India could lose $6bn in exports to US on 10% tariffs, rising to $31bn at 25%: Report
New Delhi: India could see a loss of around $6 billion, or 0.16 per cent of its GDP, in exports to the US if broad tariffs of 10 per cent are enacted, Emkay Global, a research & investment firm, said in a latest report.
The Financial services company said in the report that the impact could increase significantly, reaching up to USD 31 billion if tariffs rise to 25 per cent.
While the specifics of reciprocal tariff measures remain uncertain, a broad country-level tariff on India appears to be the most likely scenario, the report added.
Despite potential fallout in key sectors such as auto, pharma, and electronics, the report highlights that India's most vulnerable industries are apparel and gems/jewellery.
Additionally, the report suggests potential "easy wins" in tariff negotiations, such as higher energy and defence imports, which could help mitigate some of the losses.
"We identify these 'Easy Wins' as: i) increasing energy (crude oil, natural gas) imports from the US, ii) increase defence purchases and cooperation, iii) reduce tariffs on certain agri/food commodities, and iv) lower tariffs on foreign EVs," the report said, adding that India should pursue negotiations with the US by offering concessions in some key sectors, which would not hurt domestic industry, but are
important politically/economically for Trump, in exchange for tariff mitigation elsewhere.
The report adds that the broader US tariff war has aims beyond trade policy, with China likely to continue being targeted. It adds that India's opportunity from this war is limited.
"India has not gained global market share in the low-skill areas that China has vacated post-Covid, and China exports relatively more complex products than India (75 per cent of Chinese exports to the world are complex vs 45 per cent for India), leaving limited opportunities for India," the report added.
Beginning on April 2, the Trump administration intends to implement reciprocal tariffs on trading partners as part of the "Fair and Reciprocal Plan".
In other developments, Arvind Virmani, Member Niti Aayog said that a bilateral trade between India and the US is likely to be signed by the end of the year.
Meanwhile, on March 29, the US President Donald Trump said that the 'tariffs are going to work out well between New Delhi and the Washington, DC,' expecting a favourable outcome.
© Muscat Media Group Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arabian Post
an hour ago
- Arabian Post
Elon's blood feud with Trump will not gut SpaceX's $350 billion valuation
Matein Khalid I had analyzed SpaceX as a potential 10X winner in the Dubai media circa late 2020 when it traded at a mere $46 billion in the private market and even invited a number of close friends in an investor syndicate after sourcing shares from the Founders Fund in San Fran via the secondary market. Shakespear's Henry V praised the English longbow archers who won him the battle of Agincourt and thus the crown of France as 'we few, we happy few, we band of brothers'. I feel the same way about my SpaceX chums except our band of brothers includes a very noble sister. ADVERTISEMENT Is the 9X fairytale in SpaceX shares over, now that Elon publicly accused Trump of falsehood and even suggested that POTUS-47 was on a Jeff Epstein's Fantasy Island paedo guest list? Not at all, even though Trump has threatened to take away all Uncle Sam subsidies and contracts away from Elon's companies, now that the bromance of the century has gone sour with such a bang. Tesla (TSLA) shares naturally lost $150 billion last night on Nasdaq as TSLA plunged to 295 but a mass market EV car brand with stiff Chinese competition and declining market share cannot remotely be compared to SpaceX – Why? Unlike Tesla, SpaceX has no real technological peer and neither the Pentagon's Space Command nor NASA can or will replace SpaceX just because Trump has fallen out with Elon. America is not yet Russia, where Elon would take a jump from a window or be found with 6 bullets in his head, as happens in every Kremlin routine suicide. True, Wall Street is agog with rumours that the Navy SEAL team that whacked Osama in his safehouse is now rehearsing for even a more secret mission than Zero Dark Thirty to silence Geronimo. Jokes apart, SpaceX is too crucial to US national security, the rocket launch program and Space warfare to do anything but nurture SpaceX and help it grow bigger and richer in the years ahead for my band of brothers and noble sister. SpaceX is gaining market share and key awards and neither Trump nor even Musk can do much to derail its meteoric rise to Silicon Valley superstardom. SpaceX just won a $6 billion contract for 28 rocket launch missions critical to US national security from Space Command. Blue Origin only won a $2.4 billion contract for 7 rocket launches. SpaceX is easily the largest, most reliable, most successful, most technologically advanced space contractor for Uncle Sam and the President can do squat about this cold hard reality. SpaceX is on a roll with the world's top governments and intel agencies apart from USG/Uncle Sugar. After all, SpaceX commercial launch revenue rose by an incredible 56%, the