New Delhi [India], February 21 (ANI): The Congress on Friday alleged that India hurried into a 'one-sided, anti-India trade deal' with the United States following the US Supreme Court's decision to strike down Donald Trump's global tariffs.

Congress leader Pawan Khera questioned the government's handling of the matter and asked why Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a 'late-night call' to Washington on February 2.

'Haste is the work of the devil. Had India waited just 18 more days, we may not have found ourselves cornered into what is a one-sided, anti-India trade deal,' Khera said.

The Modi government had agreed to a trade framework with the US on February 2, reducing tariffs on Indian exports from 50% to 18%. The Supreme Court ruling created a complex legal and diplomatic situation for both the Modi government and the Trump administration.

'The Supreme Court of the United States has struck down Donald Trump's so-called global tariffs. Had India waited just 18 more days, we may not have found ourselves cornered into what is a one-sided, anti-India trade deal. Why did Modi make that late-night call to Washington on 2nd February? Why did India abandon the initial strategy of waiting it out until the U.S Supreme Court's judgment was delivered today? Is it the disclosure by General Manoj Mukund Naravane? Is it the shadow of the Jeffrey Epstein files? Is it the U.S. criminal case involving Gautam Adani? Or is it all of the above? Today, the Congress has been redeemed: Narendra Modi is compromised,' Pawan Khera said on X.

Trump has announced new tariffs, including a 10% global tariff under Section 122, and tariffs under Sections 232 and 301.

The US Supreme Court struck down the 'reciprocal tariffs' (which had reached 50% for India) because they were imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court ruled that IEEPA does not grant the President unilateral power to impose broad tariffs.

However, President Trump immediately pivoted to other statutes to maintain his trade agenda: Section 122 (Trade Act, 1974) allows a 10% global tariff for 150 days to address balance-of-payment deficits. Trump has already signed this order; Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act, 1962) is used for 'national security' (already applies to steel/aluminum), and Section 301 (Trade Act, 1974) is used to punish 'unfair trade practices.

While the Supreme Court invalidated the 50% emergency rate, the new 10% tariff under Section 122 is legally sturdier in the short term. However, it is temporary (150 days). For the US to sustain higher tariffs (like the agreed 18%), it would likely need to rely on Section 301 investigations, which require proving India has 'unfair' practices--a high legal bar that would take months to investigate.

Congress leader Randeep Surjewala on Friday questioned the sustainability and applicability of newly proposed US tariff measures on India, urging the Modi government to review what he termed as a 'one-sided' US-India trade framework.

In a statement, Surjewala referred to the reported US Supreme Court judgment quashing presidential powers to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 1977, and said that subsequent tariff measures announced by US President Donald Trump under Section 122 of the Trade Act, 1974, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, 1962, and Section 301 of the Trade Act, 1974, appear prima facie inapplicable to India.

'THE SIMPLE QUESTIONS ARE - Are these tariffs sustainable viz a viz India? Can these tariff provisions be justifiably applied to India? Will these new tariffs still hold the U.S. - India Trade Deal (Framework Agreement), which is being widely opposed by farmers, small and medium businesses, energy and data experts, and economists alike? A DIRECTLY RELATED QUESTION - Will the Modi Government now show the courage to walk out of a one-sided U.S. - India Trade Deal? A SIMPLE PERUSAL OF THE THREE TYPES OF PROPOSED TARIFFS REFLECTS THEIR APPARENT INAPPLICABILITY TO INDIA,' he posted on X.

He said Section 122 of the Trade Act authorises a 10 per cent tariff for a period of 150 days only, subject to extension by the US Congress, and termed it a temporary measure whose continuation would depend on Congressional approval.

Referring to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Surjewala said tariffs under this provision can be imposed only in the interest of national security and require a comprehensive investigation by the US Department of Commerce within 270 days. He asserted that none of India's existing exports to the US fall under the category of national security risk.

On Section 301 of the Trade Act, 1974, he said tariffs can be levied only after an investigation concludes that the concerned country has violated an existing trade agreement or engaged in unfair or unreasonable trade practices. He claimed that no such investigation has been conducted against India in the context of the ongoing trade relationship.

