"India-US trade negotiations face structural uncertainty amid unilateral US tariff actions"
Generalised System of Preferences (GSP)
US unilateral, non-reciprocal duty-free programme for eligible developing-country exports.
Section 232 Tariffs
Duties imposed on national security grounds under the US Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
India and the United States have built one of the world's most consequential bilateral economic relationships, with goods and services trade exceeding $190 billion annually. The US is India's largest trading partner overall, and one of the few major economies with which India consistently runs a trade surplus — a fact that has historically been a source of friction rather than goodwill in Washington. The trade relationship is embedded within a broader strategic architecture encompassing the Quad, defence technology agreements such as BECA and GSOMIA, and the Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology (iCET), which simultaneously creates incentives for cooperation and leverage for coercion.
A landmark rupture in the trade relationship occurred when the first Trump administration revoked India's preferential access under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), removing duty-free benefits on approximately $5.6 billion worth of Indian exports on grounds that India had failed to provide 'equitable and reasonable access' to its markets. This set the template for subsequent friction. Negotiations for a Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) — a formal treaty governing tariff schedules, non-tariff barriers, intellectual property norms, services access, and dispute resolution — have proceeded fitfully ever since, with each round revealing the asymmetry between India's interest in a rules-based, reciprocal framework and the US preference for unilateral, leverage-based outcomes.
India's doctrine of strategic autonomy — the principle that New Delhi will not subordinate its foreign or economic policy choices to any single power — is the foundational lens through which India approaches these negotiations. This doctrine, however, is being stress-tested by a US trade posture that treats tariffs not as instruments of negotiated reciprocity but as tools of domestic revenue generation and geopolitical signalling.
The current US tariff architecture rests on three statutory pillars that give the executive branch sweeping, Congress-bypassing authority to impose duties unilaterally. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows tariffs in response to 'unfair trade practices'. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 permits tariffs on national security grounds — the basis for steel (25%) and aluminium (10%) tariffs that affected Indian exports. Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides a further catch-all authority. Together, these three provisions cover virtually all US imports and allow the executive to impose duties irrespective of any negotiated trade agreement — as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which the current administration itself renegotiated, has demonstrated when tariffs were imposed on Canadian goods despite the treaty's existence.
The concept of comparative advantage — the classical economic principle that countries should specialise in goods they produce at relatively lower opportunity cost — underpins the logic of bilateral trade agreements. …
Consider the following statements:
Statement-I: Recently, the United States of America (USA) and the European Union (EU) have launched the 'Trade and Technology Council'.
Statement-II: The USA and the EU claim that through this they are trying to bring technological progress and physical productivity under their control.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
Consider the following countries :
1.Australia
2.Canada
3.China
4.India
5.Japan
6.USA
Which of the above are among the 'free-trade partners' of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) ?
Consider the following statements regarding US tariff statutes:
1.Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 permits tariffs on national security grounds.
2.Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorises tariffs against unfair trade practices by foreign countries.
3.Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides authority to impose retaliatory duties.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
With reference to the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), consider the following statements:
1.GSP is a multilateral, treaty-based right guaranteed under WTO rules.
2.The US revoked India's GSP benefits citing India's failure to provide equitable market access.
3.GSP removal affected approximately $5.6 billion worth of Indian exports to the US.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Assertion (A): The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) has not prevented the US from imposing tariffs on Canadian imports.
Reason (R): The US executive's authority under Sections 232, 301, and 338 allows tariff imposition irrespective of any negotiated trade agreement.
Which one of the following is correct?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account