Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal stated that the sectors flagged during the G20 presidency do not reflect any structural surplus in manufacturing output, adding that the government's approach deliberately avoids subsidies or incentives that distort pricing and enable below-cost export practices.
Goyal argued that border-level actions should rest on concrete, verifiable grounds rather than broad assumptions about whole nations, regions, or industries, and that they should align with due process obligations and WTO frameworks. Addressing ministerial delegates on the final day of the G20 Trade Ministers' Meeting in Milwaukee, Goyal outlined that the country's production capacity serves both internal and international demand, while legislation has been put in place to bar the entry of goods manufactured through forced labour.
Goyal's position, conveyed through a commerce and industry ministry statement, drew a distinction between industrial capacity on its own and the trade distortions that can follow when production becomes geographically concentrated through concealed government support and subsidies. Goyal noted that the country's manufacturing output is calibrated to meet both home-market demand and international requirements, and that the sectors highlighted under the G20 Presidency do not carry any structural surplus in production capacity.
Between 29 September and 5 October, the minister travelled to the United States, where attendance at the G20 trade ministers' gathering was combined with face-to-face talks with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on the terms of a bilateral trade arrangement.
Goyal's position held that while spreading out production and supply chains is a defensible goal, that rationale cannot serve as cover for actions that fall outside World Trade Organisation rules or for pushing the costs of economic adjustment onto lower-income nations, which he argued need room to build their own industrial bases. Voicing a concern shared by multiple G20 members, he noted that trade-distorting support in certain countries fuels dumping and predatory pricing, adding that WTO-based tools — anti-dumping and countervailing duties among them — offer an evidence-grounded path for addressing those practices.
Two separate Section 301 investigations launched by the Office of the US Trade Representative now cover 60 economies — India included — with each probe centred on distinct concerns: one addressing labour conditions tied to compulsion, the other examining excess manufacturing capacity. A 10% tariff on goods from India, introduced by Washington under a forced labour designation, is now in effect. Overcapacity concerns spanning steel, textiles, aluminium, automobiles, and semiconductors — along with several other industries — have been formally raised by the US.
Goyal drew attention to the nation's standing as one of the faster-growing large economies, noting its active development of manufacturing chains spanning from design through to finished goods and its role as a reliable node within global supply networks, while also asserting that the push to eradicate forced labour would apply without conditions or carve-outs. He stated that any border-related action ought to draw on concrete, independently verifiable evidence rather than broad assumptions about whole nations, geographic areas, or industries, and should operate within the procedural safeguards of due process and WTO obligations.
Goyal put forward the position that the International Labour Organization stands as the appropriate, universal, and tripartite body for setting labour standards, adding that while India backs the goal of ending forced labour and the voluntary sharing of good practices among G20 members, any such cooperation should stop short of member monitoring, the creation of fresh obligations, or the use of shared information as grounds for unilateral trade measures.
The minister's remarks on revising the Most-Favoured-Nation framework pointed to fair, open, and rule-governed trade arrangements as the foundation on which India's commercial ties with G20 partners rest. In remarks at the WTO, Goyal put forward three interconnected positions: that decision-making at the organisation should continue to rest on consensus, that special and differential treatment for developing nations should be maintained so those economies can narrow the gap with wealthier ones, and that the two-tier dispute resolution mechanism deserves to be reinstated.
