At the G20 Trade Ministers' Meeting session devoted to the Most-Favoured-Nation principle, Union Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal put forward India's position that tying MFN treatment to obligations selectively adopted by certain WTO members is a stance India is unable to endorse. Goyal, in a post on X, noted that he had raised the matter during that session, telling delegates that MFN treatment exists to ensure the smallest trading party receives terms no less favourable than those extended to the largest.

The statement drew a clear line against any move to link most-favoured-nation treatment to obligations selectively adopted by certain WTO members. Goyal further stated that fortifying the multilateral trading system depends on holding that equilibrium intact, describing that condition as essential to building confidence, predictability, and broader inclusion.

On the final day of the G20 Trade Ministers' Meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Goyal put forward a framework grounded in World Trade Organisation rules as a way to address distortions in global trade and the problem of excess production capacity. Speaking at a session on structural excess capacity and production, he put forward the position that remedies targeting unfair market conduct are better placed within established multilateral frameworks rather than through actions taken by individual states outside those agreements.

At the trade forum, Goyal conveyed that apprehensions held by numerous member nations — particularly around market-distorting subsidies in certain economies and the below-cost pricing practices those subsidies can enable — are ones India fully endorses. Those concerns, he stated, are addressed through trade remedy tools — anti-dumping and countervailing duties — that align with WTO rules, rest on documented evidence, and remain open to challenge through judicial review.

Goyal put forward the position that India's economy runs on internal consumption across a population of 1.4 billion, meaning the country does not build up the kind of surplus production capacity that the G20 Presidency flagged in its identified sectors. The argument he advanced was that sheer volume of industrial output poses no inherent difficulty, and that problems arise only when production clusters geographically because of concealed government support distorting normal market conditions.

Goyal also put forward the view that while restructuring production and supply chains serves as a valid goal, it is distinct from actions that fall outside WTO frameworks or from transferring adjustment costs onto lower-income economies, which he described as needing room to build their own industrial base.

Addressing revisions to the Most-Favoured-Nation principle, Goyal put forward the view that a fair, non-discriminatory framework underpins how India conducts its trade. Describing MFN treatment as a foundational protection within the multilateral trading framework — one that holds uniform terms in place for all participants regardless of their economic weight — he called for reinstatement of the two-tier dispute settlement process alongside continued recognition of special and differential treatment for nations at earlier stages of development.

On the question of eradicating forced labour from international supply chains, Goyal pointed to Article 23 of the Constitution as the foundation of a position that admits no compromise. He stated that ratification of ILO Conventions 29 and 105 had taken place alongside a July 2026 revision to the Foreign Trade Policy that introduced a ban on goods produced through forced labour.