India is one of the founding members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the erstwhile General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947). India is a party to the WTO Information Technology Agreement (ITA) and has ratified the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA). India is also an observer to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) and Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft.

India has signed 15 Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), namely:

• India–Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (India–Sri Lanka FTA);
• Agreement on South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA);
• India–Nepal Treaty of Trade;
• India–Bhutan Agreement on Trade, Commerce and Transit;
• India–Thailand FTA – Early Harvest Scheme (EHS);
• India–Singapore Comprehensive Economic Co-operation Agreement (CECA);
• India–ASEAN CECA – Trade in Goods, Services and Investment Agreement;
• India–South Korea Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA);
• India–Japan CEPA;
• India–Malaysia CECA;
• India–Mauritius Comprehensive Economic Co-operation and Partnership Agreement (CECPA);
• India–UAE CEPA;
• India–Australia Economic Co-operation and Trade Agreement (ECTA);
• India–EFTA Trade and Economic Partnership Agreement (TEPA); and
• India–UK Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)

The free trade agreement between India and the UK, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), was signed on 24 July 2025, and is currently undergoing ratification. All other FTAs signed by India are currently in force.

India has signed six Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) including the Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA), the Global System of Trade Preferences (GSTP), the SAARC Preferential Trading Agreement (SAPTA), the India–Afghanistan PTA, India–MERCOSUR PTA, and India–Chile PTA. All six PTAs are implemented and currently in force.

In 2022, India and the EU resumed negotiations on a free trade agreement (FTA), which had been stalled since 2013. More recently, the two sides have completed fourteen rounds of negotiations, with the aim of finalising the agreement by the end of 2025. Separately, India and Chile have signed the Terms of Reference for a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) and have concluded the first round of negotiations, covering a wide range of subjects, including:

• trade in goods;
• trade in services;
• movement of natural persons;
• rules of origin;
• sanitary and phytosanitary measures;
• technical barriers to trade;
• customs procedures and trade facilitation;
• transparency;
• dispute settlement;
• economic co-operation;
• MSMEs;
• women’s economic empowerment;
• critical and strategic minerals trade and sustainable development;
• global value chains;
• investment promotion and co-operation; and
• intellectual property rights, trade and investment.

Under the Terms of Reference, India and Chile intend for the CEPA to build on the existing Preferential Trade Agreement between the two countries and to extend its scope to a broader set of sectors, including digital services, investment promotion and cooperation, MSMEs and critical minerals. In recent years, India has faced difficulties in securing reliable supplies of rare earth elements and other critical minerals, and the proposed CEPA is expected to help reduce India’s dependence on China in this regard. In addition, India and Brazil have recently agreed to widen the scope of the existing Preferential Trade Agreement between India and the Mercosur bloc.

India signed the Trade and Economic Partnership Agreement with the European Free Trade Association on 10 March 2024, and the agreement entered into force in October 2025. India has also concluded negotiations with Oman on a CEPA, which is expected to be signed and ratified in 2026. Negotiations on the India–Canada FTA had been paused for a considerable period owing to political differences, but they are now expected to resume. India and Peru are likewise advancing work on a trade agreement aimed at strengthening bilateral relations, with conclusion anticipated by the end of 2025 or early 2026. In addition, India and New Zealand have reopened talks on a free trade agreement, negotiations that had remained suspended for more than a decade.

At present, India and the United States are actively working towards much-anticipated trade arrangements intended to address the steep tariffs introduced by the new government elected in 2024, which imposed duties of nearly 50% on a wide range of Indian exports, markedly higher than those applied to imports from other major exporters.

India has begun renegotiating its FTAs with South Korea (India–South Korea CEPA) and Japan (India–Japan CEPA). Although progress has been slow, India remains eager to accelerate these discussions.

India had initiated the process of developing a standard operating procedure (SOP) for negotiating free trade agreements. This SOP is being prepared as an internal document to standardise the processes of negotiating trade agreements.

The legal and administrative authorities governing Indian customs matters are codified in the Customs Act 1962, the Customs Tariff Act 1975, and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 (“FT D&R Act”). These legal instruments implement the overarching multilateral, plurilateral, and bilateral agreements, such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) under the WTO framework, the Customs Valuation Agreement under the World Customs Organisation (WCO), and trade agreements with other countries.

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) under the Ministry of Finance (MoF) is responsible for formulating policies concerning the levying and collection of customs duty, prevention of smuggling and evasion of duty, customs valuation, and all administrative matters regarding the customs law in India. The functioning of customs is supported by various government agencies, such as the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), responsible for administering the foreign trade policy; the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) for undertaking trade remedies investigation; the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) for assisting customs authorities in preventing illegal trade in wildlife and endangered species; the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for curbing illegal financial activities related to imports and exports; and the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), acting as the National Standard Body for standardisation, marking and quality certification of goods.

The Customs Tariff Act 1975 and FT D&R Act 1992 are two primary legal instruments introduced by India to address any negative impact of trade practices in other jurisdictions. Under the domestic legal framework, Indian authorities may impose quantitative restrictions, minimum import price (MIP) anti-dumping (AD), countervailing (CVD) and safeguard (SG) measures. There is an effective mechanism in place that provides ample opportunity for non-domestic companies to participate in the AD/CVD/SG investigation process.

The review process for trade remedy measures in India is not automatic. The domestic companies normally file an application for review, and the opposing non-domestic companies are provided sufficient opportunity to participate in the review process. Post-completion of the original investigation or review, the findings are published in an official gazette and made available to all parties.

