India mounted a comprehensive defence of its labour protections at a US Trade Representative (USTR) public hearing in Washington on Wednesday, 9 July, arguing that the country's constitutional provisions, legislation, and corporate compliance systems already fulfil the objectives behind Washington's proposed Section 301 tariff action targeting forced labour concerns.

Who Appeared and What They Said

Representatives from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) appeared before the USTR panel. The delegation presented a unified argument: India's framework is already aligned with the very standards Washington seeks to enforce through tariffs.

The Indian side pointed to Article 23 of the Constitution, which expressly prohibits forced and bonded labour as a fundamental right enforceable through the courts. This, they said, is reinforced by the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, modern labour codes, criminal penalties under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and India's ratification of core International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions on forced labour.

Corporate Governance and Compliance Systems

CII highlighted that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) mandates the country's top 1,000 listed companies to file Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reports (BRSR), covering human rights, grievance mechanisms, forced labour complaints, supply-chain assessments, and corrective actions. During questioning, CII also cited the BRSR Lite framework introduced for small and medium enterprises, noting that Indian companies have voluntarily adopted codes of conduct and ESG frameworks that mirror international standards.

FICCI told the hearing that most Indian exporters supplying the US market already operate within compliance ecosystems established by American buyers and multinational corporations — encompassing supplier audits, ethical sourcing standards, worker grievance mechanisms, traceability systems, and continuous monitoring. In many cases, compliance is driven as much by buyer requirements as by domestic regulation, FICCI stated in its written testimony.

Sector-Specific Evidence Presented

Industry bodies offered sector-level examples to reinforce their case. According to CII, aluminium companies conduct formal human rights due diligence; textile exporters are regularly audited by US buyers and international certification bodies; foundry and forging industries comply with stringent labour legislation; and agricultural machinery manufacturers compete on engineering capability rather than labour cost advantages.

APEDA argued that Indian agricultural exports to the US carry additional safeguards — rice exports, for instance, are permitted only from mills registered with the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, and exporters must meet labour standards required by major US retailers including Walmart.

India's Position on the Proposed 12.5% Tariff

Throughout the hearing, Indian representatives maintained that the proposed 12.5 per cent tariff would not strengthen labour protections, because those protections are already embedded in India's legal and commercial systems. Instead, they urged the USTR to pursue dialogue, technical engagement, and bilateral mechanisms, arguing that evidence-based collaboration would more effectively eliminate forced labour from global supply chains than economy-wide tariff measures.

This comes amid broader US scrutiny of supply-chain labour practices across multiple trading partners, with the Section 301 action representing one of Washington's more assertive trade-policy tools. Whether the USTR accepts India's arguments or proceeds with the tariff proposal will have significant implications for bilateral trade flows.