U.S. Cites National Security to Justify Steel Tariffs in WTO Dispute with India

0
100
- Advertisement -

New Delhi– The United States has defended its decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports by invoking national security concerns, telling the World Trade Organization (WTO) that the measures should not be classified as safeguard actions.

The response came after India formally requested consultations on April 11 under the WTO’s Safeguards Agreement, challenging the tariff hikes introduced during former President Donald Trump’s administration. India argued that the tariffs function as safeguard measures and that the U.S. failed to meet procedural requirements, including notifying the WTO Committee on Safeguards.

In its official submission to the WTO dated April 17, the U.S. countered India’s position, stating: “The United States notes that the premise for India’s request for consultations under Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards is that the tariffs are safeguard measures. The President imposed the tariffs on steel and aluminum pursuant to Section 232, under which it was determined that such tariffs were necessary to address imports that threaten to impair the national security of the United States.”

The U.S. maintained that Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act is a national security statute, not a trade remedy provision, and therefore the tariffs fall under the national security exception outlined in Article XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994.

Additionally, Washington clarified that the tariffs were not implemented under the Trade Act of 1974, the legal framework typically used for safeguard measures. “The United States is not maintaining these actions pursuant to the safeguards/emergency action provision. These actions are not safeguard measures and, therefore, there is no basis to conduct consultations under the Agreement on Safeguards,” the U.S. said in its defense.

The ongoing dispute underscores broader tensions between India and the U.S. over trade policies, particularly around the use of national security as a justification for import restrictions. (Source: IANS)

Advertisement

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here