In addition to the trade remedial measures, India regulates the import of goods listed under a Negative List, which covers three categories of imports, namely prohibited items, restricted items, and canalised items. Prior permission in the form of a licence is required from the DGFT by the respective importers. India has also introduced a mandatory certification for a variety of products, which is administered by the BIS and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).

India has introduced a new trade policy titled the Foreign Trade Policy of India (FTP) 2023, which is administered by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). The FTP 2023 introduced by India reflects a pragmatic shift from an incentive-based trade policy to a facilitation-based trade policy. India has also done away with a limited-period (five-year) policy and shifted to a policy with no pre-defined timeline of expiry.

The Indian government has also sought to introduce the Development of Enterprises and Services Hub Bill 2022 (DESH Bill), replacing the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Act 2005. The SEZ Act 2005 was introduced for the establishment, development, and management of Special Economic Zones to promote exports and create additional economic activity. The bill is currently under a consultation process by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry.

In 2025, India drastically reduced the customs duty on imports of electric vehicles and temporarily removed duty on raw cotton. At the same time, minimum export prices have been introduced for certain types of paperboards, chemicals and pharmaceutical ingredients, offering protection to companies operating in those specific segments.

India has also introduced quality control orders under the aegis of the Bureau of Indian Standards, on diversified products. This promotes the manufacture and import of safe, reliable and high-quality products for Indian consumers.

India had announced import conditions on a host of information technology (IT) hardware products, including laptops, tablets, all-in-one personal computers, and ultra-small form factor computers and servers falling under HSN 8741. Under these conditions, the import of specific IT hardware required a valid licence for restricted imports, with the policy becoming effective from 1 November 2023.

After the release of the notification, several countries, including the USA, South Korea, and China, raised concerns about the import restriction imposed by India before the WTO’s Committee on Market Access. In response, India rolled back the licensing regime and replaced it with an “import management system” to monitor imports of laptops and other IT hardware. Similar import management systems have also been applied to products used in renewable energy projects and goods subject to minimum import prices (MIPs).

To further its goal of becoming self-reliant, the Ministry of Commerce, in consultation with the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, is exploring options to re-introduce a graded import restriction plan for IT products. The proposal remains under consideration, and a final decision is awaited.

The legal framework for imposing sanctions in India can be broadly classified into two categories – trade sanctions and sanctions against individuals and organisations. Trade sanctions are primarily administered by the DGFT, while sanctions against individuals/organisations are administered by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The DGFT as well as the MHA are assisted by other administrative authorities for the efficient implementation of the sanctions regime.

India has also incorporated sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on the protection of human rights, the promotion of peaceful transactions, and the promotion of non-proliferation, amongst others.

Trade sanctions introduced by India are governed by the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act (“FT D&R Act”) 1992, and are implemented through Chapter 2 of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2023. The trade sanctions implemented by India recognise India’s obligation under the Wassenaar Arrangement, restricting trade in arms, munitions, and dual-use products for civil and military applications, and the United Nations Security Council resolutions.

To fulfil the commitments under the United Nations framework, India has introduced an array of domestic legislation, such as:

• the United Nations (Security Council) Act 1947;
• the Chemical Weapons Convention Act 2000; and
• the Weapons of Mass Destruction and their Delivery Systems (Prohibition of Unlawful Activities) Act 2005, along with the Weapons of Mass Destruction and their Delivery Systems, Appointment of Advisory Committees and their Powers and Duties Rules 2006, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction and their Delivery Systems (Prohibition of Unlawful Activities) Implementation Rules 2016.

For effective implementation of sanctions, India has also introduced the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (also known as UAPA or anti-terrorist law), the Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999 (FEMA), and the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 (PMLA).

There are multiple agencies and government institutions responsible for administering the sanctions regime. In India, sanctions are primarily enforced by the DGFT under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, MHA, MoF, Ministry of External Affairs, National Authority Chemical Weapons Convention, Ministry of Defence (MoD), Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and other government functionaries.

The jurisdiction of the FT D&R Act 1992 is extendable to any person who contravenes or attempts to contravene or abet any provision under the Act. The jurisdiction of sanctions imposed under UAPA is applicable to:

• every person who is held guilty in India;
• any person who commits an offence beyond India in the same manner as if such act had been committed in India;
• citizens of India outside India;
• persons in the service of the government, wherever they may be; and
• persons on ships and aircraft registered in India, wherever they may be.

India maintains a list of sanctioned persons (which includes terrorist individuals as well as terrorist organisations). This list is prepared and maintained by the Home Ministry/MHA. A list of sanctioned individuals and organisations is available here via this link.

There is no stipulated framework for adding persons or organisations to the list of sanctioned persons. The government is empowered to designate any person or organisation as a terrorist or terrorist organisation if it believes that the person or organisation committed or participated in acts of terrorism. A person or organisation that has been notified as sanctioned has the right to request a review and seek de-notification from the sanctioned persons list.

India has incorporated the sanctions imposed by the UNSC on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), Iran, Somalia, and certain terrorist organisations. Trade sanctions on the import and export of arms and related materials in Chapter 93 of ITC(HS) from/to Iraq are also “prohibited”, except for the export of arms and related material to the government of Iraq which is permitted subject to a “No Objection Certificate” from the Department of Defence Production.

