Trump tariff war: Deal or no deal - why it won't matter much for India
India-US trade deal: As 'fast-paced' talks between India and the US on an interim trade deal continue, the tariff rate that the Donald Trump administration will finally choose to impose on India is the biggest focus point.
In April this year, Trump had announced a 26% reciprocal tariff rate on India. He later suspended tariffs for all countries to 10%, giving them room to negotiate a trade deal. The latest deadline for tariffs is now August 1, 2025.
So where does India stand in the trade war that Trump has unleashed globally? What tariff rate would be advantageous to India? And, importantly if the tariff rate is not less than or near 20%, will India really be at a major disadvantage?
In its latest report SBI Research has said that India will be able to diversify its export horizons to counter any negative impact of a less than favourable deal with the US.
Deal Or No Deal - India Has Enough Room & Comparative Advantage
'We believe that even if the India-US deal doesn't come up as desired and 10% additional tariffs are imposed on India, there are various avenues for India to diversify its exports,' SBI Research has said in its report.
The report also highlights an important point: India's service exports continue to achieve unprecedented levels, projected to reach $387.5 billion in 2024-25, primarily supported by robust performance in IT, financial and business services sectors, suggesting minimal impact on overall export figures.
The United States has imposed tariffs on over 20 countries, with Asian countries seeing steeper tariff rates compared to India. This situation creates export possibilities for India to enhance its shipments to the US, particularly in sectors where it possesses revealed comparative advantage, the SBI report says.
Following its trade agreement with the US, Vietnam now faces a reduced tariff rate of 20%. The extent to which India can negotiate similar tariff reductions with the US remains uncertain.
Scope in Chemicals & Pharma Exports:
SBI's analysis indicates that out of the top five US imports, India currently has a relative advantage only in chemicals. China and Singapore currently maintain larger export shares to the US market in this category.
But, with China now subject to high tariffs, India has the potential to expand its chemical and pharmaceutical exports to the United States, the report says.
Should India manage to seal a trade deal with tariff reductions below 25% (currently applicable to Singapore), it could gain a portion of the market share.
'If India can capture 2% share from these countries in Chemicals exports, then it can add 0.2% to its GDP. Another 1% share can be seized from Japan, Malaysia and South Korea which now face higher tariff than India, thereby adding 0.1% to its GDP,' the SBI report adds.
Apparel Exports:
There exists potential to gain market share in apparel exports from Bangladesh, Cambodia and Indonesia. India presently holds 6% of US apparel imports, and securing an additional 5% from these nations could contribute 0.1% to GDP.
Looking Beyond US:
India is currently reviewing the
ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement
to address tariff irregularities and strengthen the "rules of origin" provisions, which have enabled substantial Chinese imports through ASEAN nations.
ASEAN is a major trading partner for India, with bilateral trade reaching $123 billion in 2024-25. The share of ASEAN in India's exports has reduced over the years, while the share of imports has remained stable. India can enhance its exports to ASEAN and prevent dumping of goods from China through ASEAN countries, says SBI Research.
Furthermore, opportunities exist to enhance exports to Asian nations currently facing elevated US tariffs. India could increase its shipments of Chemicals, Agricultural goods, Livestock & its products, Waste and Scrap (particularly metal scrap) and specific Animal and Vegetable Processed Products to these markets.
Donald Trump's Tariff Letters
Since last week, Trump has been on a letter sending mission, with tariff updates sent to over 20 countries. India has so far not received any letter from the US President, possibly due to his own admission that the two countries are nearing a trade deal.
Whilst 17 countries have received reduced tariffs compared to the April 2 announcement, six nations - Brazil, Canada, Japan, Brunei, Philippines and Malaysia - face increased tariff impositions.
India-US Trade Deal: Where Do Things Stand?
'The final call on the India-US trade deal will be in the coming days, with the mini trade deal likely to be announced by mid-July. As per the latest information, India has already presented a final 'decent offer' from its side, which will be reviewed by those calling the shots at the Capitol. Basis indications, India's proposal covers goods trade worth around $150 billion to $200 billion between the two countries,' says the report.
