India-US Trade Talks In Advanced Stage, Agricultural Products A Hurdle: Official
The India-US trade negotiations are at an advanced stage and a consensus on an interim deal is within reach, a key official told NDTV on Tuesday, adding that Washington's demands on agricultural products are proving to be a hurdle.
Indo-American Chamber of Commerce Executive Council Member Sunil Jain spoke to the channel on Tuesday, a day after Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman was reported as having said that agriculture and dairy are "big red lines" for India in the trade talks.
"The deal has progressed a lot and the chief negotiators of India are extending their stay in the US and trying to complete the deal. I think the two areas where the deal is getting stuck are related to agricultural products. Agriculture is the lifeline of the Indian GDP and Indian people. It is very difficult for us to import agricultural products. There are many difficulties and sensitivities involved," Mr Jain said in Hindi.
"The second thing is that the products the US sells to us are genetically modified products, which are banned in India. Till date, no law has been enacted in India to allow these products. So, it is very difficult for us to import maize, cotton, soya, almonds, apples, etc. The US is telling us to make a deal on these products," he added.
The negotiations between India and the US entered the sixth day in Washington on Tuesday. The Indian team, headed by Rajesh Agrawal, special secretary in the Department of Commerce, was initially scheduled to stay for two days.
The extension is important because US President Donald Trump's 26% reciprocal tariffs had been suspended for 90 days till July 9. The baseline tariffs of 10%, though, are still in place.
"I think both countries can keep this obstacle aside and move forward with other products. For the US, exports of auto components, aluminium and steel from India are a problem. I think we should make a deal and keep some products out of it... We can debate and come to an agreement on these products after three to four months," he said.
If this can be worked out, the executive council member said, a large part of India's exports to the US will be saved from the reciprocal tariffs, but the base tariff of 10% is likely to remain.
"The zero tariff trade will be settled only after September-October. But, even if we work with 10% as the base tariff, it is fine for the country... If there is any bilateral trade agreement, it will have to involve give and take. So, we will move forward and America will move forward. Both are the largest democracies in the world and they will have to move together," Mr Jain said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Standard
27 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Rupee eases amid weakness in equities
Indian Rupee fell today as some weakness in local stocks weighed on the currency. INR currently trades at 85.67 per US dollar, down 8 paise on the day. The US dollar edged up a bit after dropping to lowest level in over three and half years. Fed Chair Powell reaffirmed a data-dependent stance while acknowledging tariff-linked inflation as a limiting factor. The Senates narrow approval of a tax-and-spending bill, projected to balloon the national debt by $3.3 trillion, added to market anxiety and kept the US currency under check. Meanwhile, the domestic equity benchmarks ended with modest losses today, weighed down by ongoing uncertainty surrounding the India-US trade talks. Investors remained cautious, adopting risk-off approach. As per provisional closing data, the barometer index, the S&P BSE Sensex, fell 287.60 points or 0.34% to 83,409.69. The Nifty 50 index lost 88.40 points or 0.35% to 25,453.40.
Business Standard
27 minutes ago
- Business Standard
India will likely need about 300 MT steel capacity by 2030 and 400 MT of steel capacity by 2035 to cater to robust steel demand
Ministry of Steel has noted that India is the only major economy, where steel consumption is growing at above 12% for the last three years. On the contrary, the steel consumption in other geographies is either stagnant or decline. This fast growth in steel consumption is due to Government of Indias push on infrastructure strengthening, public and private sector development in buildings and real estate and growing manufacturing of capital goods in the country. To cater to this steel demand, the country will need about 300 million tonnes or MT steel capacity by 2030 and 400 MT of steel capacity by 2035. This capacity creation will require capital infusion of approximately US$ 200 billion by 2035. If substandard cheap steel imports affect the domestic steel industry (both integrated steel producers and small steel industries) their capacity to infuse this capital will come into terrible strain and the capacity expansion plans of steel industry will be adversely affected.