In 2019, India withdrew the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status previously granted to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan owing to border tensions between the two countries. In April 2025, India suspended all bilateral trade and the transit of goods with Pakistan, and more recently it has introduced measures to curb unofficial bilateral trade conducted through third countries. Although direct passenger flights from China, as well as several Chinese mobile applications, had been banned on national security grounds, both countries are now engaged in discussions aimed at easing tensions. Nevertheless, India continues to subject investments from the People’s Republic of China to stringent scrutiny.

On the sidelines of the recent SCO Summit held in Tianjin, India, Russia and China met to strengthen co-ordination on global and regional trade matters, particularly in light of the tariffs recently imposed by the United States. This significant development is viewed as a constructive step towards enhancing global economic growth and stability, and has led to the resumption of direct passenger flights between India and China from November 2025, following a six-year suspension.

India has not introduced any secondary sanctions.

Under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, which governs terrorism-related sanctions, severe penalties may be imposed, including life imprisonment or even the death penalty, along with hefty fines and forfeiture of assets. Violations of the FT D&R Act can result in the suspension of the Importer–Exporter Code Number, and a fine of not less than INR10,000 and up to five times the value of the goods, services, or technology, whichever is higher.

Specific licences to regulate the import and export of certain goods and services falling under the “restricted” category are granted by the DGFT under the FT D&R Act 1992. India does not allow the issuance of licences allowing other prohibited activities.

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) is the organisation under the Customs Act 1962 responsible for enforcing the Customs Act 1962 and various other statutes, including the Arms Act, and Wildlife Act. The DRI undertakes the collation and dissemination of information to combat smuggling, mis-declaration, trade-based money laundering and smuggling of precious metals, narcotics, and foreign currency. The DRI also ensures India’s compliance with various multilateral agreements, such as the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and their Destruction.

The MHA is the nodal ministry for regulating the UAPA. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) under the MHA is the specialised counter-terrorism law enforcement agency in India. India follows a principle of strict liability for violations of the UAPA.

To prevent money laundering and illegal activities, India has introduced the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Maintenance of Records of the Nature and Value of Transactions, the Procedure and Manner of Maintaining and Time for Furnishing Information and Verification and Maintenance of Records of the Identity of the Clients of the Banking Companies, Financial Institutions and Intermediaries) Rules 2005. These rules mandate that financial institutions submit the suspicious transaction report (STR) within seven days of such transaction and cash transaction report (CTR) each month to the Financial Intelligence Unit. The RBI has also issued the Master Direction – Know Your Customer (KYC) Direction 2016, which mandates KYC verification for all new customers to ensure the prevention of illegal activities, including money laundering.

Apart from the RBI, the Financial Intelligence Unit – India (FIU) under the MoF is the central, national agency responsible for receiving, processing, analysing, and disseminating information relating to suspicious financial transactions to enforcement agencies and foreign FIUs.

India does not have any blocking statute prohibiting adherence to sanctions by other jurisdictions.

The global economy is facing ongoing challenges arising from the Ukraine and Russia conflict, which has resulted in various countries and regions, such as the USA, Canada and the EU, imposing sanctions against Russian banks, excluding them from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) system. These sanctions aim to halt cross-border payments to Russia in US dollars and thereby weaken the Russian economy. As a result, trade in coal, diamonds, and petroleum products from Russia has been significantly disrupted.

India has been a long-standing partner of Russia (especially for defence and oil supplies) and has abstained from any votes on Russian sanctions. There are several Indian state-owned enterprises, such as Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), Oil India Ltd, and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL), that have investments in Russia, primarily in the oil and gas sector. India is also a net energy importer, and dependent on Russia and other oil-producing countries to meet its energy security requirements. Since the sanctions imposed on Russia resulted in a surge in crude oil prices, India has increased its imports from Russia, which has offered oil at discounted rates.

The United States and Russia have engaged in multiple rounds of discussions aimed at ending the ongoing conflict in Ukraine; however, both countries have so far failed to reach a mutual solution. Against this backdrop, India continues to maintain its bilateral trade relations with Russia despite significant geopolitical pressure. In response, the USA has taken measures aimed at putting pressure on India to end crude oil imports from Russia, including imposing a 100% tariff on branded or patented pharmaceutical products exported from India, with limited exemptions. This tariff is part of broader US economic strategies to influence India’s trade behaviour concerning Russia during the ongoing geopolitical tensions.

There are no anticipated changes in the sanction regulations in India.

India regulates the export of goods, software, and technology, including munitions, specified in the list of special chemicals, organisms, materials, equipment, and technologies (the “SCOMET list”) under Chapter 10 of the FTP 2023. The SCOMET list ensures alignment with India’s commitments under various international conventions, such as the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), Wassenaar Arrangement (WA), and Australia Group (AG), and the Nuclear Suppliers group (NSG). The export of non-SCOMET dual-use products is also regulated in India.

The legal framework for export controls in India is established under the FT D&R Act 1992, the Foreign Trade Policy 2023 (FTP 2023), and the Handbook of Procedures (HBP). Export controls are further reinforced under the Weapons of Mass Destruction and their Delivery Systems (Prohibition of Unlawful Activities) Act 2005, and the Customs Act 1962.

The administrative agency involved in the administration of export control in India is the DGFT under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The CBIC, a part of the MoF and the Department of Defence Production under the Ministry of Defence, aids in the administration of the export control regime in India.

