India Defends Labor Safeguards at USTR Hearing on Proposed Tariff Action
Washington — India has defended its legal, regulatory and corporate safeguards against forced labor, telling the U.S. Trade Representative that the country already has the institutions, laws and industry compliance systems needed to meet the objectives Washington is seeking through a proposed Section 301 tariff action.
Appearing before a USTR public hearing Wednesday, representatives of India’s Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, the Confederation of Indian Industry and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry said India’s framework combines constitutional protections, labor laws, regulatory oversight and private-sector compliance systems aligned with international standards.
The Indian delegation said Article 23 of the Constitution expressly prohibits forced and bonded labor as a fundamental right enforceable through the courts. It said those protections are reinforced by the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, modern labor codes, criminal penalties under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and India’s ratification of the International Labour Organization’s core conventions on forced labor.
Industry representatives also highlighted India’s corporate governance framework.
CII noted that the Securities and Exchange Board of India requires the country’s top 1,000 listed companies to file Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reports covering human rights, grievance mechanisms, forced labor complaints, supply-chain assessments and corrective actions.
During questioning, CII also pointed to the BRSR Lite framework introduced for small and medium-sized enterprises. It said Indian companies have voluntarily adopted codes of conduct, supplier compliance systems and ESG frameworks that already mirror international standards.
FICCI told the hearing that most Indian exporters supplying the U.S. market already operate within compliance systems established by American buyers and multinational corporations. These include supplier audits, due diligence, ethical sourcing standards, worker grievance mechanisms, traceability systems and continuous monitoring.
“In many cases, compliance is driven as much by buyer requirements as by domestic regulation,” FICCI said in its written testimony.
The industry groups also cited sector-specific examples. According to CII, aluminum companies conduct formal human rights due diligence, textile exporters are regularly audited by U.S. buyers and international certification bodies, foundry and forging industries comply with stringent labor laws, and agricultural machinery manufacturers compete on engineering capability rather than labor cost advantages.
APEDA argued that Indian agricultural exports destined for the United States are subject to additional safeguards. It said rice exports are permitted only from mills registered with the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, and exporters must satisfy strict labor standards required by major U.S. retailers, including Walmart.
Throughout the hearing, Indian representatives maintained that the proposed 12.5 percent tariff would not strengthen labor protections because those protections are already embedded in India’s legal and commercial systems.
Instead, they urged the USTR to build on existing cooperation through dialogue, technical engagement and bilateral mechanisms. They argued that evidence-based collaboration would better advance the shared objective of eliminating forced labor from global supply chains than broad tariff measures. (Source: IANS)
