US accuses India of ‘profiteering' from Russian energy purchases
Bessent said in a television interview that Beijing's longstanding purchases of Russian oil were in contrast to India's rapid increase in imports after the war in Ukraine broke out. Bessent was asked why Washington had not placed tariffs on China for purchasing Russian energy, after imposing a 25% penalty, on top of a 25% reciprocal tariff, on India for the same.
'China importing Russian oil is sub-optimal. But if you go back and look, before the 2022 invasion, 13% of China's oil was already coming from Russia and now it's 16%. So China has a diversified input of their oil. If you go back and look back, India had less than 1% of their oil (coming from Russia) and now it's up to, I believe, 42%. So India is just profiteering,' Bessent said .
'They (India) made $16 billion in excess profits. Some of the richest families in India. This is a completely different thing. This is what I would call the Indian arbitrage — buying cheap Russian oil, reselling it as product, has just just sprung up during the war - which is unacceptable,' Bessent added..
Bessent's comments come just a day after White House trade advisor Peter Navarro levelled similar accusations against New Delhi. Navarro claimed India's purchases of Russian energy were 'opportunistic' and 'corrosive' to global efforts being made to isolate Russia's economy.
'As Russia continues to hammer Ukraine, helped by India's financial support, American (and European) taxpayers are then forced to spend tens of billions more to help Ukraine's defence. Meanwhile, India keeps slamming the door on American exports through high tariffs and trade barriers. More than 300,000 soldiers and civilians have been killed, while Nato's eastern flank grows more exposed and the west foots the bill for India's oil laundering,' Navarro wrote in an opinion column for the Financial Times. The top trade advisor welcomed a 'two-pronged policy' of restricting Indian access to US markets and forcing India to reduce oil imports from Russia.
'If India wants to be treated as a strategic partner of the US, it needs to start acting like one,' Navarro added.
Tensions between India and the United States have risen considerably in recent weeks over deadlocked trade talks and Indian purchases of energy from Russia. A planned visit to advance trade negotiations by a team from the office of the United States Trade Representative was put off amid wider difficulties in the relationship.
New Delhi has refused to grant greater market access for US companies to India's agriculture, dairy and micro, small and medium enterprises (MSME) sectors. It has also defended purchases of Russian oil as essential to guaranteeing national energy security. India has also called US tariff penalties 'unreasonable' and 'unjustified' by pointing to continued US and EU trade with Russia in energy and other sensitive materials.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
10 minutes ago
- Mint
GST Reform Boost: Nifty FMCG index jumps 4% in 3 days — Is this the sector's big comeback & which stocks to buy?
GST Reform Impact: The proposed revision in GST reforms, through a two-tier tax structure and lower tax rates on household goods, has driven not only the Indian stock market but also the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) segment. Amid ₹ 1.98 lakh crore consumption boost expected from the GST rate rejig, the Nifty FMCG index has been caught in an uptrend, rallying nearly 4% during the three days till Wednesday, August 20. According to analysts, Q1 FY26 marked a turning point for FMCG companies, with momentum shifting from valuation pressure to steady recovery. Following the Union Budget's direct tax (I-T slab) simplification in February, momentum improved, said Pankaj Singh, smallcase Manager and Founder & Principal Researcher – "The recovery has carried into the current quarter, with the index up another 2%, supported by a 2% rebound in valuations," Singh said. Now, with the favourable monsoon and positive earnings trend — the question remains if FMCG stocks, once the darling of Dalal Street investors, can make their comeback with the GST rationalisation booster in place? Rural demand, after a sharp deceleration during 2022 to mid-2024 amid several headwinds like stagnant wages, high inflation and the prolonged impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, has made a strong comeback in the last 12 months. The last 12 months saw a healthy rural recovery, although on a weak base. With macro parameters constantly improving, we expect that rural markets will sustain healthy growth trends in the coming quarters," said Motilal Oswal Financial Services. Urban consumption following a sharp hit is also showing signs of revival, in a boost for FMCG companies. With easing inflation, falling interest rates and income tax savings, MOSL believes that urban demand pressure is bottoming out and recovery signs will be visible more clearly in the second half of the fiscal 2025-26 (FY26). As a result, agri-linked upstream companies have reported stronger growth and margin expansion in Q1, benefiting from higher rural consumption. After delivering 6% and 5% growth in FY24 and FY25, respectively, the revenue of consumer staples in MOSL's coverage saw a pickup in growth in first quarter of FY26, to 10%, mainly due to improved sales volumes. Most companies saw slightly better volume growth during this quarter, and their management teams sounded optimistic, said the brokerage. "That said, margins remain under pressure across the sector because of sharp increases in the cost of key raw materials like palm oil and copra. To deal with this, many companies have raised product prices. If raw material prices stay stable, we expect margin pressure to ease starting from the third quarter of FY26," it added. Ever