the NATO alliance, and as such its attitudes toward the future of Europe must be taken into account. But when it comes to achieving peace in Ukraine, the summit's chances of success are small. A twofold dilemma confronts the White House. Putin's love of obfuscation and delay makes negotiating with him fiendishly difficult; and the Trump administration's publicly stated desire to reduce America's military presence in Europe undermines its own position from the start. As a result, the summit is more likely to prolong the war than end it. It could even contribute to Ukraine's defeat. Russians are weary after more than three years of fighting, and the war's economic and military toll continues to rise. But when it comes to Ukraine, there are few limits to Putin's zeal, and Russian forces are currently finding success on the battlefield, punching through Ukrainian lines this week. A time may come when Putin will concede that Russia cannot conquer all of Ukraine, the original goal of the 2022 invasion. But there is no reason to think he has reached this point yet. Putin has used negotiations to his advantage before. Russia's war on Ukraine began in 2014, with its annexation of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine. Putin's war aims involved more than the acquisition of territory. His goal was to exert direct control over Ukraine or, at least, to gain veto power over Kyiv's foreign-policy choices. In this sense, the invasion was a failure: Though Russia held on to the Ukrainian territory seized in 2014, it couldn't achieve its political goals. Instead, Kyiv became less politically beholden to Russia after 2014, as a self-evident consequence of invasion. Though the U.S. and Europe condemned Russia's land grab, they didn't intervene militarily, and the economic sanctions they imposed had little effect. In 2014-15, Putin made deals with Ukraine, France and Britain, agreeing to withdraw from Ukrainian territory (excluding Crimea) in exchange for autonomous status for the occupied regions. Putin's goal was to convince the world that his intentions were relatively benign. He had gone into Ukraine, but he would go no further; he was looking for the exits. Putin also has a solid understanding of vanity. He flattered the U.S. and Europe, leading them to believe that by failing to resist Russia militarily they were showing maturity and helping to avoid a world war. In the following years, Russian diplomats attended countless meetings on implementing these collective agreements, and by 2021 France, Germany and the U.S. had restored normal relations with Russia. But Russia never withdrew its soldiers from Ukraine. Putin's pantomime of diplomacy had been nothing but a holding pattern, a prelude to his massive invasion of Ukraine in 2022. This background is crucial for understanding Putin's approach to negotiation and his intentions at the Alaska summit. The Kremlin has expressed pleasure at Putin's meeting with Trump, while remaining deliberately vague about its expectations. Meanwhile, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky has insisted that he will not cede 'land to the occupier." For Kyiv, the nightmare scenario is that Trump will pressure Ukraine to end the war by ceding some or all of the territory Russia has conquered, legitimizing the invasion and leaving the country vulnerable to renewed aggression in the future. History shows that the U.S. has been successful at concluding wars in Europe when it has participated in them or at least demonstrated military pre-eminence. Wilson joined the leaders of Britain and France at Versailles because American troops had helped defeat Germany in World War I. After World War II, Truman had to share the peacemaking limelight with Stalin, whose armies occupied most of eastern Europe. In the 1990s, the U.S. was free to shape the future of Europe because its uncontested victory in the Cold War made it the world's sole superpower. To end the wars in the former Yugoslavia, Holbrooke invited representatives of Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia to negotiate at a U.S. Air Force base in Dayton, Ohio, to telegraph the scope of American air power to the participants. He got his point across. In Ukraine, by contrast, Washington has helped supply Kyiv with weapons but kept away from the fighting. Now the U.S. intends to scale back its commitment. 'We're done with the funding of the Ukraine war business," Vice President JD Vance announced on Aug. 10. For the Trump administration, the war in Ukraine is not an occasion for augmenting American power but for diminishing it, by passing the job of defending Europe back to the Europeans. This doesn't mean that the administration should eschew diplomacy with Russia. Negotiations can be open-ended, and they can benefit from unexpected contingencies. But the Trump team should remember that Putin has every incentive to buy time by engaging in insincere peace talks, as he has often done in the past. Since the U.S. is too distant from the conflict and has too little leverage to force Russia to a settlement, the countries most likely to bring the war to an end are Ukraine and its European partners. For the first time in a century, the U.S. may be more bystander than participant in the denouement of a major European war. Michael Kimmage is a professor of history at the Catholic University of America and the author of 'Collisions: The War in Ukraine and the Origins of the New Global Instability."