'LET US EXAMINE EACH ONE: 1. Section 122 of the Trade Act, 1974 authorises the President of the US to impose a 10% tariff for 150 days only, after which it has to be extended by the U.S. Congress. It is, at best, a temporary measure. Would the U.S. Congress approve it at all? 2. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, 1962 permits imposition of tariffs on foreign products in the interest of national security. It also requires a comprehensive investigation by the U.S. Department of Commerce within 270 days, holding that import of a product into the US will be a national security risk, and such findings then must be presented. None of the existing exports from India to the U.S. (prior to the Trade Deal) fall in the category of national security risk to the U.S. or its citizens. 3. Section 301 of the Trade Act, 1974 permits imposition of tariffs only after conduct of an investigation and a conclusion that the country concerned has violated an existing trade deal or has engaged in trade practices that were either unfair or unreasonable. On the face of it, no such conditionality applies to India, nor has any such investigation been conducted by the US vis-a-vis the ongoing trade relationship and exports of Indian goods to the U.S. SIMPLE POINT IS - WILL OUR GOVERNMENT NOW PROTECT NATIONAL INTERESTS?' Surjewala added in the post.

Meanwhile, the US has imposed a 10% global tariff, and India is expected to pay this tariff as part of its trade deal with the US.

A White House official stated that this new tariff will remain in place until another authority is invoked, emphasising the expectation that trade partners abide by US trade deals.

A White House Official, when asked whether India will have to pay 10 per cent tariffs and whether they will replace previous tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), told ANI, 'Yes, 10% until another authority is invoked.'The official also advised all the trade partners to abide by the trade deals. The new 10% global tariff is part of Trump's protectionist trade agenda, aimed at addressing balance-of-payments issues and unfair trade practices.

US President Donald Trump announced 10 per cent global tariffs 'effective immediately,' following a major legal defeat at the US Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Trump administration exceeded its legal authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 to impose broad-based import tariffs.

Terming SC's ruling as a 'terrible decision', Trump announced he would sign an executive order for a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This authority allows for a temporary import surcharge (up to 15%) for 150 days to address balance-of-payments deficits.'Effective immediately, all the national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs remain in place... Today, I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged,' he said.

Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and the three liberal justices, held that the IEEPA does not explicitly authorise the president to levy duties--a power the Constitution assigns to Congress.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented, supporting the administration's broader interpretation of emergency powers.

The ruling invalidated billions of dollars in 'reciprocal' and emergency tariffs, potentially requiring the government to refund approximately $130-$175 billion in collected revenue. The US Supreme Court has held that the US President did not possess the authority under IEEPA to impose extensive import duties on goods from nearly all US trading partners.

Trump has already stated that 'alternatives will be used' to replace the tariffs that the court has 'incorrectly rejected.''Other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected. We have alternatives. Could be more money, we will take in more money... We have taken in hundreds of billions of dollars. We will continue to do so,' he said.

Trump, referring to the decision as 'ludicrous', added that this decision benefits other countries but not the US.'To show you how ridiculous the opinion is, the court said that I am not allowed to charge even 1 dollar... I cannot charge 1 dollar to any country under IEEPA. I assume this must be done to protect other countries, certainly not the United States of America. I am allowed to cut off any or all trade or business with any country. In other words, I can destroy the trade. I can destroy the country. I can do anything I want but I can't charge one dollar. How ridiculous is that? Their decision is incorrect,' he said.

Trump further alleged that the courts are 'swayed by foreign interests.''Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic. They are dancing in the streets, but they won't be dancing for long... Those justices are a disgrace to our nation... The court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think,' he said.

Trump specifically noted that 'The India deal is on,' suggesting that recent bilateral trade agreements--including the reduction of reciprocal tariffs to 18%--would be maintained through these new legal pathways.

The ruling is expected to have wide-ranging consequences for global trade, businesses, consumers, inflation trends and household finances across the country.

The financial implications of the ruling are substantial. The tariffs in question cover trillions of dollars in trade, and the US government collected nearly USD 134 billion in levies through December 14 under the contested authority, The Washington Post reported.

US stock indexes rose following the ruling, as investors anticipated a reduction in inflationary pressure, though gains were tempered by Trump's immediate vow to reimpose new levies.

The administration also launched new investigations into 'unfair trade practices' under Section 301, which could lead to more permanent, targeted duties.

Trump emphasised that tariffs previously imposed under Section 232 (National Security) and existing Section 301 (Unfair Trade) remain 'in full force and effect,' as they were not affected by the IEEPA ruling. (ANI)