since the announcement of GST reforms, the FMCG stocks have been rejoicing. But despite this, analysts are unconvinced of the index surging to its past glory. G Chokkalingam, Founder, Equionomics Research, said that a revival in the FMCG sector is on cards — but not in a big way. The Budget has already given a boost through direct tax cuts, and now, the PM has pushed for increased internet access — a bold and courageous move, said Chokkalingam. Both direct and indirect tax reforms are major positives for the middle class, which will help FMCG, according to him. But will it return to its golden days? He is doubtful. "There's a structural shift happening with the rise of digital and new-age players. They're eating into the fast-growth territory. Regional players are also emerging, aided by the low cost of digital marketing. Earlier, a 30-second ad would cost ₹ 30–40 lakhs. Today, a few thousand rupees can get you visibility on social media. So, smaller and regional players are also gaining ground. Yes, the overall trend is positive, and the sector will improve — but a full-fledged revival to past glory is uncertain," he added. Meanwhile, analysts believe the sector makes for a compelling bet in the medium term. "FMCG is well-positioned to benefit from supportive policies and a strong macro backdrop. The PM's hint at GST rationalisation has raised hopes of a demand revival, especially in packaged foods and staples, by improving affordability and lowering compliance costs. Earlier tax relief and lower interest rates have already boosted disposable incomes. A favourable monsoon is expected to lift farm incomes, further supporting rural demand, which is outpacing urban markets. Meanwhile, input costs are stabilising after FY25 pressures, offering scope for better margins," said Harshal Dasani, Business Head at INVasset PMS. While final clarity on GST changes is awaited, the alignment of tax reforms, rural demand and monsoon-led consumption makes FMCG a compelling medium-term allocation," said Dasani. Brokerage MOSL believes that a consumption revival, while also positive for discretionary companies, is more likely to impact FCMG companies. "FMCG companies have been impacted the most, and the ask rate has gone down significantly; therefore, the sensitivity looks superior for FMCG companies," it opined. Dasani said that for investors, the prudent strategy is to anchor portfolios in established FMCG names while allocating selectively to new-age disruptors for long-term growth optionality. Singh, too, opined that traditional FMCG stocks remain the stability anchors. 'Policy reforms plus a good monsoon could make mass-market and agri-linked FMCG names the clear winners,' he added. Nuvama Institutional Equities likes HUL, Britannia, Bikaji and Nestle following Q1 results announcement. Meanwhile, from the consumer discretionary space, it is bullish on United Breweries and Asian Paints. It also likes Dabur as it sees the blue-chip stock recovering on a soft base. HUL, GCPL, and Marico are MOSL's top picks in the consumer staples space. "The next 12-24 months will be an interesting period for consumption, but we need to be more mindful of selecting the right portfolio," MOSL advised. Disclaimer: This story is for educational purposes only. The views and recommendations expressed are those of individual analysts or broking firms, not Mint. We advise investors to consult with certified experts before making any investment decisions, as market conditions can change rapidly and circumstances may vary.
Economic Times
10 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Focus on core business and ignore the rest: 5 small-caps from different sectors with upside potential of up to 48%
While caveats normally come at the end of a story, sometimes it is better to state them up front. Why? Because it reduces the anxiety quotient and increases the probability of you making the right decision amidst too bullish or too bearish headlines. The caveat: The stocks on our list today may or may not perform in the short term. They may also face pressure if there is any development that hits the Indian or global markets. But as they say, FONT SIZE SAVE PRINT COMMENT
Hindustan Times
13 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
U.S. Allies Still Waiting for Tariff Relief on Autos and Steel
TOKYO—In return for billions of dollars of investment pledges and promises to buy more American goods, U.S. allies in Asia and Europe say President Trump agreed to lower tariffs on key exports such as cars and steel. Weeks later, they are still waiting. Earlier this year, Trump threatened many of the U.S.'s trading partners with lofty import duties. Then, in a rapid series of deals culminating this month, he lowered them in pacts that, in some cases, included pledges by those countries to invest in the U.S. The administration, however, has so far left in place a series of tariffs levied for national-security reasons on sensitive products such as cars, steel and aluminum. The delays in addressing those tariffs—as well as discrepancies over investment and other issues—have created uncertainty for businesses and policymakers over future U.S. trade policy. Japan and South Korea said agreements they struck with the U.S. included reducing to 15% a 25% tariff on imported automobiles—but for now that levy is still being collected, adding to mounting losses at some of the world's biggest carmakers. Toyota Motor estimates tariffs will cost it around $9.5 billion in lost operating profit in the fiscal year ending in March, an estimate that had assumed tariffs on U.S. car imports would be reduced this month. Even the U.K., which was the first country to agree to a new trade pact with Trump back in May, is still waiting for a reduction in steep tariffs on steel. The two sides are thrashing out final terms on exactly