Thicha studio/iStock via Getty Images
In a letter to U.S. officials this week, eight American trade groups consisting of largest companies in technology and manufacturing urged the Department of Commerce, U.S. Trade Representative and government more broadly to ask India to reconsider the policy.
The Indian government from Nov. 1 intends to impose a new license requirement for technology imports, which includes laptops, tablets, personal computers, servers and parts for datacenters. The licensing rule was initially implemented with immediate effect earlier this month, before authorities allowed a three-month respite to allow companies to get the required licenses, the report added.
The action “could significantly disrupt trade, hamper efforts to more closely integrate India into global supply chains, and harm businesses and consumers in both countries,” the trade groups said in a joint memo.
Earlier this month, reportedly, Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL), Samsung Electronics (OTCPK:SSNLF) and HP (HPQ) were among the companies which were pausing new imports of laptops and tablets to India due to the licensing rule.
The move comes just days before the G20 Leaders’ Summit is to begin in New Delhi on Sept. 9 marking the end of India’s India’s G20 presidency. The term saw Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking to expand bilateral trade relations with the U.S., France and others.
The letter noted that India’s reliability as a trade and supply chain partner is put into question by steps which restrict the free flow of goods.
U.S. industry groups including the Information Technology Industry Council, the National Association of Manufacturers and the Semiconductor Industry Association raised several grievances to the planned licensing rules.
Any hindrance to trade could affect the shipment of U.S.-made computers and electronics into India, which then could create difficulty for businesses, American or Indian, to run and expand their operations, the report added.
“This potential will only be achieved if businesses have assurance about a predictable regulatory climate,” the letter noted.
