Is India the “tariff”? Not really opinion

There is a widespread vision but it is wrong that the Indian tariff is unusually high. There are self -factors when it comes to a country such as living, general courtesy, or even how foreigners are welcomed. But the definitions are quantitative, and there should not be a place for subjectivity. Therefore, let’s think about the facts of the case.

However, before we do it, it may be useful for the ordinary reader to know what functional definitions in a low -income developing country like India, instead of saying, a high -income country like the United States of America. Traditionally, developing low -income developing countries use definitions for two reasons: one, to protect their local industry and two, to obtain revenues from it. Protection of the local industry is an acceptable argument by economists all over the world, especially if the industry is a boom and the country needs to develop an industrial base. Next, there is a revenue acquisition function, which shows the homeland duties on alcohol or luxury motorcycles, for example.

The tariff of India, which was high in the 1980s, has been dropped significantly since the start of the 1991 reforms and during negotiations related to the Uruguay tour, which led to the establishment of the World Trade Organization (the World Trade Organization). Since then, the secular trend in India has been the gradual limit of definitions in force year after year.

From a technical point of view, there are two types of definitions that countries enjoy. The customs tariff is applied, which is what the name refers to is the actual tariff (usually advertisement) The border is imposed when foreign goodness enters a country.

The other is a binding tariff, and it is the maximum tariff that a country can impose on a foreign commodity of a legal commitment arising from its most obvious obligations (MFN) to the World Trade Organization.

It goes without saying that the war of tariffs that the United States began violating its obligations under the World Trade Organization agreements. After that, the World Trade Organization itself was prepared for a while. It should also be noted that the definitions cannot be the same for all countries. It is for a three -way, developing low -income developing countries (for above reasons mentioned) compared to G7 countries.

So, where do India draw all this? When India is judged on definitions, there are two teachers who are used. One is the average simple definitions, and the other is the definitions distributed for trade. If you are using the previous scale, the Harifa of India looks high (15.98 percent). But this is in many ways academic because for most goods that enter the Indian market, the applied tariff is of importance. And the likely tariff that India maintains is a 4.6 percent respectable. This level of definition is a false tariff that India is the property of a tariff in one way or another. Simple intermediate averages because they treat all products alike, regardless of trade sizes. So, why is there a big difference between a simple tariff in India and the weighted tariff?

India does not maintain a relatively high tariff in agriculture and cars. Either way, the main purpose of definitions is to protect the local industry. Agriculture in India Sui Jersus Like any other major country in the world. About 50 percent of India’s indigenous population depends directly or indirectly on agriculture. Moreover, agriculture in India is not so mechanical and lands are so small that agriculture revolves around survival and not around trade. The demand for India to open the agricultural sector on imports is similar to its demand for suicide, which will not be approved by any elected government in India. This demand is particularly terrible because Western farmers are benefiting from direct and indirect benefits.

Looking at all this, India maintains A relatively high tariff For agricultural products, the average rates of about 33 percent are on meat, dairy, fruits and grains. But this is not surprising if you are thinking about the fact that European UnionThe average average average rate of 37.5 percent on dairy products is up to 205 percent, and up to 261 percent on fruits and vegetables. Compare this with Japan Its rate is 61.3 percent on dairy products, reaching 298 percent, and up to 258 percent on grains, and 160 percent on meat and vegetables. or South KoreaThe average is 54 percent on agricultural commodities with 800 percent on vegetables, and 300 percent on fruits. Who is the property of the tariff in agriculture, you may ask? As for cars, this sector creates collective job opportunities, which is very important for this reason.

Even simple tariff levels in India at 15.98 percent are in line with the global standards of developing economies. Bangladesh (14.1 %), Argentina (13.4 %), and Torquay (16.2 %), all of which are countries with a similar gross domestic product or the highest gross domestic product, maintains a similar or higher tariff.

The United States has to say its exports of non -agricultural products face it Tariff barriersIt should be noted that American exporters often face an equal or less tariff in India compared to many of their Asian peers. In electronics and technology, for example, India has a 0 percent tariff on most IT devices, semi -conductors, computers, and associated parts, with an average tariff of 10.9 per cent on electronics and 8.3 percent on computing machines.

Compared, Vietnam It has a tariff of 8.5 percent on electronic equipment, up to 35 percent. China A tariff rate of 5.4 percent reaches 20 percent on the electronics, and up to 25 percent on computing machines. and Indonesia A tariff rate of 6.3 percent on electronic equipment, up to 20 percent, and up to 30 percent on computerized machines.

It is true that India maintains the protection of the justified tariff for its agricultural markets, dairy and cars for good reasons. But the weighted applied tariff in other sectors does not justify that it is called “Tariff“At all.

Dr. Mohan Kumar is a former Indian ambassador and general manager of the Jadiga Motoanian Institute for American Studies at Gendal International University.

The views expressed in this article are a writer.