Last week while talking about sending tariff letters, Trump said, "We've spoken to everybody. ...it's all done. I told you we'll make some deals, but for the most part, we're going to send a letter…Now we've made a deal with United Kingdom. We've made a deal with China. We're close to making a deal with India.'
Even as India has firmly said that it does not believe in working on 'deadlines' for trade agreements, a team of Commerce Ministry officials are currently in the US for another phase of negotiations.
Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal has said that talks on a trade deal between India and the US are progressing at a 'fast pace'.
India has hardened its stance on agriculture and dairy products and reports suggest that these two points of contention are likely to be left out of the interim trade deal.
Stay informed with the latest
business
news, updates on
bank holidays
and
public holidays
.
AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
21 minutes ago
- India.com
The Milk India Refuses To Drink: Why ‘Non-Veg Dairy' Is A Red Line In Trade Deal With US
New Delhi/Washington: In the backrooms of New Delhi's diplomatic zone, trade officials kept circling one issue that simply would not move. It was not fighter jets, data servers or farm subsidies. It was milk. Yes, milk. One of the biggest stumbling blocks in the India-U.S. trade pact is white, creamy and sacred to millions. And the problem lies not in how it is consumed, but how it is produced. Washington wants access to India's $16.8 billion dairy market, the largest in the world. It wants to sell its butter, cheese and milk powder to a country that churns out over 239 million metric tonnes of milk a year. But New Delhi is not opening that door. At the centre of India's resistance lies one demand – an assurance that the milk entering Indian homes comes from cows that were never fed meat, blood or animal remains. No exceptions. No compromises. Indian officials are calling it a red line. The idea of 'non-veg milk' does not sit well with millions of Indian households, especially vegetarians who see dairy as nutrition as well as ritual. Ghee is poured into sacred flames during prayer. Milk is bathed over deities. The concept of cows being fed pig fat or chicken remains crosses dietary boundaries and lines of faith. Trade experts struggled to explain this to Washington. 'Imagine eating butter made from the milk of a cow that was fed meat and blood from another cow. India may never allow that,' said Ajay Srivastava from the Global Trade Research Initiative in New Delhi. Despite U.S. claims that the concern is exaggerated, several American reports confirm the reality. A Seattle Times investigation documented how American cattle feed can legally include ground-up remains of pigs, horses and poultry. Even chicken droppings, known as poultry litter, sometimes make their way into the mix. The logic is economic – feed animals cheap and grow them fast. For Indian regulators, it is simply unacceptable. India's Department of Animal Husbandry mandates certification on all imported food items, including milk, to ensure no animal-derived feed is involved. This has long been criticised by the United States at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) as a 'non-scientific barrier'. But for India, it is not about science but belief. In 2006, the Indian government formalised this belief in trade rules. It resulted into high tariffs – 30% on cheese, 40% on butter and a whopping 60% on milk powder. For countries like New Zealand or Australia, breaking into India's dairy space is nearly impossible. For the United States, it is a billion-dollar hurdle. India's dairy sector feeds over 1.4 billion people. It employs more than 80 million, many of them smallholder farmers. Cheap American imports, experts say, could collapse local markets. A report from the State Bank of India estimates an annual loss of Rs 1.03 lakh crore if U.S. dairy is allowed to flood in. That is nearly 2.5-3% of the country's entire Gross Value Added. And the risk is not theoretical. 'If American butter comes in cheap, our milk prices drop. What happens to the village woman who sells five litres of milk a day?' asks Mahesh Sakunde, a dairy farmer from Maharashtra. Meanwhile, Washington sees India's refusal to open up as 'protectionist'. But India's negotiators stood firm. 'There is no question of conceding on dairy. That is a red line,' said a senior Indian official. The United States exported over $8.2 billion worth of dairy last year. Gaining access to India's vast market could supercharge those numbers. But Indian officials are unwilling to allow milk from cows that ate meat to be offered at temple altars or poured into toddler cups. And so, while the two countries hammer out trade terms with hopes of reaching $500 billion in bilateral commerce by 2030, the dairy debate remains unresolved. It may seem like a small detail in a massive negotiation, but in India, this is sacred, culture and a line that will not be crossed.