Persons exporting or importing goods, software, and technology included in the SCOMET list and dual-use goods are subject to export controls.

The FTP provides a list of the restricted countries and/or restricted organisations, which is updated as per the resolutions passed by the UNSC. Below is an illustrative list of the countries or persons under the restricted categories.

• Iran: There is a ban on the export and import of arms and related products from Iran, except with the government of Iran, which requires prior permission from the Department of Defence Production. The export of any product, equipment, or technology to Iran is subject to UN Security Council Resolutions.
• Individuals/Organisations: The trade in oil and refined oil products, modular refineries, and related materials, besides items of cultural (including antiquities), scientific and religious importance, is prohibited with the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Al Nusrah Front (ANF) and other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated, directly or indirectly, with Al-Qaida.
• Democratic Republic of Korea: The direct or indirect supply, sale, transfer or export of the following items to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is prohibited:
1. any battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large-calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems as defined in the United Nations Register on Conventional Arms, or related material including spare parts;
2. all arms and related material, including small arms and light weapons and their related material; and
3. all items, materials, equipment, goods, and technology as set out in the UNSC and International Atomic Energy.
• Somalia: The direct or indirect import of charcoal is prohibited from Somalia as per UNSC Resolution 2036 (2012).

India maintains the SCOMET list, which regulates the trade in sensitive and dual-use items. The SCOMET list is contained in Appendix 3 to Schedule 2 of the ITC (HS). The SCOMET items are classified under nine distinct categories:

• Category 0 – nuclear materials, other nuclear-related materials, equipment and technology;
• Category 1 – toxic chemical agents and other chemicals;
• Category 2 – micro-organisms and toxins;
• Category 3 – materials, materials-processing equipment and related technologies;
• Category 4 – other nuclear-related equipment and technology, not controlled under Category 0;
• Category 5 – aerospace systems, equipment, including production and test equipment, related technology, and specially designed components and accessories thereof;
• Category 6 – munitions list;
• Category 7 – reserved; and
• Category 8 – special materials and related equipment, materials processing, electronics, computers, telecommunications, information security, sensors and lasers, navigation and avionics, marine, aerospace and propulsion.

The central government is empowered to monitor and amend the list of sensitive exports under the FT D&R Act 1992 and the FTP 2023. In recent years, exports under SCOMET have increased and the DGFT has taken various initiatives to facilitate authorised and responsible exports of these high-end goods and technologies. 

India has implemented export controls based on the nature of the product, item, and technology (ie, product restrictions) and jurisdiction/person-based export control (target restrictions). There is no other list of export controls introduced by India.

Exporting certain goods, services or technology covered under the SCOMET list without the proper licence or authorisation can result in penalties, including:

• suspension or cancellation of the import and export licences;
• imprisonment for a minimum period of five years, which may extend to life imprisonment and a fine; or
• a fine of up to five times the value of the goods, services or technology.

Chapter 2 of the Handbook of Procedures (HBP) outlines the procedure for applying for and granting licences for the import or export of goods that are under the restricted category. The DGFT is the competent authority for the granting of such authorisation. The Exim Facilitation Committee (EFC) assists the DGFT in examining and approving applications. The EFC, presided over by the EFC Chairman, evaluates the merit of each licence application.

For SCOMET items, jurisdiction over licensing is allocated as follows:

• The DGFT issues licences for items under categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8.
• The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) approves licences for items under category 0.
• The Department of Defence Production (DDP) under the Ministry of Defence authorises licences for munitions (category 6).

The validity period of an SCOMET licence is two years, extendable for an additional six months (up to a total of 12 months) upon revalidation by the DGFT.

Persons engaged in the trade of SCOMET items are required to comply with the relevant statutory provisions, and the violation thereof attracts strict liability. The DGFT encourages voluntary self-disclosure of any failure to comply with export controls.

SCOMET licences are issued under various sub-categories, such as:

• licence for repeat orders of SCOMET items;
• licence for stock and sale of SCOMET items;
• licence for export of spare parts for SCOMET items; and
• licence for repair of SCOMET items.

Based on the sub-category of the licence, the holder of the licence is required to maintain and submit the relevant data, such as statements of exports made from India to the stockist, transfers made by the stockist to the final end users, and inventory details with the stockist.

India and various other countries witnessed a shortfall in the production of food grains due to the adverse impact of El Niño and geopolitical tensions, resulting in higher inflation. To balance domestic requirements, India has already placed export restrictions on a variety of food products, including wheat and wheat products, rice, and sugar. These restrictions are likely to continue for a considerable period, with certain exceptions for various countries to achieve genuine food security needs.

To promote trade in SCOMET, the DGFT has issued draft guidelines for Internal Compliance Programmes (ICPs) applicable to all organisations dealing with dual-use goods. These guidelines aim to ensure adherence to export regulations, reduce the risk of legal and policy violations, and enhance the credibility of Indian exporters in global markets.

The DGFT has relaxed export regulations for 36 dual-use goods for subsidiaries of Indian parent companies, located in 41 countries. This change enables the smoother transfer of software and technology, including source code for hybrid integrated systems, gas turbine engine components, and equipment related to counter-improvised explosive devices (C-IEDs).

The trade remedy measures are governed by the following legal framework.

