India Proposes Retaliatory Tariffs Against US Steel, Aluminium Duties at WTO
India has officially notified the World Trade Organization (WTO) of its intent to impose retaliatory duties on U.S. goods in response to ongoing American safeguard tariffs on steel and aluminium. This step comes after years of trade tensions over tariffs initially imposed by the U.S. in 2018 under the pretext of national security.
According to a WTO communication circulated on May 9, 2025, the United States’ safeguard measures impact approximately $7.6 billion worth of Indian-origin exports. India estimates that these duties would allow it to recover around $1.91 billion through equivalent tariff measures, under WTO norms that allow such retaliation when safeguard actions are deemed unjustified.
The issue dates back to March 8, 2018, when the U.S. imposed 25% tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminium imports, which came into effect from March 23, 2018. Although initially defined as safeguard measures, the U.S. has maintained that these tariffs were implemented on national security grounds, and therefore, not subject to typical WTO safeguard procedures.
In February 2025, the U.S. further revised and extended these measures indefinitely, starting March 12, 2025, continuing the 25% tariffs. In response, India submitted a request for consultations under the WTO’s Safeguard Agreement in April and subsequently declared its intent to suspend concessions and obligations towards U.S. products.
India’s notification specifically referenced the U.S. Presidential Proclamation of February 10, 2025, which formalized the indefinite extension of tariffs. India argues that despite the U.S. not formally notifying these measures to the WTO, they function as safeguard actions and are thus subject to retaliation under WTO rules.
The escalating trade friction underscores broader tensions between India and the U.S. over tariff practices and WTO commitments. The situation could lead to a new phase of dispute resolution or negotiations, depending on how the U.S. responds to India’s retaliatory intent.
