The U.S. government has replaced its temporary Section 122 tariff regime with a permanent Section 301 framework for many Indian exports.

This shift establishes a longer-term legal basis for the United States to impose duties on goods from India. By moving away from temporary measures, Washington gains a more durable mechanism to enforce trade policies and address specific labor concerns within Indian supply chains.

Under the new Section 301 regime, many Indian exports continue to face a 10% tariff [1]. This rate is lower than the 12.5% duty imposed on many other economies [1]. While some reports suggest a 12.5% rate for India, other sources indicate the 10% figure remains the standard for the affected goods [1].

The transition follows the expiration of the temporary 10% tariff under Section 122, which ended on July 24, 2026 [3]. The U.S. Trade Representative and the Commerce Department implemented the change to create a more permanent legal framework for imposing tariffs, specifically to address forced-labor concerns associated with certain Indian goods [2].

India is not the only nation facing such measures. More than 60 countries are now subject to similar Section 301 forced-labor actions [4]. The move allows the U.S. to maintain pressure on global trade partners to align with American labor standards and trade requirements.

Trade officials said the permanent framework provides the U.S. with a consistent tool for trade enforcement. The shift means that Indian exporters can no longer rely on the expiration of temporary rules to see a reduction in duties.

“The U.S. replaced the temporary Section 122 tariff regime with a permanent Section 301 tariff regime.”

The transition from Section 122 to Section 301 signals a move from reactionary, short-term trade penalties to a systemic enforcement strategy. By utilizing Section 301, the U.S. government integrates forced-labor concerns into a permanent legal structure, making it more difficult for affected industries in India to seek immediate relief through the expiration of temporary mandates. This creates a long-term cost for Indian exporters and increases the pressure on New Delhi to implement labor reforms to regain preferential access.