"White House report names India among top enablers of China's tariff evasion"
Section 301 Tariffs
US duties on Chinese goods under the Trade Act of 1974, citing unfair trade practices.
Transshipment
Routing goods through an intermediate country to obscure their true origin and evade tariffs.
The current episode of India-US trade friction is rooted in a broader restructuring of global trade architecture that began when the US imposed Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods — invoking the Trade Act of 1974 — citing unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft, and forced technology transfer. These tariffs, which escalated significantly from 2018 onward, created powerful incentives for Chinese manufacturers to reroute exports through third countries to avoid steep duties. The practice of transshipment — routing goods through an intermediate country to obscure their true origin — is not new, but its scale expanded dramatically as the US-China trade war intensified.
India's own trade relationship with the US has been marked by recurring friction: the revocation of Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) benefits in 2019, disputes over agricultural market access, digital trade norms, and ongoing Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) negotiations. India's simultaneous positioning as a strategic partner of the US (through the Quad, iCET, and defence technology agreements) and as a country with deep economic linkages with China creates a structurally complex situation that this accusation now sharpens. The WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin requires that goods undergo 'substantial transformation' to qualify for a new country-of-origin designation, but enforcement is uneven and definitions vary across jurisdictions — a gap that the US report argues is being systematically exploited.
Transshipment as a trade practice occupies a grey zone in international trade law. Legitimate nearshoring — where a company genuinely relocates production to a third country — is legal and encouraged under WTO norms. What the US report targets is pass-through trade: minimal processing, relabelling, or repackaging of Chinese goods in a third country to obtain a different certificate of origin, without substantive value addition. This allows exporters to sidestep Section 301 tariffs that can reach punitive levels, effectively nullifying the trade-policy intent of the US measures.
The legal standard at the heart of this dispute is the concept of substantial transformation — the requirement under the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin that a product must be meaningfully altered in the intermediate country for it to acquire that country's origin. Mere relabelling, repackaging, or minimal assembly does not meet this threshold. …
In the context of which of the following do you sometimes find the terms 'amber box, blue box and green box' in the news?
Consider the following statements:
Statement-I:
India does not import apples from the United States of America.
Statement-II:
In India, by law, the import of genetically modified transformed food is prohibited without the approval of the competent authority.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, frequently cited in US-China and US-India trade disputes, is best described as:
Which of the following best explains why the WTO Appellate Body's near-paralysis limits India's ability to challenge US Section 301 tariffs through multilateral channels?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account