India seeks WTO nod for retaliatory tariffs on US
This action comes in response to the U.S. government's decision to double tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum. Reports indicate that India submitted the updated proposal to WTO members at its own request.
On March 12, 2025, the U.S. increased import duties on aluminum, steel, and related goods to 25 percent, which the Trump administration then raised to 50 percent on June 3. India's response aligns with WTO regulations that permit member countries to suspend concessions when affected by safeguard measures.
According to the revised proposal, India's planned suspension of trade concessions could impact U.S. goods worth approximately US$3.82 billion—a substantial increase from the earlier estimate of $1.91 billion in May. This figure reflects the estimated value of Indian exports affected by the U.S. measures, which total around $7.6 billion.
India has indicated that it may impose higher tariffs on select U.S. products. However, the final tariff rates and product lists remain flexible, allowing India to adjust depending on the escalating impact of the U.S.'s trade actions.
The dispute stems from the U.S.'s initial move in 2018, when it imposed a 25 percent tariff on certain steel products and 10 percent on aluminum, citing national security concerns. In response, India raised tariffs in 2019 on 28 U.S. products, including almonds and walnuts, and also filed a complaint with the WTO.
This current development comes amid ongoing negotiations for a Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) between the two countries. An Indian delegation is scheduled to visit Washington next week to continue trade discussions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
44 minutes ago
- NDTV
How India's FGD Shift Will Cut Electricity Cost By 25-30 Paise Per Unit
New Delhi: The government's move to ease sulphur emission rules for most coal-fired power plants strikes a delicate balance between costs, climate and compliance and is expected to cut electricity costs by 25-30 paise per unit, officials said on Sunday. In a gazette notification, the government has restricted the 2015 mandate of installing flue-gas desulphurisation (FGD) systems that remove sulphur from a power plants' exhaust gases, only to plants located within 10 kilometres of cities with a population exceeding one million. Plants in critically polluted areas or non-attainment cities will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis while all other plants -- accounting for nearly 79 per cent of India's thermal power capacity -- are exempt from mandatory FGD installation. The notification stated that the decision was made following a detailed analysis by the Central Pollution Control Board, which found increased carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the operation of existing control measures. Industry officials said this would lead to differentiated compliance based on proximity to urban populations and the sulphur content of the coal used. The new framework has been finalised after extensive deliberations and multiple independent studies. The decision follows a series of studies by IIT Delhi, CSIR-NEERI and the National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS), which found that ambient sulphur dioxide levels in most parts of India are well within the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Measurements across multiple cities showed sulphur oxide levels ranging between 3 and 20 micrograms per cubic meter, significantly below the NAAQS threshold of 80 micrograms per cubic metre. Officials said studies had also questioned the environmental and economic efficacy of a universal FGD mandate in the Indian context. Indian coal typically has a sulphur content of less than 0.5 per cent, and due to high stack heights and favourable meteorological conditions, dispersion of SO2 is efficient. The NIAS study warned that retrofitting FGDs nationwide would add an estimated 69 million tonnes of CO2 emissions between 2025 and 2030 due to increased limestone mining, transportation, and power consumption. Industry officials said the relaxed norms are expected to bring down the cost of electricity by 25-30 paise per unit. That benefit, they said, will ultimately flow to consumers. In a high-demand, cost-sensitive economy, the impact could be significant -- helping state discoms contain tariffs and reducing the subsidy burden on governments. The financial burden of mandatory FGD retrofitting was previously estimated at over Rs 2.5 lakh crore, or Rs 1.2 crore per MW, with installation timelines of up to 45 days per unit. Several power producers had warned that this would not only raise costs but also jeopardise grid stability during peak seasons. Industry executives welcomed the decision. "This is a rational, science-based move that avoids unnecessary costs and focuses regulation where it is most needed," said a senior executive at a leading public sector utility. "More importantly, it will help keep electricity affordable." Officials stressed that the government remains committed to environmental protection, but with a smarter lens. "This is not a rollback. It is a recalibration based on evidence," said a senior government official. "Our approach is now targeted, efficient and climate-conscious." An affidavit incorporating these findings will be submitted shortly to the Supreme Court in the MC Mehta vs Union of India case, where FGD enforcement timelines have been under judicial scrutiny. ICP Keshari, Director General of Power Producers Association (PPA), hailed the decision as "good and consumer-centric". The move will benefit power plants based on domestic coal, he said. Indian coal, he said, does not have any big sulfur oxides (SOx) emission problem and it is only the particulate matter, which is of concern. The new FGD norm identifies the problem and does not unnecessarily load cost on consumers. "They have not exempted anyone... wherever it is needed, it will be done and where not, it won't be," he said.
