Appearing before a panel of the United States Trade Representative, Department of Commerce Joint Secretary Brij Mohan Mishra said India remained firmly committed to eliminating forced labour as a constitutional obligation and in accordance with international law. He argued that the investigation failed to satisfy the legal standards required under Section 301 of the US Trade Act to establish that India's policies were "unreasonable."
India maintained that the absence of a specific prohibition on imports produced through forced labour could not, by itself, justify action under Section 301 without evidence that all statutory conditions had been fulfilled. The government also questioned the decision to place India alongside 45 other economies facing the proposed 12.5% tariff, stating that the investigation did not provide a country-specific justification for such a broad measure.
According to India's submission, the United States Trade Representative relied on selected case studies and broad trade patterns without establishing any sector-specific or country-specific connection between goods imported by India and products later exported to the United States. India further argued that the investigation failed to demonstrate that its policy framework provided exporters with an unfair competitive advantage or caused measurable harm to American industries.
"We ask any trade problems be addressed within the framework of the India-US bilateral trade negotiation, not through unilateral measures such as this investigation," Mishra said while urging the United States Trade Representative to reconsider the proposed tariff in view of what India described as inconsistencies in the investigation's findings.
India also expressed its willingness to engage with the United States through consultations to address any specific concerns raised during the investigation.
The Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority separately challenged the investigation's observations regarding India's rice trade. Representing the authority, First Secretary at the Indian Embassy in Washington Shreyans Gupta said India imported only limited quantities of rice to meet domestic demand for niche and speciality varieties.
Gupta stated that the value of rice imported by India was less than three percent of the value of rice exported by India to the United States. He added that India maintained strict regulatory safeguards to ensure imported rice was not re-exported as Indian-origin produce. According to Gupta, rice exports to the United States are permitted only from mills and processing facilities registered with the Ministry of Agriculture. He requested that the investigation against India be withdrawn and sought an exemption for Indian rice from the proposed tariff if the proceedings continued.
Leading industry organisations also opposed the proposed tariff. The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry argued that the additional duty would increase costs not only for Indian exporters but also for American manufacturers, importers, retailers and consumers. The chamber said businesses already complying with labour and supply chain standards would face unnecessary financial burdens and urged the United States Trade Representative to consider India's legal safeguards, corporate compliance mechanisms and the wider impact on India-US supply chains.
The Confederation of Indian Industry also opposed the proposal, stating that the additional 12.5% tariff was neither supported by the evidence presented nor likely to achieve the stated objective of combating forced labour. The organisation argued that the investigation failed to establish that India's policy framework imposed a burden on United States commerce.
The United States Trade Representative launched investigations covering 60 economies on March 12 to determine whether their failure to impose and effectively enforce restrictions on imports produced through forced labour burdened United States commerce. The investigation later concluded that the policies of all 60 economies were actionable under Section 301.
Under the proposal, the United States has recommended an additional 10% tariff for 14 economies that have introduced some form of forced labour import restrictions, undertaken related commitments through reciprocal trade agreements or adopted partial regulatory regimes. A higher 12.5% tariff has been proposed for the remaining 46 economies, including India and China.
The proposed measure has not yet been finalised. The United States Trade Representative will examine written submissions and testimony presented during the public hearings before deciding whether to implement the additional tariffs. India's challenge underscores its determination to protect bilateral trade interests while insisting that disputes be resolved through negotiations rather than unilateral trade actions.
About The Author
Comment List