kind of growth I see in a snappy, nappy software unicorn rather than a 20 year old Valley golden oldy that mesmerizes and owns Space, the Final Frontier… Sadly for Trump, Elon is Captain James T. Kirk and naughty even though he gets to yell 'beam me up Scotty' when the going gets tough on FX deal making with President Xi in Beijing. SpaceX is already the most profitable commercial rocket launch business the world has ever seen and its growth curve is not yet over. The FAA allowed SpaceX a five fold increase in rocket launches from its Texas base, now rebranded and incorporated as the City of Starbase. The air war between Indian and Pakistan tell the world's heads of state/spymasters that air battles will be won or lost via satellite based command and control centers, which the Chinese PLA has perfected to an art form. So I expect SpaceX to get some multi-billion dollar mega contracts from India, which is miffed at both Trump and French electronic warfare technologies. So can SpaceX command a $500 billion valuation? To borrow Obama's slogan, yes we can! Also published on Medium. Notice an issue? Arabian Post strives to deliver the most accurate and reliable information to its readers. If you believe you have identified an error or inconsistency in this article, please don't hesitate to contact our editorial team at editor[at]thearabianpost[dot]com. We are committed to promptly addressing any concerns and ensuring the highest level of journalistic integrity.
Gulf Today
3 hours ago
- Gulf Today
The Republican Party's fiscal hawk era is officially over
There is no constituency for debt reduction, which is a fancy way of saying voters don't care that the federal balance sheet is roughly $37 trillion in the red — and growing. This simple fact of American politics goes a long way toward explaining why President Donald Trump, with the help of congressional Republicans, is pushing a sweeping reconciliation package of tax cuts and fresh domestic spending priorities that is projected to add approximately $3.8 trillion to the swelling federal debt. Politics is a service business and Trump and his Capitol Hill allies are aiming to please the customer. So they've loaded up the reconciliation package, dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, with a series of crowd-pleasers — expansions of existing tax breaks plus some brand-new ones. Yes, there are spending cuts. The version of the legislation that passed in the House of Representatives and is now up for consideration in the Senate includes reductions to Medicaid and other budget line items. But there's nothing in the bill that results in a net decrease in the debt. Even the proposed changes to Medicaid face an uncertain future, thanks to GOP opposition in the Senate. That's because the sort of substantial spending cuts and programme reforms required to break Washington's addiction to borrowing would be wildly unpopular. For instance, any meaningful attempt to balance the books probably requires both raising taxes and overhauling Medicare and Social Security. That's not a recipe for winning elections. As concerning as the US debt load is becoming for bond markets and some finance titans (and the few fiscal hawks left in Washington), most Americans have more urgent concerns, said David Winston, a Republican pollster who has been surveying voters for more than 25 years. 'There's another issue hitting voters that's a bigger deal, and that's inflation,' he told me. 'When you're looking at an economic situation where there's something that's pressing people at a personal level, it's not that the deficit isn't important, it is. But being able to pay bills and deal with things on a weekly basis and keep up with all your costs takes precedence.' Winston is right — and that's not to mention the fact that so many voters are convinced the looming debt bomb can be diffused by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in government spending. But this isn't a new phenomenon. Voters generally, particularly on the left, have always found some reason or another for opposing legislation that asks them to participate in the solution to Washington's fiscal challenges. It's why tax hikes on the so-called rich are so popular and such an easy political message to wield. What has changed is the Republican Party and the voters it represents. Without question, Republican presidents prior to Trump were complicit in running up the debt. But in the pre-Trump era defined by President Ronald Reagan, fiscal responsibility and small government had currency with grassroots conservatives who formed the heart of the GOP base. But today's Republican base voters are different than their forebearers, courtesy of a Trump populist makeover. The 45th and 47th president over the past decade attracted legions of working-class voters to the Republican Party. For the most part, these newer Republicans are former Democrats who joined the GOP for cultural reasons; for instance, they passionately oppose abortion rights and support gun rights. Notably, they brought with them their preference for government safety-net programs and general lack of concern about the debt (qualities that have long defined grassroots Democrats). Simultaneously, suburban voters inclined to value fiscal responsibility generally, and debt reduction specifically, have drifted away from the GOP. The result is a Republican governing coalition much more enamored of government spending than it used to be and far less concerned about the federal debt, even though it has grown to more than 120% of the entire US economy — problematic to say the least. Brad Todd, a veteran Republican strategist in Washington and coauthor of The Great Revolt; Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics, has closely monitored this electoral transformation. 