How Does the US Court Ruling Affect Reciprocal Tariffs for India?
Synopsis
Key Takeaways
New Delhi, Feb 20 (NationPress) The ruling from the US Supreme Court regarding reciprocal tariffs provides crucial legal clarity and diminishes tariff uncertainty for India, emphasizing constraints on unilateral tariff measures, as noted by industry experts on Friday.
Importantly, following the Court's ruling, the US will no longer be bound by the interim trade agreement that stipulated a reduction of reciprocal tariffs on India to 18 percent.
Manoj Mishra, Partner and Tax Controversy Management Leader at Grant Thornton Bharat, commented, “Any move to impose such tariffs will necessitate Congressional approval. This is expected to offer significant relief and a competitive edge to Indian exporters and may also facilitate potential refunds for tariffs collected without sufficient legal justification.”
Nevertheless, experts anticipate that the US will maintain reliance on sector-specific tariffs under Section 232 for strategic industries, highlighting the necessity for advancing the bilateral trade agreement to ensure long-term tariff stability and consistent market access for Indian exporters.
In a significant blow to the economic agenda of President Donald Trump, the US Supreme Court ruled on Friday that he lacked the authority under a 1977 emergency law to impose extensive import tariffs on global trading partners, including India.
This ruling represents a rare instance of the conservative-led court limiting Trump's executive power. As reported by POLITICO, the court's 6-3 decision to overturn the tariffs is described as “a major repudiation of a core element of Trump’s economic strategy.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, authoring the majority opinion, stated: “The President claims the exceptional power to unilaterally impose tariffs without restrictions on amount, duration, or scope. Given the extensive, historical, and constitutional context of that claimed power, he must have explicit Congressional authorization to exercise it.”
Roberts further added that the 1977 law upon which Trump relied “is insufficient” for the needed Congressional approval.