India faces 100% tariff threat over Russian oil after US House vote

The United States is poised to impose tariffs as high as 100 % on Indian imports unless New Delhi curtails its purchases of Russian crude, a move that follows a recent House vote and revives a long‑standing trade tension. In 2025 the US bought roughly $104 billion of goods from India, while total bilateral trade in goods and services approached $240 billion, according to the US Trade Representative. Indian shipments to America span electronics, pharmaceuticals, machinery, jewellery, chemicals, textiles and petroleum products. Electrical and physics instrumentality unsocial accounted for about $25.8 billion of those exports, pharmaceuticals contributed roughly $9.7 billion and machinery added around $7.2 billion. The latest threat echoes an earlier round of Trump‑era duties on Indian goods that peaked at 50 % in 2025 before being rolled back. Indian officials now face a calculation: how much Russian oil to buy before the cost savings are erased by potential losses to US‑bound exports. There is no simple answer. The outcome will hinge on the size of the Russian discount, global crude prices, freight and security expenses, the exact tariff level Washington finally applies, and whether the administration offers exemptions or negotiates a broader accommodation with Delhi. The complexity deepens when crude is refined. India does not merely purchase Russian oil; its refineries turn it into fuels that can be re‑exported. Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries have compelled the former world‑leading oil‑products exporter to import fuel. In August imports surged to a record 172,000 tonnes—more than seven times the prior monthly high—according to CREA. India supplied about 120,000 tonnes, roughly 70 % of that total, mostly petrol refined from Russian crude at a Gujarat facility worth approximately €78 million. Although China purchases a greater volume of Russian crude than India, analyst Kugelman argues Beijing holds stronger leverage because of its dominance of global supply chains and the scale of its economic ties with the United States. He stated, “China has monolithic leverage implicit the planetary economy, peculiarly done its dominance of captious proviso chains. India, contempt being 1 of the world's biggest economies, does not person the aforesaid leverage. The Trump medication appears to judge that its economical interests are much exposed if China retaliates than if India does,” says Kugelman. For India, the issue extends beyond the volume of Russian lipid it buys to the resilience of alternative supplies. The country imports more than 88 % of its crude oil, with over 85 % sourced from just six nations, several located in conflict‑prone zones. Its refineries are not always equipped to switch easily between crude grades, a limitation highlighted by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW). Vulnerability reaches beyond oil. India imports more than 60 % of its LPG, the primary cooking fuel for over 330 million households. Strategic petroleum reserves cover only 9‑10 days of net lipid imports, compared with roughly 200 days in Japan and 207 days in South Korea. Operational stocks at refineries add another 64 days of coverage. CEEW estimates that India has saved about $12.6 billion since shifting to Russian crude after 2022, turning the commodity into more than a mere bargain. The looming US tariff, however, could transform that security into a liability, forcing Delhi to weigh whether the financial gains justify the risk to its export market. GTRI’s Srivastava warned, “Washington could endanger tariffs of up to 100 %, past connection a little complaint if Delhi cuts Russian lipid purchases and accepts concessions in a profoundly unequal commercial deal.” He also urged New Delhi not to let Washington’s threats dictate its energy stance. “India should not let US tariff threats find its vigor policy,” he says. “It should proceed buying Russian lipid as long as it remains commercially competitive and negotiate firmly with Washington without granting unilateral commercial concessions.” Read the full story at BBC News →