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
14 minutes ago
- First Post
From rupyarupa to rupee: Tracing the history of the Indian currency
India is all set to celebrate its 79th Independence Day this year. The journey of the rupee has reflected the evolution of the country – its history, culture, tradition and economy. Let's take a closer look The journey of the rupee has reflected the evolution of India – its history, culture, tradition and economy. Reuters India is all set to celebrate its 79th Independence Day this year. As the years have gone by, so has the mighty Indian rupee changed with the passage of time. The journey of the rupee has reflected the evolution of the country – its history, culture, tradition and economy. Let's take a closer look at the history of the Indian rupee. The rupee in ancient times The word rupee comes from the Sanskrit word rūpya (wrought silver). The rupee is mentioned in ancient texts, including those of Panini, a Sanskrit writer in the 5th Century BCE. Panini used the word rūpa to refer to a silver coin. Ancient Indian kingdoms in the 6th century also had their own forms of currency that were the forerunners of the rupee. The Mahajanapadas of Gandhara, Kuntala, Kuru, Panchala, Shakya, Surasena, and Saurashtra all issued their own currency. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD While these were made of silver and had a set weight, they came in all shapes and sizes and with different. Coins from Saurashtra bore a humped bull, Dakshin Panchala stamped a Swastika, and Magadha went in for a variety of symbols. Chanakya, in his famed Arthashastra, mentions how the Mauryas under the great Emperor Chandragupta Maurya minted coins such as rupyarupa (silver) suvarnarupa (gold), tamararupa (copper) and sisarupa (lead). Chanakya, in his famed Arthashastra, mentions how the Mauryas under the great Emperor Chandragupta Maurya minted coins like rupyarupa (silver). Wikimedia Commons It was Sher Shah Suri, after defeating Mughal emperor Humayun, who standardised the rupiya. Suri, during his reign from 1540 to 1545, issued a silver coin weighing 11.5 grams. The name was kept out of respect for India's heritage. Though the British East India Company had already set up in India and even attempted to introduce the sterling pound, the rupiya's popularity remained unrivalled. Indeed the rupiya remained in circulation during the Mughal reigns, the era of the Marathas and in British India – a testament to Suri's organisational skills and the enduring power of the currency. By 1671, the British East India Company had given in. It began minting coins in the local style – using the rupiya. However, the value of the currency was not standard across India – which naturally created problems. In British India and more modern times It took till 1835 for the law to standardise the minting of the rupee. This came after the British colonial government passed the Paper Currency Act of 1861. Each rupee was split into 16 annas, which in turn were split into four pice (paise) each. So, one rupee equated to around 64 pice (paise). STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India continued to use silver and gold as currency till the 18th Century. However, the influx of European trading firms and the establishment of the banks resulted in the first paper currency being printed. The Bank of Hindostan (1770– 1832) in Calcutta, the General Bank of Bengal and Bihar (1773–75), and Bengal Bank (1784–91), all issued their own forms of paper currency. This is when the use of paper notes rather than coins began taking hold. The British colonial government forbade private banks from issuing their own currency. The Bank of England would take over responsibility for printing all of India's currency notes for the next hundred years or so. It introduced paper notes in the denominations of Rs 10, Rs 20, Rs 50, Rs 100, and Rs 1,000. This currency, known as the 'Victoria Portrait' series, depicted a small image of the British Queen on the top left. However, the denomination could only be used in certain areas known as 'currency circles' – Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, Rangoon, Kanpur, Lahore, and Karachi. These were unifaced, carried two language panels and were printed on hand-moulded paper. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This currency, known as the 'Victoria Portrait' series, depicted a small image of the British Queen on the top left. Wikimedia Commons In 1867, the Victoria Portrait series was withdrawn due to forgeries and replaced by the Underprint series. From 1903 to 1911, Rs 5, Rs 10, Rs 50 and Rs 100 were universalised. The British government then introduced the 'King's Portrait' series – beginning with George V in 1923. It was only in 1928 that India set up its first currency printing press in Nasik. In 1935, the Reserve Bank of India was established, which finally took responsibility for handling India's money. The RBI continued in much the same vein as the Bank of England. Its first currency note, a denomination of Rs 5, was issued three years later in 1938. It bore a portrait of King George VI. The RBI also introduced denominations of Rs 10, Rs 100, Rs 1,000 and Rs 10,000. It also reintroduced the Rs 1 note, which had been first brought out in 1917 due to the first World War and discontinued in 1926. In March 1943, the Rs 2 note would follow. