Saturday, March 29, 2025
What’s next for Trump’s tariff war? Will India get relief from the 50% duty after court ruling?
Washington, D.C. – As India faces a steep 50% import duty imposed by the United States under Donald Trump’s trade policy, the former president has now been dealt a major legal setback at home. On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that most tariffs imposed by Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were illegal, saying the law was never meant to give presidents unlimited authority to levy tariffs.
The court said that while the tariffs remain in effect until October 14, the Trump administration can appeal to the Supreme Court during this period.
In its order, the appeals court stated: “Under the Constitution, the fundamental authority to impose taxes and tariffs rests solely with Congress. It is hard to believe that when Congress enacted the IEEPA, it intended to give the president unlimited tariff powers.”
This decision directly affects the 25% retaliatory tariffs the U.S. imposed on India, as well as the additional 25% duty on Russian oil imports. However, tariffs levied under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962—including the 50% duty on steel and aluminum—are not impacted by this ruling.
The verdict stems from two lawsuits filed in April by small businesses and a coalition of U.S. states against Trump’s executive orders. Earlier, in May, the Court of International Trade (CIT) had also declared the tariffs illegal, but they remained in place pending appeal.
U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick defended Trump’s strategy in court, saying that the president’s legal options were limited. Investigations under Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962) typically take about a year, while Section 301 (Trade Act of 1974) is also a lengthy and complex process. In contrast, the IEEPA allows a president to act immediately in the name of national security and foreign policy.
Lutnick argued: “Without this tool, the president’s ability to defend U.S. foreign policy and national security would be seriously undermined.”
International trade law expert Marcus Wagner said Trump’s reliance on IEEPA was always on shaky ground: “The administration knew from the start that courts would likely strike it down. But the real goal was to buy time.”
He added that with appeals pending, the implementation of any rollback could still be delayed for months. “The U.S. strategy or objectives haven’t changed. The real question is how other countries will respond—whether they stick to existing trade rules or find ways to minimize the damage caused by U.S. actions.”
For India, the ruling offers partial relief. The 25% retaliatory tariffs and the extra duty on Russian oil could eventually be lifted if the Supreme Court upholds the appeals court ruling. However, the 50% duty on Indian steel and aluminum—imposed under Section 232—remains unaffected by this judgment, meaning Indian exporters are unlikely to see immediate relief.