• safeguard measures – Section 8B of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 read with the Customs Tariff (Identification and Assessment of Safeguard Duty) Rules 1997 (“Safeguard Rules”);
• anti-dumping measures – Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules 1995 (“AD Rules”); and
• anti-subsidy measures – Section 9 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Countervailing Duty and for Determination of Injury) Rules 1995 (“CVD Rules”).

Measures in the form of quantitative restrictions may also be imposed under the FT D&R Act 1992 read with the Safeguard Measures (Quantitative Restrictions) Rules 2012. In addition, bilateral safeguard measures may also be imposed on imports from several countries, for example, the India–Korea and India–Malaysia CEPAs allow the imposition of country-specific safeguard measures.

The DGTR conducts trade remedies investigations. Based on its findings, the DGTR recommends the imposition of duties to the MoF, which has the discretion to either accept or reject these recommendations.

Rule 23 (1A) of the Anti-dumping (AD) Rules allows the DGTR to initiate an interim review of the existing duty either suo moto or based on a petition filed by the domestic companies or any other interested parties. Similarly, Rule 23 (1B) allows the DGTR to initiate the expiry review either suo moto or based on a petition filed by the domestic companies. Rule 30 allows the DGTR to conduct an anti-absorption review to assess whether the anti-dumping duty levied earlier is absorbed due to a change in the export price, without any commensurate change in the cost of production.

Domestic companies can file a petition before the DGTR for an ad hoc review of duties. Unlike the US Department of Commerce, the DGTR does not conduct regular administrative reviews.

The framework for trade remedies investigations in India is very elaborate and allows non-domestic companies to participate in the review process. The interested parties, including non-domestic companies, are also allowed to have an oral hearing before the DGTR.

The processes for anti-dumping, anti-subsidy, and safeguard investigations in India share many similarities. Here is a breakdown of the key steps:

• a public notice issued by the DGTR initiating the investigation (the “Initiation Notification”);
• comments on the scope of the product under consideration (PUC) and product control number (PCN) methodology to be filed by an interested party within 15 days from the date of the Initiation Notification;
• responses/submissions of interested parties to be filed within 30 days from the date of the Initiation Notification unless an extension is granted;
• preliminary findings issued by the DGTR and what provisional duty, if any, is recommended to be imposed on the PUC;
• notification of the imposition of provisional duty, if any, by the central government;
• oral/public hearing;
• post-hearing written submissions to be filed within the timeframe indicated by the DGTR;
• verification of data filed by the interested parties;
• issuance of a disclosure statement by the DGTR inviting comments from the interested parties;
• final findings issued by the DGTR, specifying the duty, if any, that is recommended to be imposed on the imports of the PUC; and
• notification of the imposition of duty, if any, by the central government.

All the above steps are strictly followed in all anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations. In safeguard investigations, there is no obligation to issue a disclosure statement before issuing the final findings.

The safeguard duty investigation is normally concluded within eight months from the date of initiation. Anti-subsidy and anti-dumping investigations are generally completed within ten to 12 months.

The final determination of the DGTR is published in the official gazette. The notifications are also made available to all stakeholders on the DGTR’s official website.

Indian trade remedy law mandates the non-imposition of trade remedial measures in the following scenarios.

• Anti-Dumping Measures: Anti-dumping investigations on imports from a target country shall not be initiated if the volume of imports from such country is found to account for less than 3% of imports of the like product unless countries that individually account for less than 3% collectively account for more than 7% of imports of the like product.
• Anti-Subsidy Measures: Anti-subsidy or CVD measures are not applicable where the DGTR determines that the volume of imports from the subject country is negligible or less than 4% of total imports in the case of developing countries. However, CVD measures shall apply if the import volumes of the said developing countries collectively exceed 9% of the total imports in India.
• Safeguard Measures: The imports from developing countries do not attract the safeguard duty when the volume of imports from developing countries other than China does not exceed 3% individually and 9% collectively from such developing countries.

The legal framework allows for the imposition of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties as long as, and to the extent necessary, to counteract dumping or subsidies that cause injury.  There is no restriction on the number of reviews or the maximum duration for which anti-dumping or anti-subsidy duties can be imposed. In contrast, safeguard measures are subject to a maximum duration of ten years.

In addition to definitive duties, provisional duties may also be imposed. In anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations, provisional duties can be applied for up to six months following the issuance of preliminary findings. For safeguard investigations, the provisional duty period is limited to 200 days.

AD/CVD measures are normally applied for a period of a maximum of five years. Before the duty expires, domestic producers may file an application before the DGTR seeking a review and continuation of the duty. If the DGTR concludes that the expiry of the said anti-dumping/anti-subsidy duty is likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping/subsidy and injury to the domestic industry, it may recommend the continuation of the duty. This process is referred to as an expiry review or sunset review.

For safeguard measures, the DGTR may undertake the review investigation based on positive evidence that the Indian industry is adjusting to unforeseen developments, and that continued imposition of the duty is necessary to prevent injury. In such cases, the DGTR may recommend an extension of the safeguard duty.

In addition to the expiry review, the DGTR undertakes a mid-term review (MTR) after the imposition of the duty based on positive information filed by the interested parties (including non-domestic companies). If the DGTR concludes in an MTR that injury to the domestic industry is unlikely to continue or recur, it may revoke or vary the existing anti-dumping or anti-subsidy duty before the five-year period elapses.

