Sibal said India must decide whether to proceed with the deal under the current terms or wait. “We have to deal with this administration very carefully,” he noted.India has not yet signed a trade agreement with the United States, but negotiations were based on a framework that assumed higher tariff levels. The Office of the United States Trade Representative has said that trade negotiations conducted in good faith should remain in effect.
Also Read | India among US trade partners set for 10% tariff rate for 150 days: CNBC
Former Commerce Secretary Anup Wadhawan argued that the baseline for negotiations has changed.
“The negotiation has to start from the assumption that India faces 10% tariffs on the US,” Wadhawan said. He added that it would not be logical for India to accept a framework where duties move from 10% to 18%. “You can’t have a trade agreement where your existing duties, which are 10%, end up at 18%. That makes no sense.”
The earlier framework agreement was negotiated when India was facing tariffs as high as 50%. Those were later brought down to 18% during discussions. With the Supreme Court ruling and the temporary 10% tariff in place, trade experts say the earlier assumptions no longer apply.
Jayant Dasgupta, former envoy to the World Trade Organisation, said the core principle must remain reciprocity. “If there has to be some trade agreement, it has to be based on reciprocity,” he said, adding that tariff reductions should be mutual.
He also pointed out that the 10% tariff under Section 122 is linked to balance of payments issues and may face further legal challenges.
Also Read | India now drives global edible oil trade; exporters track its demand: SD Guthrie’s Sandeep Bhan
Abhijit Das, former head of the Centre for WTO Studies, said India must reassess the concessions it had offered. “Some of the concessions, which we might have granted earlier in the negotiations, were premised on our interest in having lower reciprocal tariffs than our competitors. Now, with everyone facing a 10% tariff, that imperative no longer exists,” he said.
He added that any tariffs imposed under Sections 232 or 301 would remain subject to challenge under World Trade Organisation rules.
Wadhawan emphasised that only a framework agreement has been signed so far, not a final trade deal. “There is a lot of scope for having a balanced outcome,” he said. He argued that India cannot accept a structure where most industrial and agricultural tariffs are reduced to zero while facing tariffs on its exports.
For more details, watch the accompanying video
Catch all the latest updates from the India-US Trade Tariffs here
