India reacts to proposed 12.5% US tariff; says measures not final, engagement on

India on Wednesday said it remains engaged with the United States on the proposed Section 301 tariff action after the Donald Trump administration proposed additional duties on imports from 60 economies, including India, over alleged shortcomings in curbing goods produced with forced labour.

The Commerce Ministry clarified that products already covered under Section 232 tariffs, along with certain other items, have been excluded from the proposed action.

It also pointed to a special mechanism for textiles and apparel that could permit a specified volume of imports from selected economies to enter the US market at lower tariff rates.

"The proposed tariffs are not yet final," the ministry said, adding that stakeholders can seek participation in public hearings by June 22, submit written comments until July 6, and appear before the USTR at hearings scheduled for July 7.

"The USTR will consider the comments and testimony received before taking a final decision on the proposed measures," it said.

India said it remains engaged with the US as part of the ongoing Section 301 proceedings.

"India remains engaged with the US on the matter as a part of Section 301 proceedings. India is also parallelly engaged with the US for finalisation of a framework agreement as was announced on February 2, 2026 and in accordance with the joint statement released on February 7, 2026," the ministry said.

The USTR proposed imposing additional tariffs under Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974.

According to the USTR, India is among 54 economies that have failed both to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labour.

Under the proposal, economies that have adopted a forced-labour import prohibition, committed to doing so under trade agreements, or have partial regimes in place would face an additional tariff of 10%.

All other economies, including India, would face an additional duty of 12.5%.

India had earlier opposed the investigation and urged the USTR to terminate the probe, arguing that the initiation did not meet the legal requirements under Section 301.