India has 'no basis' to seek WTO consultations on auto tariffs: US
Last week, India sought consultations with the US after Washington adopted a measure in the form of a
tariff increase
of 25% ad valorem on imports of passenger vehicles and light trucks, and certain automobile parts originating in or from India.
The measure on automobile parts applied from May 3, 2025, and for an unlimited duration.
On Monday, Washington informed the WTO that the tariffs on autos were imposed pursuant to Section 232, which is a national security statute, and the US is "maintaining these actions pursuant to the essential security exception" in the global trade rules.
Insisting that it did not act pursuant to Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, under which it imposes safeguard measures, the US said, "These actions are not safeguard measures and, therefore, there is no basis to conduct consultations under the Agreement on Safeguards with respect to these measures."
India had said that the US failed to notify the WTO Committee on safeguards under a provision of the Agreement on Safeguards (AoS) on taking a decision to apply the safeguard measure.
The US imported $89 billion worth of auto parts globally last year, with Mexico accounting for $36 billion, China for $10.1 billion, and India for just $2.2 billion.
Washington has given a similar response to New Delhi's proposal to impose retaliatory duties on 29 American products including apples, almonds, pears, anti-freezing preparations, boric acid and certain products made of iron and steel to counter the American tariffs on steel and aluminium in the name of safeguard measures. New Delhi told the WTO that these measures would affect $7.6 billion imports into the US.
The issues at the WTO are coming up at a time when the two sides are negotiating a
Bilateral Trade Agreement
(BTA). American trade officials were in New Delhi from June 4-10 for the trade pact talks.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
13 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Kela, feeling very akela
A banana from Ecuador is at the therapist, sobbing When did the trauma begin?Banana: At the WTO summit . I was labelled 'non-essential'.Therapist: Go They slapped a 35% tariff on my potassium dreams! Suddenly, consumers found domestic bananas more emotionally available. I had rejection trauma. Even plantains stopped replying to my Classic protectionism-triggered identity crisis. You're not alone - I had a steel beam in here last week spiralling over anti-dumping duties.A new dating app launches calledFree Trade Agreement for something flexible? But my Exico won't stop left if you're into regulatory harmonisation. I like long walks in Brussels and labelling right if you value autonomy. I'm emotionally tariffed - high walls but soulful Britain: Still figuring out what I'm looking for. Must love sovereignty and mild app crashes. Turns out that none of them want a mutually beneficial relationship.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
16 minutes ago
- Business Standard
China's Unitree Robotics offers a humanoid robot for under $6,000
The startup, among the frontrunners in Chinese robotics, on Friday announced its R1 bot with a starting price of 39,900 yuan (or $5,900) Bloomberg By Bloomberg News Unitree Robotics is marketing one of the world's first humanoid robots for under $6,000, drastically reducing the entry price for what's expected to grow into a whole wave of versatile AI machines for the workplace and home. The startup, among the frontrunners in Chinese robotics, on Friday announced its R1 bot with a starting price of 39,900 yuan (or $5,900). The machine weighs just 25kg and has 26 joints, the company said in a video posted to WeChat. It's equipped with multimodal artificial intelligence that includes voice and image recognition. The four-figure price tag highlights the ambitions of a new generation of startups trying to leapfrog the US in a groundbreaking technology. Unitree rose to prominence in February after CEO Wang Xingxing joined big names like Alibaba Group Holding Ltd.'s Jack Ma and Tencent Holdings Ltd.'s Pony Ma at a widely publicized summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The new robot's launch coincides with China's biggest AI forum, set to kick off this weekend with star founders, Beijing officials and AI-hungry venture investors converging in Shanghai. The World Artificial Intelligence Conference will bring together many of the key figures expected to drive China's efforts around AI, which is finding a physical expression in the rapid development of more humanoid robots. After decades of dominance by American companies like Boston Dynamics, Chinese companies are pushing ahead with humanoids for factories, households and even military use. Pricing is crucial to their proliferation. Unitree's older G1 robot, which found a home in research labs and schools, was priced at $16,000. A more advanced and larger H1 model goes for $90,000-plus. Rival UBTech Robotics Corp. said recently that it planned a $20,000 humanoid robot that can serve as a household companion this year, seeking to expand beyond factories. If it works as advertised, Unitree's new robot would mark a milestone for the robotics industry, particularly when it comes to complex humanoids. Morgan Stanley Research estimates that the cost of the most-sophisticated humanoid in 2024 was around $200,000.
Mint
16 minutes ago
- Mint
The Big ‘Mc' Feud: Here's why a Gujarat snack maker is suing McDonald's
McPatel Foods Private Limited has filed a civil suit against McDonald's Corporation before an Ahmedabad rural court. The Gujarat-based snack maker alleged that it has been receiving 'groundless threats' from the American fast-food chain due to its use of the mark 'McPatel.' The Indian snack maker filed the suit under Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, aiming for an injunction to prevent McDonald's from initiating or threatening legal action over its use of the 'Mc' prefix in its corporate and product branding. The case is listed for hearing on July 28, 2025, Bar and Bench reported. The conflict began when McPatel Foods applied to register the mark 'McPatel' under Class 30 (covering bakery goods, snacks, noodles, confectionery, sauces and frozen foods) in March 2024. However, on August 27, 2024, McDonald's filed an objection before the Indian Trade Marks Registry against this application. In its notice of opposition, McDonald's alleged the following: Deceptive similarity: McDonald's claims that the 'McPatel' mark is deceptively similar to its 'Mc' and 'Mac' family of trademarks, including McDonald's, McFries, McChicken and others. Acquired distinctiveness: The 'Mc' prefix, according to McDonald's has gained distinctiveness globally since the 1970s, and since 1996 in India due to its widespread use. Global enforcement: McDonald's argues that its trademarks are registered in more than 100 countries, solely with an aim to protect against third-party use of 'Mc'-formative marks. Dominant element: The fast-food chain also argues that 'Patel' and 'Foods' are quite common, making 'Mc' the dominant and source-identifying element in 'McPatel'. Bad intention: McDonald's also alleged that McPatel adopted the mark in bad faith to benefit from McDonald's goodwill, leading to confusion and deception and of the brand's reputation. In its counter statement filed on October 29, 2024, McPatel Foods denied all allegations, asserting the following: Legitimate adoption: The Indian snack maker claimed that the mark was adopted from its registered corporate name and trading style, with no intent to misrepresent or unfairly benefit from McDonald's reputation. Distinct identity: The company said that it is a legally incorporated Indian MSME specialising in processed food, particularly in frozen French fries and their mark is also visually, phonetically and conceptually different from McDonald's trademarks. No prior conflict: The Trademark Registrar is said to have found no conflicting marks at the examination stage, leading to the application's acceptance and advertisement. Lack of evidence: McPatel also pointed to the absence of actual confusion or consumer deception. Jealousy: McPatel contends that the opposition is driven by 'business jealousy' and is filed in bad faith to harass a domestic company. McPatel stood by its rationale that 'Mc' is a common prefix and McDonald's cannot claim monopoly over it across all combinations or industries. As of now, the trademark registry has not made a final decision on the dispute. The ongoing litigation is expected to cause further delays, as reported by Bar and Bench.
