India is within its rights to use duties others have weaponized against the Global South

Summary

A study has shown a fall in the implementation of anti-dumping duties recommended by the Directorate General of Trade Remedies. This, even as large economies have weaponized trade remedies to degrade the industrial base of the Global South. What is fair for them should be fair for us too.

In July, US trade representative Jamieson Greer told the Senate Finance Committee that Washington would raise with New Delhi concerns over possible restrictions on US soda ash exports expressed by senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, a major soda ash-producing state. Greer said the US wanted American producers treated fairly and the process to reach the "right answer."

Amid heightened geo-economic uncertainty, fuelled by wars and supply-chain constraints, larger economies are trying to weaponize trade remedies to degrade the industrial base of the Global South, including India. Extensive dumping by China has led to many industry closures and capacity under-utilization, despite robust demand.

Recently, soda ash came in the crosshairs of US policymakers, who have stated their intent to pressurize India. Soda ash is a critical input for energy security and defence. Despite sufficient domestic capacity, imports from the US and China have surged, nearly doubling between 2022-23 and 2024-25.

In response, the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) is examining a safeguard quantitative restriction (SGQR), a World Trade Organization (WTO)-compliant measure that temporarily restricts imports when a surge threatens serious injury to domestic producers.

The soda ash investigation raises a broader question about India's policy space under global trade rules -- if WTO rules permit a trade remedy, should pressure from a trading partner influence its use?

The US is within its right to raise concerns on behalf of its exporters, just as India is entitled to safeguard its domestic producers. The two should remain separate from the statutory investigation, whose outcome must be based on evidence, Indian law and WTO rules.

The US embassy and American producers have registered as interested parties and can place any concerns on evidence or methodology before DGTR. Diplomatic engagement may take place in parallel, but cannot substitute for or influence the statutory process.

Anti-dumping duties (ADDs) address injurious dumping from specified countries, while safeguards can restrict imports following an unforeseen surge causing or threatening serious injury to India. Safeguards, therefore, require a demanding evidentiary threshold.

India has also become more cautious on ADDs -- in September 2025, DGTR recommended them on soda ash from Türkiye, Russia, the US and Iran, but duties were not imposed and no public explanation followed.

A recent C-DEP Research study found that while about 99.5% of DGTR ADD recommendations were carried out from 1991 to 2020, only three out of 16 recommendations were implemented between November 2025 and April 2026, an implementation rate of just 19%.

The US itself relies extensively on trade remedies. Its department of commerce currently maintains 800 anti-dumping and countervailing-duty orders to address unfair trade. Greer has stated that US ADDs and countervailing-duty laws are consistent with WTO obligations and affirmed its right to use them when challenged.

This establishes an important principle. A WTO right should apply equally to all members. If the US can use WTO-compliant trade remedies to defend its industry, India's use of the same rules should not be viewed differently. This does not predetermine the soda ash case, which must independently meet the higher evidentiary requirement for safeguards.

This does not mean every trade-remedy investigation should result in a duty or restriction. Each case must be independently assessed on the evidence, with all stakeholders given an opportunity to present their views. However, where the investigation establishes the basis for a remedy, the resulting recommendation should be implemented.

The ongoing soda ash investigation must be viewed from this lens. DGTR initiated it after finding prima facie evidence of a sharp import increase from the US, Türkiye and China. It must now determine whether the conditions for a quantitative restriction are met, while weighing downstream interests and the wider economic impact of the proposed measure.

India and the US have deep economic and strategic relations, and trade disagreements will arise. But these must be resolved through established rules. India's trade-remedy institutions must remain independent, and where a remedy is established under Indian law and WTO rules, external pressure should not determine its implementation.

The author is president, Centre for Digital Economy Policy Research.