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Post-Independence period After Independence, India found itself making a fresh start. However, it retained the currency and coins from the earlier period for a few years. At this time, 1 Rupee was 16 Annas, 1 Anna was 4 Pice and 1 Pice was 3 Pies. India kicked off its new series on August 15, 1950. There had been some arguments about Gandhiji's face replacing the King's. However, it was not to be. Instead, it was the Lion Capital of the Ashoka Pillar that replaced George VI. The tiger was replaced by the corn sheaf. However, the value of the coinage remained unchanged. It was only in 1957 that India adopted the decimal system. The rupee was now defined as 100 naya paise instead of 16 Annas. In 1964, Naya was dropped entirely. The Reserve Bank has now introduced a central bank digital currency (CBDC) – also known as an e-rupee It was only in 1969 that Gandhiji's face began being printed on currency notes of the denomination of Rs 2 and higher. Gandhiji would also feature on currency notes issued in 1996 of Rs 10 and Rs 500 – a replacement for the Lion Capital – and in 2005. New 50 paise, Rs 1, Rs 2 and Rs 5 stainless steel coins were also introduced. In 2010, the new symbol ₹ was introduced – a combination of the Latin letter R and the Devanagari letter र (ra). STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Reserve Bank has now introduced a central bank digital currency (CBDC), also known as an e-rupee. It has also hinted that it is looking at cross-border pilot projects. It remains to be seen where the rupee will go in the age of cryptocurrency. With inputs from agencies
NDTV
14 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Remember The Countless Sacrifices...": Ex-India Cricketer's Moving Post On Independence Day Can't Be Missed
Several Indian cricketers took to social media to extend wishes of the 79th Independence Day to the countrymen. Prime Minister Narendra Modi hoisted the tricolour at the Red Fort in Delhi, as the nation marked the celebration of the 79th Independence Day. The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) took to their official X handle, posting, "Wishing all Indians a Happy Independence Day Jai Hind #TeamIndia | #HappyIndependenceDay." Former Indian middle-order batter VVS Laxman, who starred in India's Kolkata Test win against Australia back in 2001 with a 376-run marathon partnership with Rahul Dravid to turn a massive first innings deficit to a 383 run-lead which is still one of Indian cricket's best post-independence moments, urged citizens to "strive each day to build a brighter, stronger India that our future generations will be proud of." On this Independence Day, let us remember the countless sacrifices that won us the gift of freedom. Let us strive each day to build a brighter, stronger India that our future generations will be proud of. Wishing you a Happy #IndependenceDay! Jai Hind! — VVS Laxman (@VVSLaxman281) August 15, 2025 "On this Independence Day, let us remember the countless sacrifices that won us the gift of freedom. Let us strive each day to build a brighter, stronger India that our future generations will be proud of. Wishing you a Happy #IndependenceDay! Jai Hind!," posted VVS. Former Indian all-rounder Irfan Pathan, part of India's 2007 ICC T20 World Cup and 2013 ICC Champions Trophy winning teams, also posted, "Wishing every Indian a Happy Independence Day! Our freedom was hard-earned; our duty is to keep it alive -- in spirit, in action, and in unity. Jai Hind!". India's star all-rounder Hardik Pandya, who has often performed for the tricolour at the biggest stages with both bat and ball alike and is a vital part of ICC T20 World Cup 2024 and Champions Trophy 2025 winning set-ups, also posted, "Happy Independence Day, India." The 22-year-old Tilak Varma, who has represented India in four ODIs and 25 T20Is, also posted on X that playing for India for him is the "biggest motivation" and "greatest honour". With 749 runs in 24 T20I innings at an average of 49.93, strike rate of over 155, two centuries and three fifties, he is India's newest rock-solid number three in the T20I set-up, leading up to the ICC T20 World Cup to be hosted by India and Sri Lanka next year. "My biggest motivation is playing for my country, it is the greatest honour to represent India on the world stage. Wishing you all a very happy independence day," posted Tilak. Earlier, Prime Minister Narendra Modi hoisted the tricolor at Red Fort,as the nation marked the celebration of the 79th Independence Officer Rashika Sharma assisted the Prime Minister in hoisting the flag, after which flower petals were showered from two Mi-17 helicopters of the Indian Air Force - one carrying the national flag and the other 'Operation Sindoor' flag. Wing Commander Vinay Poonia and Wing Commander Aditya Jaiswal piloted the aircraft. This year's celebrations carry the theme 'Naya Bharat,' reflecting the government's vision of achieving 'Viksit Bharat' by 2047.