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
Scoring with AI not enough to crack US enterprise code
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills Indian artificial intelligence startups, which are making a beeline to the US to be close to customers, are taking longer to conclude deals and run pilots with US enterprises, amid rising competition and changing business landscape, founders and investors startups are looking at strategic partners and investors who have deep enterprise networks and can help them connect with potential customers, they told SaaS, where the market had evolved and people were buying, founders were able to get a couple of customers through emails and messages, but in the AI world, confusion is high even for buyers, Accel India partner Shekhar Kirani said. 'So, they need assistance at least for the next 12-24 months, when it becomes obvious that the products work.' Enterprise sales have always been hard and required the founders to work on-site to gain the last couple of years, AI has changed the landscape by drastically bringing down the time taken to develop a product. This has resulted in proliferation of AI platforms and applications, cluttering the market, increasing competition and changing the enterprise sales Ayyagari, cofounder, SnowMountain AI , an agentic AI platform for banking and financial services, said with AI coming in, the time taken to close the deals have increased significantly, with some companies going as far as getting into code-level discussions to gain trust from customers.'Earlier it would take 6-9 months to get a signalling from a company, if they are interested in the product or not. Now that is taking 12-18 months. Even getting demos is hard now,' he said. He explained that more often than not enterprises are running multiple pilots and are beginning to put new pilots on pause till they have Krishnan, founder of NuWare, a US-based IT services company, said during his conversations with the chief information officers of large enterprises in the US, he has found that they are often seeing over 20 companies that are selling similar products and hardly have time to have a demo with each of these Vivek Khandelwal, cofounder of agentic AI solutions startup CogniSwitch , was in the market for a security compliance product and said he was confused.'This market is equally miserable for buyers. We are at a point where we have to flip a coin and go with whoever it is, because there are so many products and everyone's messaging is exactly the same,' he went ahead with a company that was known to him. But he agrees that the market is Agarwal, cofounder of Raga AI, which offers an agentic workflow testing platform, said though building enterprise-quality products is tough, the field has become noisy, confusing the buyers as navigate this challenge, founders are looking to partner with investors and domain experts that can help with of SnowMountain AI said his company has partnered with domain experts such as former banking executives to get customers Abbey, founder of an AI startup catering to the banking and financial services companies, said she partners with strategic investors in the US that can make warm Krishnan, who also runs investment firm NuVentures, said they are helping their portfolio companies with customer introductions, which are now becoming critical and a key differentiator as companies look to break into enterprises in the Goyal, partner, Stellaris Venture Partners, said customer introduction is one of the most critical help portfolio companies need as they search for a product-market fit and early traction in an increasing competition for enterprise founders and investors are navigating a dynamic business landscape, there are other challenges as previous tech cycles, speed is the moat in AI, as the technology evolves at a rapid pace. This means startups need to iterate fast and that is one of the reasons founders are moving to the who was cited earlier, said she flies in and out of the US to be closer to customers and iterate Goyal said many enterprises are in a wait-and-watch mode as continued competitiveness of existing solutions is questionable with underlying technology evolving so rapidly. In addition, amid the uncertain macroeconomic environment, investments are being postponed; this presents a challenge as well.
