US-China truce leaves India exposed to 100% Russian-oil tariffs

InternationalTrade Policy > TariffsInternational EconomicsTariff QuotaTrade Theory

US-China truce leaves India exposed to 100% Russian-oil tariffs

Washington and Beijing extended their trade truce to January 10, 2027 and agreed a $30 billion tariff-reduction arrangement, while India stays exposed to tariffs of up to 100% for buying Russian crude.

What happened

China said on Saturday it had agreed with the United States on a $30 billion reciprocal tariff-reduction arrangement and an artificial intelligence dialogue, under an eight-point consensus reached during Xi Jinping's Washington visit. The two sides will also set up a trade council. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had announced on September 23 that the Busan Agreement trade truce, due to expire on November 10, was extended to January 10, 2027, with both sides agreeing to avoid new tariffs and trade restrictions on each other. The three-day summit ended on Friday.

Context

The timing is what matters for India. On September 18, President Trump signed into law the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, which authorises tariffs of up to 100% on top buyers of Russian energy, primarily China and India. Days later the US-China understanding gave Beijing protection from new tariffs. India has no equivalent shield: the two countries agreed a framework deal in February and released a joint statement, but no trade agreement has been signed. The law carries a broad national security waiver the President may use.

Why it matters

This is a tariff applied to conduct, not to a product, and it is being applied selectively. China and India buy Russian crude on the same terms, but only one of them now sits inside a truce. Ajay Srivastava of the Global Trade Research Initiative argues the tariff threat is aimed at forcing India to cut Russian oil purchases and sign an unequal bilateral trade agreement, and that India should not trade energy security for temporary tariff relief. Evan A Feigenbaum argues Washington may see India as the softer target, with fewer retaliatory options than China. Either reading points the same way: India's energy import basket has become a trade-policy variable.

Impact for India

Indian refiners: Continued Russian crude purchases carry the risk of tariffs of up to 100% on exports to the US.
Exporters to the US: India was tied with Brazil for the highest American tariffs on any country for several months at the end of 2025, and that exposure has not been removed.
Energy security policy: Washington is offering itself as an alternative supplier, with a State Department official saying the US is now the largest exporter of LPG and second for LNG.
Venezuelan crude: US officials say Indian access to that market may reopen, though India's old refinery interests there are hard to restart.
Trade negotiators: The G20 trade ministers' meeting in Milwaukee at the end of the month is the next scheduled opening to raise the scope of the sanctions law.

Key data

US-China reciprocal tariff-reduction arrangement: $30 billionPart of an eight-point consensus from Xi's Washington visit

Busan Agreement trade truce: Extended to January 10, 2027From an expiry of November 10Announced by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on September 23

Tariff authorised on top buyers of Russian energy: Up to 100%Under the Graham Act, signed into law on September 18

Additional US tariff on India for Russian crude, July 2025: 25%Imposed while China was spared

Concepts

Trade truceA time-bound agreement between two countries to hold off on new tariffs or trade restrictions while a fuller deal is negotiated.The Busan Agreement now runs to January 10, 2027 instead of expiring on November 10.

Secondary tariffA tariff imposed on a country not for what it exports but for what it buys from a third country.The Graham Act authorises up to 100% on countries that buy Russian oil and gas, regardless of what they sell to the US.

National security waiverA clause letting an executive set aside a statutory sanction or tariff where it judges national security requires it.A State Department official pointed to a broad waiver in the Graham Act as a scenario the President could use.

Framework dealAn agreed outline of negotiating principles that precedes, but does not itself constitute, a binding trade agreement.India and the US agreed one in February, which is why India has no tariff protection comparable to the Busan truce.

Theory lens

Trade diversion — Jacob Viner's point that a tariff applied to some suppliers and waived for others shifts trade towards the exempted supplier regardless of who produces at lower cost, so the pattern of trade becomes less efficient even where the exempted country gains. The Busan Agreement's extension to January 10, 2027 shields China from new US tariffs while India stays exposed to up to 100% under the Graham Act. The same conduct, buying Russian crude, draws a penalty for one buyer and cover for the other.

Historical parallel

July 2025 produced the same asymmetry. Washington spared China and imposed an additional 25% tariff on India for buying Russian crude, and for several months at the end of 2025 India was tied with Brazil for the highest American tariffs imposed on any country. Srivastava's point is that the pattern has now repeated with higher stakes: the Graham Act authorises up to 100%, and the Busan extension again gives Beijing cover that New Delhi does not have.

Global context

Beijing's account of the summit is expansive: an eight-point consensus, a $30 billion reciprocal tariff-reduction arrangement, a new trade council, and an AI dialogue whose next round is set for November. The two sides also agreed to support each other's hosting of the APEC leaders' meeting and the G20 summit. Measured against that, India's channel with Washington is thinner, resting on a framework deal agreed in February and a G20 trade ministers' meeting in Milwaukee at the end of the month.

Stakeholders

Gains: ChinaThe Busan Agreement extension to January 10, 2027 shields it from new US tariffs and trade restrictions.

Gains: US energy exportersWashington is pitching itself as a replacement supplier to India, already the largest exporter of LPG and second for LNG.

Pressure point: Indian refiners and exportersThey remain exposed to tariffs of up to 100% under the Graham Act while China sits inside a truce.

Pressure point: India's trade negotiatorsA framework deal agreed in February has not become a signed agreement, leaving no tariff cover.

Pressure point: Indian refiners' Russian crude sourcingWashington is pressing India to switch suppliers, pitching US LPG and LNG and reopened Venezuelan access as alternatives.

Practice Question — from the story

With reference to recent United States trade measures affecting India, consider the following statements:

The Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 authorises tariffs of up to 100% on countries that buy Russian oil and gas.
Under the extension announced on September 23, 2026, the Busan Agreement between the United States and China now runs until January 10, 2027.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1 only
2 only
Both 1 and 2
Neither 1 nor 2

Reveal answer & explanation

Answer: Both 1 and 2

Statement 1: Correct because the Act, signed into law on September 18, authorises the President to impose tariffs of up to 100% on countries buying Russian oil and gas, primarily China and India.
Statement 2: Correct because Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced on September 23, 2026 that Washington and Beijing had extended the Busan Agreement until January 10, 2027, from an expiry of November 10.

Therefore, the correct answer is Both 1 and 2.

Concept check — test your understanding

A tariff imposed on one supplier of a good while another supplier is exempted is said to cause trade diversion. What is the economic cost of trade diversion?

It reduces the tariff revenue the importing country collects, widening its fiscal deficit.
It raises the domestic price of the good above the world price for consumers in the importing country.
It shifts purchases to the exempted supplier even when that supplier is not the lowest-cost producer, so the same goods end up being produced less efficiently.
It breaches the WTO's most-favoured-nation rule, which requires a member to extend the same tariff treatment to all other members.

Reveal answer & explanation

Answer: C

Trade diversion is a production-side loss. The tariff changes who sells, not how much is consumed, and the new seller has higher real costs. World output falls for the same real resources used, which is why Viner treated diversion as the welfare-reducing half of preferential trade arrangements.
Option A is real but secondary. Revenue does fall when imports shift to the exempt supplier, and a revenue loss is a transfer rather than the efficiency loss economists mean by diversion.
Option B describes trade creation's mirror image, the consumption cost of any tariff. It applies to a uniform tariff too, so it is not what makes diversion distinct.
Option D is a legal objection, not an economic one. A measure can be perfectly WTO-consistent, as preferential agreements often are, and still divert trade.