which U.K. steel exports will qualify. A U.S. administration official said the U.S. agreed to discuss and possibly adjust these so-called Section 232 tariffs but said the administration didn't make a firm commitment to change them as part of these initial agreements. Such teething problems illustrate the challenge of putting Trump's rapid-fire trade pacts into practice. Traditional trade agreements run to hundreds of pages and seek to define clear rules for cross-border commerce to encourage companies to take the risky step of engaging in international trade. Trade lawyers painstakingly haggle over tariffs and regulatory barriers to broaden market access. In his second term, Trump prefers bold pledges and handshake agreements to detailed legal texts with binding commitments. His trade policy is less about expanding international trade than it is about narrowing chronic U.S. trade deficits and recouping what he believes are billions of dollars lost to foreign countries under the existing global system. Trading partners, too, have shied away from formal agreements that would impose specific legal obligations on their side. That partly reflects a desire to avoid bureaucratic entanglements and move swiftly, according to analysts and government officials, as well as a wariness of Trump's commitment to agreements he does make. Trump in his first term signed new trade accords with Japan, South Korea, Canada and Mexico, among others, all of which he has effectively repudiated by unilaterally raising tariffs. President Trump in his second term prefers bold pledges and handshake agreements. Answering critics in Japan's Parliament who wanted to see a written version of Tokyo's trade pact with Trump, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told lawmakers a formal treaty would mean even greater delays in implementation—without a guarantee that Trump would stick with it. The EU is pushing for a written statement—but has said it won't be legally binding. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in an interview on CNBC on Tuesday that documents with deal terms for countries including Japan and South Korea are 'weeks away,' but that investors shouldn't expect '250-page trading agreements.' Unlike the stability and confidence-building brought by traditional trade deals, this new, looser approach to trade policy means delays, disputes and misunderstandings are the new normal for trade relations with the U.S., said Simon Evenett, a professor at IMD Business School in Switzerland who runs Global Trade Alert, which monitors trade policy. 'The upshot is we inject uncertainty rather than remove it,' Evenett said. 'It's the price you have to pay with Washington these days.' An administration official said the documents being prepared 'will more precisely lay out deal terms and put to bed any lingering uncertainty.' The official added that the president reserves the right to adjust tariff rates if he judges the other side has reneged on its commitments. As well as Japan, South Korea and the European Union, the U.S. has also reached preliminary agreements with smaller but significant trade players such as Vietnam. A deal with China has proved tougher, but Trump this month extended a deadline for higher tariffs on China to come into effect to allow further talks and a possible meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. The typical format for a Trump deal includes a pledge by the U.S. trading partner to invest big sums in the U.S., promises to buy more American exports, and a lower tariff rate in return. Almost as soon as some of these pacts were announced, cracks in what exactly they entailed started to show. Following a deal with Seoul, the White House announced that South Korea would provide 'historic market access to American goods like autos and rice.' Yet Finance Minister Koo Yun-cheol, one of South Korea's top trade negotiators, told reporters when he returned home that he didn't discuss rice with the U.S. team at all. An administration official said White House announcements have laid out what trading partners have agreed to and 'we expect them to abide by these commitments.' Investment pledges have proved especially controversial, with U.S. allies pushing back on Trump's insistence that he will have considerable discretion over how those funds are invested. For instance, a $350 billion investment fund that was the cornerstone of the pact with South Korea, of which $150 billion is earmarked for cooperation in shipbuilding, would be 'owned and controlled by the United States, and selected by myself, as president,' Trump said. Kim Yong-beom, South Korea's presidential chief of staff for policy, said that the fund 'is not a structure where the U.S. unilaterally decides,' and that South Korea will also require the investment projects proposed by the U.S. to be 'commercially meaningful.' Japan's top tariff negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa, flew back to Washington only days after striking Japan's trade deal. In meetings with Trump officials, he protested that a July 31 White House executive order seemed to 'stack' a new levy of 15% on top of any pre-existing tariffs on U.S. imports from Japan. He had told Japanese lawmakers the 15% wouldn't be piled on top. He ultimately returned with a commitment from U.S. officials, he said, to revise the order. The U.S. has agreed not to stack the new tariffs for Japan, an administration official said, though the official added that this wasn't part of the deal Japan had initially negotiated. The EU is also waiting for relief on auto tariffs and is negotiating improved terms for steel producers. Asked about the vehicle tariffs recently, an EU spokesman said, 'The U.S. has made political commitments to us in this respect and we look forward to them being implemented.' Write to Jason Douglas at
