New Delhi, August 21, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
India has maintained a measured response to a White House report that places it among more than 40 countries allegedly involved in facilitating the transshipment of Chinese exports to the US, saying the findings and methodology would be examined and existing laws followed, according to an article published in Saviour magazine.
The article, written by KBS Sindhu, argues that the US report does not provide specific evidence of wrongdoing by India, an Indian company or a particular shipment.
It explains that transshipment, by itself, refers to cargo passing through an intermediate location before reaching its final market. According to the article, it becomes fraudulent when the declared country of origin of goods is falsified to avoid tariffs applicable to their actual origin.
The article claims the White House report does not identify any Indian company allegedly involved in such activity, nor does it provide details such as an importer, exporter, freight forwarder, vessel, container number or bill of lading.
It also refers to research by Caroline Freund, which the article says was cited favourably by the White House. According to the article, Freund’s research found that Vietnam’s apparent 16.1 per cent share of “rerouting” fell to 1.8 per cent when the analysis required the same firm to be matched rather than merely matching the tariff code in the same quarter.
The article also raises questions over the role of Peter Navarro, head of the White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, which released the 25-page report titled The Great Transhipment Scam: Rise, Scope, and Costs on August 13.
“Within forty-eight hours of the release of the report, Navarro was on television saying India was ‘well on our radar,’” the article states, while also referring to his earlier remarks concerning India’s purchases of Russian oil.
Questioning the report’s reference to an “India’s Pune-Gujarat-Chennai production belt” in connection with HS 8413-8414, covering pumps and compressors, the article argues that the geographical description does not by itself establish an actual shipping route.
It notes that Pune is inland, Gujarat has multiple ports and industrial districts, while Chennai is both a manufacturing centre and a port. Establishing a specific shipping route, the article says, would require documentary evidence such as shipping records.
The article further argues that, at most, the allegations could concern individual shipments whose country of origin may have been misdeclared under US customs law. Such cases, it says, would involve the liability of specific importers and could be addressed through US administrative or judicial procedures rather than implicating the Indian government or the country’s broader industrial sector.
India’s Ministry of External Affairs has said it would examine the report before responding substantively. At the August 14 media briefing, the MEA spokesperson said, “We would like to study the findings and the methodology that has been adopted in detail.”
The spokesperson also said India has “robust laws and procedures governing customs, rules of origin and exports” and that any violations would be dealt with according to law.
The Saviour article concludes that India’s response was appropriate given the report’s lack of specific identification of companies, shipments or routes, and argues that any verified violations should be addressed through established legal and regulatory mechanisms.
FOLLOW NOW
