On Friday, New Delhi announced its intention to implement retaliatory tariffs on the United States, citing the World Trade Organization (WTO) regulations in response to the US's safeguard duties on automobile imports from India.

The notification from the WTO, which was shared at India's request, indicated that the proposed actions would involve raising tariffs on specific products imported from the US.

India formally informed the WTO's Council for Trade in Goods about its plans to suspend certain concessions and obligations as per WTO guidelines.

Earlier, on March 26, the US had decided to impose a 25% tariff on imports of passenger vehicles, light trucks, and certain auto parts from India, with these duties set to take effect on May 3.

India contended that the US measures were inconsistent with the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the WTO's safeguards agreement.

Furthermore, India asserted its right to suspend equivalent concessions, as the consultations it requested have not occurred.

These tariffs could be enacted after a 30-day period, as reported by various media sources.

The US tariffs could potentially impact $2.8 billion worth of Indian exports annually, resulting in a duty collection of approximately $723 million.

India's proposed suspension of concessions aims to match the duty collected from US-origin products.

This development coincides with ongoing negotiations between India and the US for a trade agreement, which is nearing completion and expected to be announced soon.

Additionally, the announcement comes just before the expiration of a 90-day tariff suspension declared by former President Donald Trump, set to end on July 9.

In June, the US dismissed India's earlier notice to the WTO regarding retaliatory tariffs after the US raised import duties on aluminum and steel to 25%, claiming national security as the basis for these tariffs.

The US maintained that India's case contained procedural errors and that the tariffs were not classified as safeguard measures.

In contrast, India argued that these actions were indeed safeguard measures and emphasized its right to impose retaliatory tariffs due to the lack of mandatory consultations under the Agreement on Safeguards.