US Dismisses India&rsquo;s WTO Retaliation Notice, Escalating Trade Tensions Over Metal Tariffs
 In a pointed rejection that risks deepening transatlantic trade tensions, the United States has declined to entertain India&rsquo;s formal notice at the World Trade Organization (WTO), which sought retaliatory measures in response to steep American tariffs on steel and aluminium imports. The US maintains that its metal tariffs are not &ldquo;safeguard&rdquo; measures and, therefore, fall outside the scope of the WTO&rsquo;s Agreement on Safeguards &mdash; effectively closing the door on further bilateral consultations under that framework.
India had submitted a formal notification to the WTO on 9 May, signalling its intent to suspend certain trade concessions extended to the United States. The notice cited Washington&rsquo;s decision to impose a 25% duty on imported steel and aluminium &mdash; a move India contends was designed to shield domestic metal producers from foreign competition. Under WTO rules, New Delhi&rsquo;s retaliatory measures could come into force 30 days after the filing date, i.e., from 8 June.
However, in a written response dated 22 May, the United States flatly rejected India&rsquo;s position, arguing that its actions were enacted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act &mdash; legislation which classifies such tariffs as being justified on grounds of national security. &ldquo;These tariffs do not constitute safeguard measures,&rdquo; Washington stated in its communication to the WTO, &ldquo;and therefore India has no basis to seek suspension of concessions under Article 8.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards.&rdquo;
This procedural distinction is significant. By declaring its actions outside the ambit of WTO safeguard rules, the US has effectively refused to enter into formal dispute consultations with India on the matter, placing the onus squarely on New Delhi to determine its next course of action.
With dialogue off the table, India now faces the choice of unilateral retaliation &mdash; a move likely to target select American exports to India such as almonds, walnuts, and possibly industrial goods. These measures would serve both as a symbolic and economic counterpunch to US trade protectionism.
The original flashpoint dates back to 10 February, when the US announced 25% tariffs on all steel and aluminium imports, effective 12 March. The situation has since escalated sharply. In a new development on 30 May, the US administration &mdash; under the pretext of bolstering national security &mdash; doubled the existing tariffs to an extraordinary 50%, effective 4 June.
For New Delhi, the dispute underscores the mounting challenge of navigating trade diplomacy with an increasingly assertive Washington. While India remains a vocal supporter of the multilateral trade order, this episode illustrates the limitations of WTO mechanisms in curbing unilateralism, especially when national security is invoked as justification.
With strategic ties between the two democracies growing deeper &mdash; especially in defence and technology &mdash; the current trade standoff introduces an element of unpredictability. For now, New Delhi is weighing its legal and economic options, but the broader question remains: can the rules-based trading system withstand the pressures of geopolitical assertion and economic nationalism?

Prime Minister Narendra Modi with US President Donald Trump (file photos)

Washington says metal tariffs not ‘safeguards’; declines talks with New Delhi at WTO

US Rejects India’s WTO Tariff Retaliation Bid

Washington says metal tariffs not ‘safeguards’; declines talks with New Delhi at WTO

June 2, 2025 | 05:49 IST