Senior Adviser and Chair on India and Emerging Asia Economics at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Richard M Rossow, has described the United States’ tariff approach as appearing “wobbly” to many of its partners.

He noted that while some tariff measures have been applied globally or to large groups of countries, the only very specific exception was the original Russia oil-related tariffs that hit India particularly hard. Rossow pointed out that India itself has a range of non-tariff barriers, including quality control orders, price controls, and domestic manufacturing mandates.

He acknowledged that the President’s inclination to seek parity in trade with friends was not misplaced, but the use of tools that could not withstand judicial scrutiny has made the US approach look unstable to partners. He added that many quietly agree with the President’s underlying idea, even if the execution has been flawed.

Rossow explained that from his conversations with Indian officials over the past six months, the central question for Indian negotiators is where US tariff authority will ultimately land. He highlighted that the President had attempted to use two different authorities to impose tariffs specifically on India for Russian oil, but both were struck down by courts.

These measures have been postponed and held in abeyance, with the possibility of reintroduction. He stressed that India is seeking stability above all else in its trade relationship with the US.

He further observed that India had early on drawn clear lines in areas such as agriculture. He explained that Indian farmers, particularly smallholders, have limited fallback opportunities and no realistic chance of accessing the US market, whereas American agriculture is designed for large-scale exports. 

Rossow noted that the US took longer to appreciate this reality, and it remains unclear whether the President will accept an agreement that carves out staple grains grown by ordinary Indian farmers.

He suggested that both countries have distinct approaches, with the US previously pushing for concessions India could not provide, and India now slow-walking negotiations due to uncertainty over US tariff authority.

On Tuesday, the United States announced a new set of tariffs of 10 per cent and an additional duty of 12.5 per cent on key global economies, citing investigations that revealed goods imported from 60 countries were produced using forced labour.

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) listed 54 economies, including India, which it claimed had failed to impose and enforce prohibitions on such imports. The list also included Australia, China, Israel, Japan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkiye, the UAE, and the United Kingdom.

According to the USTR, economies that already have some form of forced labour import prohibition, or have committed to implementing such measures through trade agreements, could face an additional tariff of 10 per cent.

Other economies may face a 12.5 per cent duty. The proposed action also includes a textile mechanism allowing certain volumes of apparel and textile imports from some economies to enter the US at a reduced Section 301 tariff rate.

The USTR clarified that the action falls under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits measures against economies whose acts, policies, and practices related to forced labour are deemed unreasonable and burdensome to US commerce. Six economies were specifically flagged for failing to enforce prohibitions on forced labour imports, including the European Union, Pakistan, and Canada.

Rossow’s remarks underscore the uncertainty surrounding US tariff authority and its impact on India’s negotiating stance. While India seeks predictability in trade relations, the US continues to grapple with legal challenges to its tariff measures and broader concerns about forced labour in global supply chains. 

This dynamic adds complexity to ongoing trade negotiations and highlights the need for clarity and stability in the bilateral economic partnership.

ANI