1. In regional economic pact, India faces a Chinese import risk

In regional economic pact, India faces a Chinese import risk

India has no direct free-trade agreement with China as vast sections of the domestic industry are not equipped to take on competition from Chinese companies.

By: | New Delhi | Published: December 2, 2014 1:05 AM

The proposed regional comprehensive economic partnership (RCEP) that involves India, China and 14 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region could be detrimental to many sectors of the Indian economy, analysts feel.

RCEP, unless negotiated with caution and keen attention to details, could result in entry of Chinese goods into the Indian market, escaping import taxes. Many segments of the Indian manufacturing sector which are in the throes of acquiring competitiveness could be adversely impacted as RCEP could potentially lead to influx of duty-free Chinese goods through the back door, they say.

Abhijit Das, head and professor, Centre for WTO Studies, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, said India should try to see what type of investment linkages can be built in with tariff reduction when it comes to China so that Indian industry doesn’t lose out.

He said that unless India manages to improve its infrastructure, it will be difficult to get investments into sectors such as manufacturing as part its ‘Make in India’ campaign.

Incidentally, India has no direct free-trade agreement with China as vast sections of the domestic industry are not equipped to take on competition from Chinese companies.

India’s proposal for one set of schedule of duty concessions for China (including a different implementation period for the duty cuts) and another single set of such concessions for 14 other member countries of the RCEP grouping has not been accepted so far, official sources said. “There are certain concerns with respect to China and we are trying to address those,” a government official said.

Already, citing factors such as its lack of transparency in minimum wages, property rights, government subsidies and loan rates, as well as absence of proper business accounting standards/ principles, India has declined to grant China the coveted “full-fledged market economy” status.

A consequence of the lack of market economy status for China is the large number of anti-dumping cases against products from that country.

As on June 30 this year, of the 690 anti-dumping investigations initiated by India against products from various countries so far (since 1992), 166 pertained to China.

In these cases, following findings of dumping, duty was imposed in 535 cases of which 134 were on products from China.

Of the bilateral trade of $66 billion in 2013-14, imports from China were worth $51 billion as against India’s exports to that country which was just $15 billion, leading to a whopping $36-billion trade deficit. New Delhi has been trying to get Chinese companies to set up shop in India, of late, as part of the ‘Make in India’ initiative. However, nothing significant has materialised so far. Some major imports from China include organic chemicals ($5.4 billion), fertilisers ($2 billion), plastics ($1.3 billion), iron and steel articles ($1.2 billion), electrical machinery and equipment ($14.2 billion), mechanical appliances and boilers ($9.4 billion).

Government sources said since China already has an FTA (with Asean) or is in talks for an FTA (with Japan and South Korea), it will be “foolish” and “impractical” to not engage with China for the regional FTA and take advantage of the duty benefits that it will offer for Indian industries.

The sixth round of RCEP negotiations between the 10-member Asean bloc — China, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand, is being held in Greater Noida from December 1 to 5 to liberalise trade in goods and services between them besides finding ways to further boost investment. The aim is to conclude RCEP negotiations by December 2015.

The 16 countries, in this round of talks, will attempt at fixing timelines for “initial offers” to reduce tariffs in goods aiming for a greater slice of their combined market size of over three billion people. Though the ultimate objective of RCEP is to create a common duty-free market over a period of time, commerce ministry sources said India will give adequate protection to its sensitive sectors including agriculture (products such as spices, vegetables, fisheries, oils, fruit/nuts, rubber, tobacco), automobile, fisheries, chemicals, petroleum products and textiles in the RCEP agreement like it had earlier done in FTAs with Asean-member countries, Japan and Korea.

Calculate your income tax post budget 2018 through this Income Tax Calculator, get latest news on Budget 2018 and Auto Expo 2018. Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

