The Indian negotiating team for the India-US trade deal has postponed its scheduled visit to Washington following the US Supreme Court’s decision on Friday invalidating the US reciprocal tariffs imposed on partner countries, official sources said.
While exporters say that they can absorb the 15 per cent global tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump as long as no new tariffs are added, experts suggest India should now pause negotiations or carefully recalibrate its position in light of the ruling.
“The two sides are of the view that the proposed visit of Indian chief negotiator and the team be scheduled after each side has had the time to evaluate the latest developments and its implications. The meeting will be rescheduled at a mutually convenient date,” sources in the Commerce Department said.
The Indian team was scheduled to visit Washington on February 23-25 to finalise the legal text for the interim trade pact the framework for which was agreed to by Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi on February 2.
Video Credit: Businessline
Experts say that India must not accept the deal, in the form it was envisaged by Trump, as it places tough conditions on the country and things had changed on the tariff front. “In exchange for an 18 per cent reciprocal tariff rate, India was expected to offer major concessions—cutting tariffs, aligning economic policies with U.S. interests, easing regulations affecting US goods, and signalling large purchases of American products. Now, even without a trade agreement, without making any sacrifices, India, like other countries, faces a 15 per cent tariff on most goods, rendering the negotiated arrangement burdensome and one sided,” pointed out Ajay Srivastava from trade research body GTRI.
The US Supreme Court ruling should prompt India to walk out of the ongoing trade deal negotiations, he added.
India’s decision to not send its negotiating team to the US right away is a welcome decision and India should carefully re-calibrate its position, said Abhijit Das, independent trade expert and former head of the Centre for WTO Studies.
“It (the SC decision) eases the pressure on us to offer concessions in order to secure lower tariffs as compared to our competitors. Whether our negotiators are able to leverage this remains to be seen,” Das said.,
Most Indian exporters of labour-intensive goods are relieved by the lowering of additional duties but are concerned about Trump’s warning on duties under other heads in the future.
“After the duty correction from 50 to 18 per cent/25 per cent the prospects for India have improved again. Now with the 15 per cent global tariffs it’s on par with any nation. We just have to be sure that India does not get any further tariffs under the 301 or 201 sections. The earlier closure of the bilateral trade agreement will help in this regard,” said Israr Ahmed, a Chennai-based exporter of leather goods.
Garments and textiles exporter Sanjay Jain pointed out that the 15 per cent tariffs on Indian exporters after the US Supreme Court judgement are almost at the levels agreed in the trade deal (of 18 per cent), so not too much had changed on the tariff front. With things changing so rapidly, Jain said that there was no use over-assessing the situation. “We must now just focus on business and let the game continue,” he said.
There is also hope of some refunds of the “illegal” tariffs paid since 2025. “Some exporters and their buyers had been sharing the burden of the reciprocal tariffs (since August-September 2025). Now if there are refunds, these exporters may be getting back their share,” said Ajay Sahai from FIEO.
Last week, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) used by Trump to impose “reciprocal” tariffs, does not actually give the President the power to levy taxes or duties.
Trump immediately switched to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 that allows the President to bypass Congress and impose a temporary import surcharge of up to 15 per cent for a maximum of 150 days to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits.
Published on February 22, 2026