Andhra Pradesh shrimp farmers gear up for Statewide stir over steep U.S. tariffs
At a roundtable held on Tuesday, Andhra Pradesh Rythu Sangham State president V. Krishnaiah said that U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to increase tariffs on Indian shrimp exports by 50%—taking the effective duty to 59.65%—had plunged the State's prawn farming sector into crisis, affecting more than four lakh acres of shrimp farms across coastal Andhra Pradesh.
Former A.P. Rythu Sangham president B. Balaram noted that last year's export volume of 7.16 lakh tonnes now faces an additional burden of ₹50,000 per lakh of value, leading to price crashes and losses of up to ₹40,000 per tonne. Farmer leader Y. Keshav Rao criticised the U.S. for imposing far higher duties on India compared to Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, or Ecuador, and urged the Centre to ensure that farmers receive pre-tariff prices through procurement by the Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA).
Speakers, including AIDWA State general secretary D. Ramadevi, highlighted the severe impact on women workers employed in shrimp processing units. Tenant Farmers' Association State secretary Y. Haribabu moved a resolution demanding government procurement of all shrimp stocks, recognition of aquaculture as part of the agriculture sector, provision of power subsidies for aqua farmers, regulation of prices to stabilise returns, and expansion of domestic markets to absorb surplus produce.
The meeting resolved to submit memoranda to the Union Agriculture Minister and the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and to intensify the agitation through district-level protests, farmers' conferences, and public demonstrations across the State's aqua farming hubs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 minutes ago
- Business Standard
China's economy shows signs of strain in July, retail sales lose momentum
China's economy, after six months of steady growth, showed renewed signs of strain in July as momentum weakened across key sectors, weighed down by the prolonged property slump and mounting global uncertainties. According to the South China Morning Post (SCMP), headline indicators such as retail sales and industrial output slowed in July. The report said that China's retail sales increased by 3.7 per cent year-on-year in July, slowing from 4.8 per cent in June, based on figures released by the National Bureau of Statistics. Industrial output also lost momentum, expanding 5.7 per cent in July, compared with 6.8 per cent in the previous month. The SCMP further highlighted the property sector's continuing weakness. Property investment fell 12 per cent between January and July, worsening from an 11.2 per cent drop in the first half of the year. Growing internal competition An intensifying competition across key industries in China has been squeezing profit margins, a phenomenon described as 'involution', a cycle where firms work harder, cut prices, or expand output, but without expanding gains in productivity or profitability. Beijing has been stepping up efforts to curb excess supply, the report said. As reported earlier by Business Standard, manufacturers in China's electric vehicle sector have been caught in relentless price wars, slashing rates to outpace rivals. This race to the bottom has not only eaten into earnings but also drawn criticism from trading partners concerned about its spillover effects on global markets. An uneasy calm in trade tensions Trade tensions between China and the US have been fluctuating over the last few months. While the situation has eased after US President Donald Trump announced a second 90-day pause on tariffs, the two countries were locked in a heated tariff war earlier this year. In April, China raised its levies on US goods to 125 per cent after Trump hiked tariffs on Chinese imports to 145 per cent. A month later, Beijing and Washington reached a mutual agreement on a 90-day pause. Under the temporary truce, US tariffs on Chinese goods were to fall from 145 per cent to 30 per cent, while China's tariffs on American goods were to drop from 125 per cent to 10 per cent. This truce was extended for another 90 days on August 11. After India tariffs focus shifts to China Trump recently imposed a 25 per cent tariff on India, along with an additional 25 per cent penalty for purchasing oil from Russia. Like India, China is also a major importer of Russian crude. The secondary tariffs on India have shifted attention to Beijing, raising questions over whether China could face similar penalties in the future.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 minutes ago
- Business Standard
India facing tough choices in responding to steep Trump tariffs: GTRI
India is facing tough choices in responding to steep US tariffs - from negotiating or retaliating to diversifying export markets or offering trade concessions like ending Russian oil imports - but each option carries its own mix of benefits and risks, think tank GTRI said on Friday. The Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) said that India marks its Independence Day this year under the shadow of a bruising trade confrontation with Washington. The Trump administration's decision to slap a 50 per cent country-specific tariff on most Indian goods, on top of existing most favoured nation duties, has thrust India into a strategic dilemma that could reshape its trade, energy, and diplomatic positioning. "For New Delhi, the choices ahead are stark - negotiate, retaliate, diversify markets, or trade concessions such as ending purchases of Russian oil for tariff relief. Each option carries a different mix of gains and risks," GTRI Founder Ajay Srivastava said. He added that India will require structural reforms and aggressive trade diplomacy to absorb the high tariffs and diversify the country's exports to Europe, ASEAN, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. "Gains in the first two years might recover only $1015 billion of the $50 billion lost," he said. If US tariffs would raise consumer prices and unemployment in America, he said, domestic political pressure could force the Trump administration a cut to around 15 per cent for all countries. "India's best role here is to quietly highlight the tariffs' cost to American voters," Srivastava said. He added that in an era when economic power is used as a weapon, survival isn't about avoiding confrontation. "It's about picking the right battles, anticipating the next move, and playing for the long win," he said. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Mint
5 minutes ago
- Mint
The war on crypto isn't ending. It's just changing battlefields.