  1. David Smith
    Dec 4, 2014 at 2:17 am
    HIGHER TAXES (But, Not "NEW" taxes) to PAY for SECRET TRIBUNAL PENALTIES; NON Shareholders HAVE TO PAY. "COVETED" HONG KONG INVESTOR BUYS More GOLD? "But, WILL INDIA, CHINA, The MUSLIM WORLD, et al, SUPPORT PUTIN (B.R.I.C.S., et al); The WHITE KNIGHT"? Very LUCRATIVE INCOME more than OFF-SETS US led SANCTIONS; MERCANTILISM at its "BEST"? Mohammad Javad Larijani, Iran's Sec-Gen High Council Human Rights to Consider The W.A.D. Accord? TPP, CETA, C-CIT SHAREHOLDERS & NON Shareholders AWAIT SUPREME COURT of CANADA'S, et al, FINDINGS, et al, to PROCEED. FINDINGS OF HIGHEST COURTS of the TPP & EU NATIONS DIFFER FROM CANADA'S, et al? HOW MUCH Are You SELLING Your RIGHT to SUE "The GLOBAL CORPORATE ECONOMY" For? (CAN.) - As the establishment of branch corporations in other countries, etc. enables corporations to sue the NON shareholders of their "home" nation by claiming that the suits were initiated by the foreign signatories to the trade treaties/"arrangements", it will be good for, not only the NON shareholders of the enterprises that will be generated by the on-going global "cooperation" of corporate treaties, agreements, partnerships, et al, including the China - Canada Investment Treaty, The Trans Pacific Partnership, the EU - Canada CETA, but, for the potential shareholders, as well, who are quite interested to know if President Xi Jinping (China) will support Russia as a co-member of B.R.I.C.S. when President Putin uses his potential role as "The White Knight". And, while President Putin's potential support as “The WHITE KNIGHT” in the development of the CETAgreement, et al, litigation below can dramatically off-set the hundreds of billions of dollars due to the present & future sanctions leveled by American led, et al, corporations & financial insutions via their governments' signing their global corporate economic treaties/”arrangements”, and the potential for making trillions of dollars for the Russian economy over the next 30 - 40 years & beyond, are the citizens (SHAREHOLDERS & NON shareholders) of Germany & AN just being prudent in wanting to wait (not-so "fast track") for the outcome of: 1) the submission to The SUPREME COURT of CANADA & the highest courts of the EU & Trans Pacific nations, et al, to make their findings regarding “The Submission”: "The SHAREHOLDERS & Corporations of AMERICA, et al v the harmless NON shareholders of Canada, both; Native & Non Native, et al"? and 2) "The MERKEL (Chanc. Germ.) Letter; To Sue, or, Be Sued”? (see; davidehsmith.wordpress) Have the federal representatives of the nations that are the potential signatories of CETA, TPP, et al, willingly provided the NON shareholders of China, Canada, Europe, the Trans Pacific nations, et al, with the aforementioned information? Are the federal representatives, et al, depriving the NON shareholders of Canada, et al, of the due diligence information that enables the family of the NON shareholders of Canada, et al, to make informed decisions regarding their financial planning? And, would a reasonable person conclude by a preponderance of the evidence, &/or, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these doents, et al, demonstrate that the SHAREHOLDERS of AMERICA, CANADA , the EU & Trans Pacific nations, et al, really do not care which NON shareholders pay them the punitive penalties, etc., by way of their secret (“Death-Star Chamber”) TRIBUNALS, as long as its not the SHAREHOLDERS who pay & not their corporations regardless of which country the corporations: 1) operating from, 2) maintain their headquarters, 3) use to do their cyber banking, accounting, "taxation", etc. & 4) et al? And, re; the CHINA – Canada Investment Treaty, is it understandable why the “coveted” Hong Kong investor & his ociates are “concerned” with the aforementioned findings of The SUPREME COURT of CANADA, et al, & the effects of the findings, et al, on the EU, AMERICA, the Trans Pacific nations, et al, treaties with CHINA, et al? In regard to arms s; how about the of arms (non nuclear) in general in regard to the "trade" treaties that are continuing to be secretly negotiated and how will the Tribunals, both; B.R.I.C.S. & non BRICS, adjudicate, decide & penalize the NON SHAREHOLDERS for the of legitimate, semi- legitimate & "illegal" s of arms within the signatories nations & the those of others, &/or, unaligned? Of particular interest is China, which does have an treaty with Canada, which puts China "at odds" with other arms manufacturing & nuclear powers that it (China) does not have any "arrangements" with. Are these types of questions that your politicians & the corporate lobbyists calls "forget-me-nots" ("Buyer Beware") that will be (maybe) worked out after the fast tracked signatures are obtained? And, what do you think is the significance of the line in The Submission to The Supreme Court of Canada “...And, lest one forgets that the revelation of the present perilous international treaties/”arrangements” began with the regard for the rights of Native Canadians as per the Treaties/”arrangements” that corporate Canada & the Government of Canada have “foisted” upon Native Canadians...”? What are the various ways that this line will cost the SHAREHOLDERS, et al? On the other hand, it may be worth repeating, "What the TREATY of VERSAILLES was to the 20th century (WWII) PALES in COMPARISON to the TPP, CETA, C-CIT, NAFTA, et al, in the 21st". (US Military Establishment "Shadenfreude" {Germ.}?) And, how will YOUR submission to YOUR highest court IMPROVE upon The Submission that is presently before The Supreme Court of Canada? David E.H. Smith - Researcher - “Qui tam..." ****** Please consider sharing the above info, questions & address for other articles (davidehsmith.wordpress) with 10 of your family members, friends & ociates who will hopefully share it with 10 more in the Muslim World, CHINA, AN & Europe (particularly; Spain, Greece, Italy, France, Portugal...)? ****** For more Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics by way of the CET Agreement, the C-CI Treaty, the TPP, et al, and The WAD Accord & List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS, see; davidehsmith.wordpress

    Go to Top