Washington, July 9 (IANS) India has mounted a broad defence of its legal, regulatory and corporate safeguards against forced labour, telling the US Trade Representative (USTR) that the country already has the institutions, laws and industry compliance systems needed to achieve the very objectives Washington is seeking through its proposed Section 301 tariff action.
Appearing before the USTR’s public hearing on Wednesday (local time), representatives of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) argued that India’s framework combines constitutional protections, labour legislation, regulatory oversight and private-sector compliance with internationally recognised standards.
The Indian delegation said Article 23 of the Constitution expressly prohibits forced and bonded labour as a fundamental right enforceable through the courts. It said these protections are reinforced by the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, modern labour codes, criminal penalties under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and India’s ratification of the International Labour Organization’s core conventions on forced labour.
Industry representatives also highlighted India’s growing corporate governance framework.
CII noted that the Securities and Exchange Board of India requires the country’s top 1,000 listed companies to file Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reports covering human rights, grievance mechanisms, forced labour complaints, supply-chain assessments and corrective actions.
During questioning, CII also pointed to the BRSR Lite framework introduced for small and medium enterprises, saying Indian companies have voluntarily adopted codes of conduct, supplier compliance systems and ESG frameworks that already mirror international standards.
FICCI told the hearing that most Indian exporters supplying the US market already operate within compliance ecosystems established by American buyers and multinational corporations.
These include supplier audits, due diligence, ethical sourcing standards, worker grievance mechanisms, traceability systems and continuous monitoring.
“In many cases, compliance is driven as much by buyer requirements as by domestic regulation,” FICCI said in its written testimony.
The industry bodies also cited sector-specific examples.
According to CII, aluminium companies undertake formal human rights due diligence, textile exporters are regularly audited by US buyers and international certification bodies, foundry and forging industries comply with stringent labour legislation, while agricultural machinery manufacturers compete on engineering capability rather than labour cost advantages.
APEDA argued that Indian agricultural exports destined for the United States are subject to additional safeguards.
It said rice exports are permitted only from mills registered with the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare and exporters must satisfy stringent labour standards required by major US retailers, including Walmart.
Throughout the hearing, Indian representatives maintained that the proposed 12.5 per cent tariff would not strengthen labour protections because those protections are already embedded in India’s legal and commercial systems.
Instead, they urged the USTR to build on existing cooperation through dialogue, technical engagement and bilateral mechanisms, arguing that evidence-based collaboration would better advance the shared objective of eliminating forced labour from global supply chains than economy-wide tariff measures.
–IANS
lkj/sd/