India Today
27 minutes ago
- India Today
Non-compete clauses blocking job switch are not enforceable, says Delhi High Court
In a significant ruling that could have widespread implications, the Delhi High Court recently reaffirmed that non-compete clauses restricting an employee's right to work after leaving a company are unenforceable under Indian law. The judgment came in the appeal of Varun Tyagi, a software engineer, against his former employer, Daffodil Software Private Limited, which had sought to block him from joining a key client after resigning from the was the case?Varun Tyagi, an IT engineer, joined Daffodil Software in January 2022 and was later assigned to a government project run by Digital India Corporation, a business associate of Daffodil. Tyagi rose to a leadership position on the project, receiving specialised training and working closely with resigning from Daffodil in January 2025 and serving a three-month notice period, Tyagi accepted a job offer from DIC, which was to be effective from April 2025. Soon after, Daffodil, citing a non-compete and non-solicitation clause in Tyagi's employment contract with them, filed a suit before the court to restrain him from joining DIC. The company argued that this move could potentially harm their business interests and lead to the disclosure of proprietary employment agreement between Tyagi and Daffodil included a sweeping clause that prohibited Tyagi from soliciting or working with any business associates of Daffodil for three years after leaving the company and associating with any business associate he had interacted with during his trial court granted an interim injunction in favour of Daffodil, restraining Tyagi from joining DIC and from disclosing any confidential information. The court said there was a prima facie case in favour of the company and there existed a real risk of irreparable harm to Daffodil. Tyagi then challenged this decision before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the injunction and the non-compete clause violated his right to work and were void under Indian through his counsel, argued that non-compete clauses were a blanket prohibition, not just on competitors but also on clients and business associates. He further said that such a clause, which imposes a post-employment restraint, cannot be legally permitted under Indian law. Daffodil, on the other hand, argued that the non-compete was necessary to protect the company's interests, investments and intellectual property. They further argued that Tyagi had access to confidential information and proprietary knowledge that could potentially harm Daffodil's business did the High Court say?Justice Tejas Karia, who heard Tyagi's appeal, examined whether there was any legal foundation of non-compete clauses in India. The Court said that Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 clearly says that any agreement that restrains anyone from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business, except in the case of the sale of goodwill, shall be court clarified that Indian law, unlike English law, does not recognise the validity of 'partial' or 'reasonable' restraints. Citing several Supreme Court judgments, the court held that any post-employment restriction, no matter how limited, should be considered void unless it falls under the narrow exception for the sale of the High Court also found that Daffodil did not own the intellectual property or confidential information in question; rather, it belonged to DIC, the client. Most importantly, the court held that the non-compete clause, as drafted, was an impermissible restraint on Tyagi's right to work and was thus void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract have the courts said earlier?Indian courts have consistently held that non-compete clauses restricting an employee after they leave employment are void and unenforceable. Such clauses are seen as a restraint of trade and contrary to public policy, as they may deprive individuals of their fundamental right to earn a livelihood. This is, however, for enforcement of non-compete clauses post-employment only. Restrictions that apply during the period of employment are generally valid. Employers can prohibit employees from working with competitors or starting a competing business while still employed, provided the restrictions are reasonable and protect legitimate business there are certain exceptions that have evolved over time through judicial interpretations, in which a non-compete clause may be upheld. For example, courts may uphold non-compete clauses if they are specifically designed to protect trade secrets, proprietary information, or confidential data, provided the restrictions are reasonable in scope and duration. Additionally, as stated in Section 27, non-compete agreements that are part of a sale of business or goodwill may be enforceable to protect the buyer's the case of Superintendence Co. of India v. Krishan Murgai (1981), the Supreme Court of India emphasised that any agreement restraining a person from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business would generally be void, except with the limited exception to the sale of goodwill. 'The right to livelihood and to pursue any occupation is paramount and cannot be curtailed by such contractual restrictions' the top court the case of Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1967) the Supreme Court held that negative covenants or restrictions during the period of employment are valid if they are reasonable and necessary to protect the employer's interests, such as trade secrets or confidential information. However, restraints that operate after the termination of employment are generally void under Section 27. The court struck a balance, stating that while protecting trade secrets is legitimate, post-employment restrictions on an employee's right to work are not recently, in the case of Manipal Business Solutions v. Aurigain Consultants (2022), the Supreme Court held that restrictions on associating with a business associate or client post-employment are void under Section 27. The Court also held that such clauses, even if agreed upon, cannot be enforced after the employment relationship ends, as they amount to a restraint of trade and violate the right to livelihood.- Ends