Mint
30 minutes ago
- Mint
Why no one blows the whistle until a short-seller turns up
The reaction to US-based short seller Viceroy Research's scathing report on the Vedanta Group was as predictable as it was performative. The company, not surprisingly, called the allegations 'baseless". There was also the familiar barrage of nationalist rhetoric summed up by former Rajya Sabha MP and BJP national executive member Swapan Dasgupta, who tweeted: 'Is there a concerted attempt by dodgy US financial organisations to undermine India's corporates/financial institutions?" But strip away the outrage, and the uncomfortable question remains: why did it take a foreign short-seller to say what no one in India's financial ecosystem had the courage or incentive to? After all, as Vedanta's CEO Deshnee Naidoo admitted, the points raised in the report are not new and have been previously disclosed to shareholders. Viceroy's dossier alleges opaque structures, questionable related-party transactions, and fragile debt positions across the sprawling Vedanta empire. You don't need to agree with every bit of the report. The key issue is that in a market ecosystem populated by regulators, exchanges, research analysts and institutional investors, why was such scrutiny absent until a short-seller showed up? The discomfiting answer is the lack of incentives. Reviled they may be, but short sellers are among the few market participants who have a genuine incentive to unearth problems inside companies. Since they make money when stock prices of their target companies fall, they are financially motivated to find what others ignore. Their motives are certainly not altruistic, but they drive the kind of transparency and accountability that almost all other market players shy away from. Take the recent Jane Street saga. The US-based high-frequency trader was eventually censured by Sebi for allegedly fraudulent and manipulative trades in index options. Sebi's action came as a surprise, but Jane Street's actions were known and discussed widely for months before the regulator's action. Shankar Sharma, Veteran investor and founder of GQuant Investech, posed the obvious question: Why did the exchange not act earlier? His answer: "Simple conflict of interest…How can they sanction JS when it drives FO volume massively, hence SE profits." That's because when you trade F&O contracts on the NSE, you are charged a small percentage of the trade value as transaction fees. Sharma's critique strikes at the core of our market structure; when exchanges benefit from the very entities they are meant to police, enforcement becomes a question of convenience rather than principle. That's why independent, profit-seeking actors like short-sellers are necessary, even if they operate in the shadows. It is no accident that some of the most explosive corporate scandals like Adani in India, Wirecard in Germany and Luckin Coffee in China, were flagged first by short-sellers. In each case, insiders maintained a studied silence till the proverbial fecal matter hit the overhead fan. In each case, external watchdogs were too slow or too compromised. The dirty work was done by someone with skin in the game and a profit motive. Of course, short-sellers can be wrong. They exaggerate, cherry-pick and even manipulate. But their work, when rooted in data and grounded in fact, performs a critical function. They are often the only ones willing to publicly accuse a company of fraud — because they have the most to gain if they're right, and the most to lose if they're wrong. Could the questions that Viceroy posed to Vedanta have been asked by its independent directors? Or its bankers? Or rating agencies? Or large institutional shareholders (foreign institutional investors (FIIs) and domestic institutional investors (DIIs) who together hold over 27% stake in Vedanta Ltd)? Possibly. But the brutal truth is that for none of them did the risk-reward trade-off make sense. The vitriol aimed at Viceroy isn't anything new. Others who've dared to say the emperor is naked, have faced far worse. In June 2012, Canada-based Veritas Investment Research called out Anil Ambani-group company Reliance Communications (RCom) for its accounting practices and corporate governance, leading to significant a drop in the company's stock price. Here's how the telco responded to the charges: 'The Veritas report lacks any credibility and is malafide in intent and approach…The report is full of factual inaccuracies, and baseless allegations masquerading as research." By 2016, RCom was desperately trying to sell assets in a bid to pay off its ₹45,000 crore of debt. In February 2019, it filed for bankruptcy. In another 2011 report, Veritas called out Kingfisher Airlines for 'poor disclosures, capricious accounting policies and understated liabilities". The company dubbed the report 'mischievous and sensational". In 2012, Kingfisher ceased operations and faced bankruptcy proceedings. As for Veritas, it was forced to wind up its business in India in 2014 after Nitin Mangal, one of its analysts, was remanded in custody for his report raising accounting and governance issues at Indiabulls Financial Services, Indiabulls Real Estate and other group firms. Markets need naysayers as much as they need Yes men and women, because uncomfortable truths often come from those with a vested interest in revealing them. Until domestic institutions are more willing, and incentivized, to speak up, we should be careful of shooting the messenger and look at the message instead.