The third form of review is a name change review wherein the DGTR examines whether the duty determined for a particular foreign producer is allowed to be continued after the name change of the company. Normally, the name of the participating producer is changed on account of a change in law, restructuring, merger, or acquisition.

Recently, India concluded its first-ever anti-absorption review, in which the DGTR found that the anti-dumping duty imposed earlier had been absorbed by the exporters rather than being passed on through the sale price of the goods exported to India.

The review process, except for a name change review, largely mirrors the procedures followed during the original investigation. The DGTR typically re-evaluates all relevant aspects, including the re-determination of the dumping or subsidy margin, assessment of injury, and the causal link between dumping or subsidies and injury.

Appeals against determinations of dumping or subsidies may be filed before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) within 90 days from the date of determination. The CESTAT normally adjudicates all appeals pertaining to a product collectively and allows all interested parties to make their submission before arriving at a decision. The CESTAT, after hearing the parties, may either allow the appeal, dismiss it, or remand the matter to the DGTR for re-determination of its findings. The decision of CESTAT may be challenged before the Supreme Court for final adjudication.

Under Section 130 of the Customs Act 1962, an appeal against the judgment of the CESTAT may be filed before a high court when the appeal pertains to the rate of duty and the high court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. A special leave petition (SLP) may be filed against the decision of the high court before the Supreme Court.

During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the MoF rejected many of the positive recommendations for imposing duties issued by the DGTR. Consequently, despite positive evidence of dumping and injury, trade remedy measures were not imposed. However, this trend has since reversed, and the MoF is currently imposing most of the trade remedy measures recommended by the DGTR.

Over the past year, the DGTR has initiated numerous investigations into imports of chemicals and agrochemicals, petrochemicals, iron and steel products, solar cells and modules, and capital goods, largely originating from China, South Korea and various ASEAN countries. Most notably, in September 2025 alone, the DGTR issued 16 final determinations and opened 31 new investigations, highlighting the increasingly active use of trade remedy measures.

Until 2023, India had largely been a net exporter of finished steel. However, from 2024 onwards this position shifted, driven by a combination of factors such as the slowdown in China’s property market, geopolitical developments, and the tariffs imposed by the United States. These developments resulted in a sharp rise in steel imports from countries including China, South Korea, Vietnam and Japan, turning India into a net importer of steel.

In response to the substantial increase in steel imports, the DGTR has launched investigations into several categories of steel products. To protect the domestic industry, the DGTR has imposed safeguard measures and anti-dumping duties aimed at curbing imports from these major exporting nations.

More recently, the Reserve Bank of India, in its October monthly bulletin, provided an extensive analysis of steel dumping in India and its impact on the domestic sector. Taking note of these concerns, the Ministry of Steel has convened an “Open House” with stakeholders to deliberate on the issue of rising steel imports. Given the strategic importance of the steel sector to the wider economy, the number of trade remedy measures applied to steel is expected to increase further.

Up until 2023, any party aggrieved by the final findings issued by the DGTR had to wait until the issuance of the duty notification by the MoF to file an appeal before the CESTAT. This was due to the decision of the Supreme Court in Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd v Union of India [2000 (118) ELT 305 (SC)], which held that unless the recommendations of the DGTR were accepted by the MoF and the duty was levied, there was no cause of action to file an appeal.

The government of India, through the Finance Act 2023, brought in a set of amendments, with retrospective effect from January 1995, to the Customs Tariff Act 1975. These amendments allow an appeal to be filed against the final findings of the DGTR itself. Following this amendment, a view has emerged that the scope of a statutory appeal is now limited to challenging the final findings rather than the customs or duty notification itself.

However, this amendment has created challenges in the appeal process before the CESTAT. Under the Customs Tariff Act, a party has 90 days to challenge the final findings. Even if an appeal is filed within the time period, the possibility of it getting decided within three months – ie, before the MoF issues a notification – is quite slim.

This issue of whether a duty notification can be challenged before the CESTAT is currently pending judicial review in various high courts. A matter connected to this issue is currently pending before the High Court of Delhi (Writ Petition. (C) 14723/2025 titled Union of India v Essilor Luxottica Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. and Ors.)

India has maintained a liberal foreign investment policy since 1991, when a series of economic reforms were introduced to attract global institutions and corporations to invest in the country.

Foreign investment in India is regulated by the Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999 (FEMA), Foreign Direct Investment Policy 2020 (FDI Policy), Bilateral Investment Promotion Agreements (BIPA), Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules 2019, and other supplementary regulations, notifications, press notes, press releases, circulars, directions or orders issued by the administering authorities.

The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), RBI, Department of Economic Affairs (DEA), and Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) are the leading government agencies responsible for the enforcement of investment security measures in India.

The FDI policy of India allows two entry routes for investment: the automatic route and the government route. Via the automatic route, investors are not required to seek prior approval from the government of India. Approval of the government of India is required for investment via the approval route. FDI policy has introduced criteria for scrutiny of investments based on the status of investors, sectoral restrictions, and equity restrictions. For example, (i) an entity of a country that shares a land border with India, or where the beneficial owner of an investment into India is situated or is a citizen of such country, can only invest via the government route; (ii) foreign investment in lottery and gambling, manufacturing of tobacco products and their substitutes is prohibited; and (iii) investment in multi-brand retail trading is permitted only via the government route and is limited to 51% of the equity.