'The voters who are additive to the coalition as a result of Donald Trump are voters who are not only comfortable with entitlements. They're wary of anybody that might cut them. One of the reasons these voters were not Republican for a long time is because they believed the Democrats' scare tactics on entitlements,' Todd told me. 'The realignment works both ways. Some of the voters Republicans have lost are upscale suburbanites who are fiscal conservatives.' 'Republicans tried to do privatised Social Security accounts; A to Z budgeting; baseline budgeting; line-item veto; balanced budget amendment,' he added. 'We've tried all those innovations, none of them resulted in winning elections. Culture does result in winning elections and so Donald Trump just came along and made the party about culture and not conservative economics.' David M. Drucker, Tribune News Service
Khaleej Times
4 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
President Trump rewarding loyalists with pardon spree
Reality TV stars. Former lawmakers. A sheriff. A nursing home executive. A drug kingpin. What do they have in common? They are among the Americans convicted of crimes who have received pardons from President Donald Trump since he took office in January. And while US presidents have doled out questionable pardons in the past, Trump is doing so "in a bigger, more aggressive way with sort of no sense of shame," said Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. "The pardon power has always been a little bit problematic because it's this completely unconstrained power that the president has," Roosevelt told AFP. "Most presidents have issued at least some pardons where people look at them and they say: 'This seems to be self-serving' or 'This seems to be corrupt in some way.'" But Trump is doling out pardons "that look like they're almost quid pro quo for financial donations," Roosevelt said. Among those receiving a pardon was Paul Walczak, a nursing home executive convicted of tax crimes and whose mother attended a $1-million-per-plate fund-raising dinner at Trump's Mar-a-Lago home in April. Other beneficiaries of Trump pardons include reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley, who were serving lengthy prison sentences for bank fraud and tax evasion. Their daughter, Savannah, is a prominent Trump supporter and gave a speech at last year's Republican National Convention. More than half a dozen former Republican lawmakers convicted of various crimes have also received pardons along with a Virginia sheriff sentenced to 10 years in prison for taking $75,000 in bribes. On his first day in office, Trump pardoned more than 1,500 supporters who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 as they sought to prevent congressional certification of Democrat Joe Biden's 2020 election victory. The next day, Trump pardoned Ross Ulbricht, who had been serving a life sentence for running the "Silk Road" online marketplace that facilitated millions of dollars of drug sales. - 'Just another deal' - Barbara McQuade, a former prosecutor who now teaches law at the University of Michigan, said Trump is not the first president to be accused of "allowing improper factors to influence their pardon decisions." Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton's pardon of a commodities trader whose wife was a major Democratic donor and Biden's pardon of his son, Hunter, and other family members all drew some criticism. "(But) Trump is in a class by himself in both scope and shamelessness," McQuade said in a Bloomberg opinion column. "To him, pardons are just another deal. "As long as a defendant can provide something of value in return, no crime seems too serious," she said. Democratic lawmaker Jamie Raskin, in a letter to Ed Martin, Trump's pardon attorney at the Justice Department, asked what criteria are being used to recommend pardons. "It at least appears that you are using the Office of the Pardon Attorney to dole out pardons as favors to the President's loyal political followers and most generous donors," Raskin wrote. Martin for his part has made no secret of the partisan nature of the pardons recommended by his office. "No MAGA left behind," Martin said on X after the pardon of the bribe-taking Virginia sheriff, a reference to Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan. Lee Kovarsky, a University of Texas law professor, said Trump's "pardon spree" opens up a "menacing new frontier of presidential power" that he calls "patronage pardoning." By reducing the penalty for misconduct, Trump is making a "public commitment to protect and reward loyalism, however criminal," Kovarsky said in a New York Times opinion piece.
