Fact Check: Did the US Reject India’s WTO Notice on Retaliatory Tariffs Over Metal Duties?

United States informed the WTO that it does not consider the tariffs safeguard measures

ndia sent a notice to the WTO proposing retaliatory tariffs on US goods in response to steep import duties on steel and aluminium.

Claim:
India sent a notice to the WTO proposing retaliatory tariffs on US goods in response to steep import duties on steel and aluminium. The United States rejected this notice, stating its tariffs were not safeguard measures and hence not subject to discussion under WTO rules.

Verdict: True

What’s the Claim?

According to multiple sources and official documents, India submitted a formal notice on May 9, 2025, to the World Trade Organization (WTO), notifying its intent to retaliate against the United States for sharply increasing import duties on steel and aluminium. The retaliation would involve suspending concessions and possibly raising import duties on American goods like almonds and walnuts. India cited Article 8.2 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards.

The US, in turn, rejected the notice and declined to hold consultations, arguing that its tariffs are not “safeguard measures”, but instead imposed under national security grounds (Section 232 of the US Trade Expansion Act of 1962).

What the Documents and Reports Confirm

1. India Issued the WTO Notice on May 9

Confirmed.
India’s notice to WTO stated that it could suspend “concessions and other obligations” granted to the US after 30 days (effective June 8), in response to the US doubling steel and aluminium import tariffs from 25% to 50% starting June 4.

“The safeguard measures would affect $7.6 billion worth of Indian exports to the US, with $1.91 billion in additional duties collected. Hence, India’s retaliatory duties would mirror that economic loss,” – India’s WTO submission

2. The US Rejected India’s WTO Proposal

Confirmed.
In a written communication dated May 22, 2025, the United States informed the WTO that it does not consider the tariffs safeguard measures, and therefore, India has no legal basis to seek suspension of concessions under Article 8.2.

“The United States will not discuss the Section 232 tariffs under the Agreement on Safeguards as we do not view the tariffs as safeguard measures.” – US Communication to WTO

3. India Considers Tariff-Based Retaliation

Confirmed.
Indian officials, citing anonymity, confirmed that the government is considering a proportional retaliation, which could involve:

Suspension of trade concessions
Higher customs duties on US goods, especially almonds, walnuts, and metal items

India may withhold this retaliation if the US grants preferential access to Indian metals under ongoing negotiations for a Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA).

4. Tariff Dispute Tied to Larger India-US Trade Talks

Partially Confirmed.

A US delegation is expected in India this week to conclude an “early harvest deal” under BTA.
India may use the WTO standoff as leverage to secure exemptions or market access for steel and aluminium.

Expert Insights

Ajay Srivastava, Founder of Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) and a former Indian Trade Service officer, explained:

“India exported $4.56 billion worth of iron, steel, and aluminium products to the US in FY25. These exports are now at risk due to sharply higher US tariffs. India’s WTO move is a calibrated step to protect its trade interests.”

Historical Context

This is not the first time India has retaliated:

2018–2019: The Trump administration imposed similar tariffs under Section 232.
June 2019: India responded with retaliatory tariffs on 28 US products.
June 2023: The two sides resolved the dispute under a Mutually Agreed Solution (MAS) where:
- The US allowed Indian metal exports via Section 232 exclusions.
- India rolled back retaliatory duties.

However, the May 2025 escalation signals a renewed trade friction, with higher stakes this time.

Legal Grey Area at the WTO

Due to the non-functioning Appellate Body at the WTO, such disputes often remain unresolved. This allows powerful members like the US to take unilateral positions without facing immediate legal consequences.

“Without a working appellate body, WTO rulings are mostly symbolic. Members are often left to resolve issues bilaterally,” – WTO Legal Expert (anonymous)

Conclusion

The claim is true.
India did issue a WTO notice proposing retaliatory tariffs in response to steep US tariffs on steel and aluminium. The US has officially rejected the notice, stating its measures were taken under national security grounds, not as safeguard measures, and therefore, are not open for WTO discussion.

India is now considering trade retaliation, but may hold back if negotiations under the Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) yield a favorable outcome.