The reporting requirements for any investment in India by an Indian resident are specified under the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-Debt Instruments) Rules 2019. Regulation 4 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Mode of Payment and Reporting of Non-Debt Instruments) Regulations 2019, issued by RBI through notification No FEMA 395/2019-RB (last amended on 15 January 2025), specifies the reporting requirements for any investment in India by a person resident outside India.

Foreign investors permitted to make investments via the automatic route are exempt from seeking permission from the central government.

A breach of FDI policy attracts a penalty of up to three times the sum involved in the contravention where such amount is quantifiable, or up to 2 lakh rupees (INR200,000) where the amount is not quantifiable.

In case of a continuing violation, an additional penalty of up to INR5,000 for every day may be imposed. In addition to the penalty, the adjudicating authority may impose confiscation of currency, security, or any other money or property in respect of such contravention. In case of a violation by a company, every person who was in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the business is deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be punished accordingly.

There is no statutory fee associated with an investment filing before the RBI or DPIIT.

In the post-pandemic period, India has witnessed a significant increase in foreign investment inflows. Increasing foreign investment in India is largely supported by the Make in India initiative and several central and state government policies, and the China Plus One strategy. To ease the application and approval process, the central government has introduced a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for processing FDI proposals.

Key developments in India’s bilateral investment treaties (BITs) include the adoption of a new Model BIT in 2015, which places greater emphasis on safeguarding the state’s regulatory space. This shift has led to the replacement of older treaties, including those with countries such as the UAE, and to the recent signing of new agreements with Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Israel. The revised model defines “investment” on an enterprise basis, removes the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause, and introduces a more balanced Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism by requiring the exhaustion of local remedies before an investor may pursue international arbitration. This Model BIT now serves as a reference point for several ongoing negotiations, including those with the EU, Saudi Arabia and Australia.

India has continued to attract steady FDI equity inflows, rising by nearly 13% on an annualised basis. This growth has been supported by initiatives such as Make in India, reduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), the introduction of Production Linked Incentives (PLI), and the liberalisation of FDI policy across multiple sectors, including retail, defence, insurance, single-brand retail and pharmaceuticals.

India has signed BITs with 92 countries, and 15 BITs are in force. The remaining 77 BITs are either under renegotiation or have not been ratified.

Currently, India has entered into talks with several countries/trading blocs, including the EU, Saudi Arabia, and Australia. BIT negotiations with Tajikistan, Cambodia, Uruguay, Maldives, Switzerland, and Kuwait are at the finalisation stage, and a formal announcement is expected soon.

FTP 2023 provides various incentives for promoting manufacturing and exports. Apart from incentives under the FTP, the government of India, in its annual budget, announces various subsidies and incentives for the promotion of trade, manufacturing, export, and other policy objectives.

One of the recently introduced incentive programmes includes the Remission of Duties or Taxes on Export Products (RoDTEP) scheme. This scheme has been introduced to replace the previous Merchandise Export Incentive Scheme (MEIS), which was inconsistent with the WTO framework. The RoDTEP Scheme has been introduced to neutralise the impact of taxes and duties borne on exported goods, which remain embedded and are not credited, remitted or refunded in any manner. This scheme facilitates the rebate of all central, state, and local taxes and duties on exported goods which have not been refunded under any other scheme.

To promote self-reliance, India has also introduced a Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme. This scheme provides incentives to Indian and foreign companies based on incremental sales, performance, and value addition. Currently, the PLI scheme caters to 14 key sectors:

• key starting materials (KSMs)/drug intermediates (DIs) and active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) – Department of Pharmaceuticals;
• large-scale electronics manufacturing – Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology;
• manufacturing of medical devices – Department of Pharmaceuticals;
• electronic/technology products – Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology;
• pharmaceutical drugs – Department of Pharmaceuticals;
• telecom and networking products – Department of Telecommunications;
• food products – Ministry of Food Processing Industries;
• white goods (ACs and LEDs) – Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade;
• high-efficiency solar PV modules – Ministry of New and Renewable Energy;
• automobiles and auto components – Department of Heavy Industry;
• advanced chemistry cell (ACC) batteries – Department of Heavy Industry;
• textile products – MMF segment and technical textiles – Ministry of Textiles;
• specialty steel – Ministry of Steel; and
• drones and drone components – Ministry of Civil Aviation.

India aims to create 60 lakh (6 million) new jobs, and additional production valued at 30 lakh crore rupees (INR30 trillion) through the PLI scheme over the next five years.

In a recent development, China has filed a complaint before the WTO against India, challenging the PLI scheme for batteries, auto parts and e-vehicles on the grounds that it allegedly violates several WTO agreements, namely the SCM Agreement, the GATT and the TRIMS Agreement.

India enacted the BIS Act 2016 to establish the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) as the national body for standardisation, marking, and quality certification of goods. The BIS is tasked with the development of harmonised standards, conformity assessment, and quality assurance for goods, processes, systems, and services in India.

The BIS, through the process of standardisation, certification, and testing, ensures the provision of safe, reliable, and quality goods, minimising health hazards to consumers and helps promote exports and import substitutes by also controlling over-proliferation of varieties.

The BIS Act empowers the BIS to notify a specific or different “conformity assessment scheme” for any goods, article, process, system, or service or for a group of goods, articles, processes, systems or services, as the case may be, concerning any Indian Standard or any other standard in a manner as may be specified by regulations.