A golden era is about to dawn in the digital asset ecosystem. Freed from the shackles of the Securities and Exchange Commission's overly aggressive, enforcement-focused agenda, the crypto movement will bloom. Or so its most enthusiastic adherents, some placed within the federal government, believe. It seems as if every week, the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance announces that another digital asset or activity—including meme coins, proof-of-work mining activities, stablecoins, or protocol staking—shouldn't be considered a security. Under President Donald Trump, himself a crypto-enthusiast, the SEC has also dropped multiple cases against digital asset firms such as Coinbase Global and Token Metrics. But crypto fans may be counting their digital chickens before they hatch. The belief that 'anything goes" in the world of digital assets under Trump's SEC is probably an overblown hope, for several reasons. The federal court cases won by President Joe Biden's SEC chair, Gary Gensler, established that most digital assets are securities—assets subject not only to SEC supervision but also to the federal rules governing the sale and offering of securities, including registration and antifraud provision. Those findings still stand. Granted, Gensler's SEC didn't win every case it brought, and there were inconsistent decisions regarding whether digital assets are only considered subject to the securities laws in their initial distribution, as opposed to secondary market transactions. But a key holding of almost every case, such as those against Telegram, LBRY, and Terraform, was that digital assets are securities—and thus subject to the oversight of the SEC. The new SEC commissioner, Paul Atkins, recently tried to downplay those findings. In a speech before the America First Policy Institute, he said that the agency would work to advance Trump's intent to make the U.S. a global powerhouse in crypto. 'Despite what the SEC has said in the past," he said, 'most crypto assets are not securities." But absent explicit legislation providing that digital assets aren't securities, federal court decisions still have primacy over federal agency policy statements. The Supreme Court decided in the Loper Bright case last year that federal courts need not give deference to agency interpretations of statutes. So, although the SEC may no longer consider itself the cop on the beat when it comes to digital assets, the case law that was established while acting as such remains in effect. Even if the SEC were to abandon its oversight of crypto assets, state attorneys general and state securities bureaus have said they would assume that duty. A few weeks after the SEC announced it was dropping its enforcement action against Coinbase for allegedly selling unregistered securities, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield sued Coinbase, accusing it of selling Oregonians high-risk securities. Coinbase claimed in a countersuit that the state didn't inform it that it would start actively regulating cryptocurrencies as securities. Rayfield's office said in its suit that 'states must fill the federal vacuum being left by federal regulators who are giving up under the new administration." New York state Attorney General Letitia James is also aggressively pursuing digital asset enterprises. In an April court decision, James successfully argued that certain digital asset transactions can qualify as securities under state law. State statutes and regulations often apply more broadly than federal law. So, even if federal law changes, state laws will fill the remaining gaps. Especially in today's highly politicized culture, state officials will seek to differentiate themselves from federal enforcers by taking an aggressive approach to digital assets. It doesn't appear as if state agencies—once content to let federal authorities set the agenda—will remain on the sidelines. Third, the fact that the SEC is no longer going to take an enforcement-first approach toward digital assets doesn't mean that SEC lawyers—or at least former SEC lawyers—share that approach. I am a former SEC trial counsel. In talking with former colleagues over the past few months, I have learned something interesting. Many senior-level lawyers, some with decades of experience in courtrooms, are taking a path not many before them have trod. Traditionally, former SEC lawyers go either to large New York or Washington law firms, or in-house to a legacy bank or hedge fund (or, in my case, to a top-tier, midsize law firm). Now, for the first time in recent memory, many of my former SEC colleagues, including those from its now-disbanded crypto unit, are going to the plaintiff's bar. These are battle-hardened veterans of the courtroom who are experts in the application of securities laws to the digital asset space. They aren't retiring from the battle—just joining a different army. I'm sure others will join them over the next few months. As a result, digital asset enterprises are still at risk of litigation, from both state agencies and private law firms. This presents significant uncertainties, not to mention the possibility of additional costs for their projects. Those declaring victory prematurely should be aware that the war isn't ending. It's just moving to different battlefields. Howard Fischer is a partner at the New York law firm Moses Singer. He was previously a senior trial counsel at the SEC. Guest commentaries like this one are written by authors outside the Barron's newsroom. They reflect the perspective and opinions of the authors. Submit feedback and commentary pitches to ideas@