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
India should avoid rushing for trade pact with US, warn experts
Synopsis Experts caution India against rushing into a trade deal with the US, potentially compromising crucial sectors like agriculture. The US's aggressive tactics, including imposing tariffs on key partners like the EU, highlight the risk of unbalanced agreements. Despite US pressure, many nations resist one-sided terms, urging India to proceed cautiously and protect its core interests during negotiations. Getty Images India should avoid rushing into a trade deal with the US that compromises core sectors like agriculture, experts on Sunday said, cautioning that Washington is not sparing even its key partners like the EU. The US has shot off letters to 24 countries and the European Union (EU) imposing tariffs that are as high as 50 per cent on Brazil. On its key trading partners like the EU and Mexico, 30 per cent duties have been proposed from August 1. Economic think tank GTRI (Global Trade Research Initiative) said India must recognise that it is not alone in facing US pressure. The US is currently negotiating with over 20 countries and seeking concessions from more than 90. "Yet most are resisting because they see these MASALA (Mutually Agreed Settlements Achieved through Leveraged Arm-twisting) deals for what they are politically driven, transactional demands offering no lasting trade certainty," GTRI Founder Ajay Srivastava said. He added that both the EU and Mexico are major trade partners of the US, and Washington can impose tariffs on them to pressure them into quick deals, India cannot expect a balanced deal. Another trade expert said India should tread cautiously while negotiating the trade pact with the US. The expert added that Trump's trade threat is rapidly losing credibility as despite more than three months of pressure, only two countries -- the UK and Vietnam -- have agreed to the USA's one-sided terms. From Japan and South Korea to the EU and Australia, countries are resisting Trump's trade deals that demand tariff cuts without reciprocal US concessions, mandate guaranteed purchases of American goods, and leave the door open for future tariffs even after a deal is signed, the GTRI said. A team of Indian trade negotiators will soon visit Washington to further talks for the proposed Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA). "India should stay the course and avoid trading away core sectors like agriculture. A hasty deal under pressure could have irreversible consequences, especially when such agreements may not survive the next shift in US politics," Srivastava said.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump Says 200% Pharma Tariffs Are Coming. Wall Street Shrugs.
But since Tuesday, when Donald Trump said in a cabinet meeting that imported pharmaceuticals would face a massive levy, investors have been cautiously celebrating. Despite a broad stock selloff on Friday, the NYSE Arca Pharmaceutical Index is up around 1% over the past week, compared with a basically flat performance for the S&P 500. That outperformance may seem puzzling, but for Wall Street, the size of the tariff matters less than the timing. The 200% figure lit up cable news chyrons, but investors focused instead on the grace period Trump floated. 'We're going to give people about a year, year and a half to come in, and after that, they're going to be tariffed,' he said. A year and a half is a long runway—and it could turn out to be even longer in practice. In a note titled 'Tariffs Schmariffs,' Jefferies analyst Akash Tewari argues that if the grace period begins some time this year and lasts for a year and a half, companies could continue importing drugs tariff-free until 2027. They could buy even more time if they stockpile during that period to cover demand at least until some time in 2028. That might give them time to build entirely new U.S. manufacturing facilities, which typically takes around four years. This doesn't mean Trump isn't getting what he wants. After all, the tariffs are meant as a threat to push companies to make more of their products in the U.S. And in this case, the threat seems to be working. Since Trump began threatening pharma with tariffs, the industry has moved on two fronts. First, companies have been stockpiling drugs at a furious pace to build a cushion. For instance, the Wall Street Journal reported last month that $36 billion worth of hormone treatments—used in popular obesity and diabetes drugs—have been shipped from Ireland this year, more than double last year's total. Second, the industry has announced major investments in U.S. manufacturing. Some of that may be political posturing, but much of it reflects a real shift. Companies increasingly see no choice but to bring production back, at least for drugs sold to American patients. Eli Lilly, for example, has announced a $27 billion plan to expand manufacturing in the U.S. Making drugs in the U.S.—and registering the intellectual property here—comes with a tax hit. That is a big reason the industry offshored production to low-tax countries like Ireland in the first place. But Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' offers some relief to offset the pain. The bill lets companies immediately deduct R&D expenses and equipment purchases and raises the cap on how much interest they can write off—making it a lot cheaper to build new plants at home. The upshot: with more time to prepare and a friendlier tax environment, pharma companies may barely feel the sting of tariffs. Take Merck. The company plans to produce a new version of its blockbuster drug Keytruda in the U.S. Jefferies estimates that with steps like stockpiling, gradually shifting production and trimming some costs, the hit to Merck's earnings from tariffs in 2027 and 2028 could be just 1% to 2%. That is actually better than Jefferies's earlier model for a smaller 25% tariff, which assumed fewer workarounds. The sense of a new normal settling in around Trump's second presidency might help explain why dealmaking has returned to the sector. Merck this past week announced a roughly $10 billion deal to buy Verona Pharma. That followed a series of other deal announcements, including Eli Lilly's $1.3 billion pact to acquire Verve Therapeutics. By the end of Trump's term, the U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain could look very different, with a greater share of innovative drug production happening on American soil. That would be a rare win-win—for the White House and for the industry. Write to David Wainer at