The BIS certification scheme is voluntary. For several products, compliance with Indian Standards is made compulsory by the central government, taking into account other considerations, such as public interest, protection of human, animal, or plant health, safety of the environment, prevention of unfair trade practices, and national security. For such products, the central government directs mandatory use of a “Standard Mark” under a licence or certificate of conformity (CoC) from the BIS through the issuance of quality control orders (QCOs). The aim of the BIS is not to reduce imports or encourage domestic production. A list of products subject to compulsory certification is available via this link.

The QCOs are applied equally to domestic and non-domestic companies.

Article XX of the GATT and SPS Agreement provides scope for member countries to enact domestic legal instruments to ensure food safety, and animal and plant health and safety. Being a member of the WTO, India has introduced certain SPS measures to protect human, plant, and animal health. The government agencies involved in the development and adoption of sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures are:

• the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for food safety and human health;
• the Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage, for plant health; and
• the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, for animal health.

These agencies are responsible for the enforcement of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, Livestock Importation Act, 1898, Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act 1963, Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules 1964, Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marketing) Act 1937, Insecticide Act 1968, Plant and Plant-Related Products Plant Quarantine Order (Regulations of Import into India) 2003, Destructive Insects and Pests (Amendment and Validation) Act 1992, Insecticides Rules 1971, and Destructive Insects and Pests Act 1914.

SPS measures implemented by India are not aimed at reducing imports and/or encouraging domestic production.

India’s competition regime does not employ price controls aimed at reducing imports and/or encouraging domestic production. The role of the competition regime is focused on eliminating practices that have an adverse effect on competition, promoting and sustaining competition, protecting the interests of consumers and ensuring freedom of trade in Indian markets.

The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) is a government regulatory agency that controls the prices of pharmaceutical drugs in India. The prices of pharmaceutical drugs are regulated as per the legal framework of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order 1995.

The NPPA is an organisation established, inter alia, to fix/revise the prices of controlled bulk drugs and formulations and to enforce prices and availability of medicines in India, under the Essential Commodities Act 1955 and Drugs (Prices Control) Order 1995. The NPPA is also entrusted with the role of recovering overcharged amounts from manufacturers of controlled drugs. It also monitors the prices of decontrolled drugs to ensure availability.

In 2025, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority fixed ceiling prices for 930 scheduled formulations, covering a total of 3,482 drugs. As a result, all manufacturers, importers and marketers of these scheduled medicines are required to sell their products within the prescribed ceiling prices, thereby ensuring affordability and preventing excessive pricing in the pharmaceutical market.

In addition to pharmaceutical products, India has also imposed MIPs on various items – including chemicals, paper and pharmaceutical goods – under Section 3 of the FT D&R Act 1992. This measure is intended to curb sudden surges in low-priced imports that could damage domestic industries, by establishing a floor price below which imports cannot enter the country, thus offering protection to local manufacturers against unfairly cheap foreign competition.

There are seven state trading enterprises (STEs) in India. The purpose of STEs is to import agricultural products, fertiliser, and oil products to ensure a fair return to farmers, food security, and energy security. These STEs handle imports of specific products, including:

• wheat and rice (the Food Corporation of India);
• coconut and its allied products (the State Trading Corporation (STC));
• urea (STC, Indian Potash Ltd, and the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation Ltd); and
• crude oil and its derivatives (the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL), and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPCL)).

The role of STEs is not intended to restrict imports or favour domestic production but rather to ensure national food and energy security. However, the government is gradually reducing the role of STEs. For example, the Ministry of Commerce has initiated the closure of the State Trading Corporation, a prominent STE.

Currently, India is working on amendments to the Electricity Act, 2003, aiming to privatise power distribution to reduce the losses incurred by state-run power distribution companies. This measure is expected to curtail the burden of subsidies on the state exchequer, promote higher competition, and enhance efficiency in the power sector.

“Buy local” requirements are applicable in India under two categories: (i) local requirement for government procurement, and (ii) local requirement for manufacturing.

• Local Requirement for Government Procurement: The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) issued the Public Procurement (Preference to Make in India) Order 2017 (PPP-MII Order), last amended in July 2024, which promotes the procurement of domestic goods. The order’s objective is to promote the manufacture and production of goods and services in India to enhance income and employment. The order applies to the procurement of goods, services, and works by:
1. central ministries/departments;
2. their attached/subordinate offices;
3. autonomous bodies controlled by the government of India; and
4. government companies.

India has also introduced a Policy for Providing Preference to Domestically Manufactured Iron & Steel Products in Government Procurement (DMI&SP Policy).

• Local Requirement for Manufacturing: India has introduced local content requirements for capacity building in new technologies. For example, India initially introduced local content requirements regarding solar cells and modules under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission. This scheme was disputed by the USA before the WTO Panel, which held that the local content requirement was inconsistent with the GATT and TRIMS Agreement. Subsequently, the dispute was resolved through a mutually agreed solution. India launched the PM Kusum Scheme for farmers with limited local content requirements for solar pumps used by farmers. A scheme with local content requirements has also been introduced for electric vehicles.

India is working on enhancing local content requirements for government procurement from the current 50% to 70% for Class I suppliers and from 20% to 50% for Class II suppliers.

India’s comprehensive geographical indication (GI) regime aligns with Articles 22 to 24 of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. As one of the world’s most culturally and geographically diverse countries, India has registered more than 350 GI products, thereby promoting regional production and supporting local economies.

All relevant issues and recent developments have been detailed in other sections of the guide.