Shiv Sena MP Priyanka Chaturvedi questions India's rushed interim trade deal with the US after its Supreme Court quashed Trump's tariffs. She criticized the 0% tariff on US imports to India while a 10% tariff applies to others.
Chaturvedi Questions India's Trade Strategy
Following the US Supreme Court's verdict quashing the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump, Shiv Sena UBT MP Priyanka Chaturvedi on Saturday questioned why India rushed into an interim trade deal instead of waiting for the apex court's decision. In a post on X, she noted that while the trade now attracts a 10% tariff following the court intervention, US imports to India continue at 0%. She also praised Brazil for maintaining its trade sovereignty despite being among the highest-tariffed nations. Chaturvedi described the US court's ruling as a vindication. "Wonder why India rushed into a deal, giving up on energy purchase decisions, giving up on farmers interests rather than waiting for the US Supreme Court verdict? The trade is at 10% tariff now after the court intervention but again US imports to India at 0% Well done Brazil for standing tall despite being amongst the highest tariffed nation, the country did not buckle and trade with its sovereignty. The US court decision is a vindication," Priyanka Chaturvedi said.
In another post, referring to a report, Chaturvedi criticised government's stance on the purchase of Russian oil. "After the US Court intervention, China like the rest of the world is at 10-% tariff but hasn't signed up its rights to purchasing Russian oil so it's lapping up the cheap oil with no consequences. While India, too will be at 10% tariff but no leverage to buy the oil.. because we signed that away for a 'Historic 18% tariff' The genius of India's Trade Minister!" she said.
Supreme Court Overturns Trump-Era Tariffs
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Trump administration exceeded its legal authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 to impose broad-based import tariffs.
Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and the three liberal justices, held that the IEEPA does not explicitly authorise the president to levy duties--a power the Constitution assigns to Congress. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented, supporting the administration's broader interpretation of emergency powers.
The ruling invalidated billions of dollars in "reciprocal" and emergency tariffs, potentially requiring the government to refund approximately $130-$175 billion in collected revenue. (ANI)
Trump Vows New Global Tariff
Terming the SC's ruling as a "terrible decision", Trump announced he would sign an executive order for a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This authority allows for a temporary import surcharge (up to 15%) for 150 days to address balance-of-payments deficits. "Effective immediately, all the national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs remain in place... Today, I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged," he said.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)