The simulated effects in table 5.3 have been aggregated to 26 broad product groups. 85 The table shows 2007 U.S. exports, corresp<strong>on</strong>ding <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g>n applied tariff rates, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> simulated U.S. export effects for these product groups, which c<strong>on</strong>tain all U.S. agricultural products under c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> in this report. In 2007, U.S. agricultural exports to <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g> were $477.6 milli<strong>on</strong>. The trade-weighted import tariff levied by <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> agricultural imports from the United States was about 24 percent. There is a wide variati<strong>on</strong> in simulated effects by product group. For example, in the absence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g>n tariffs, U.S. exports to <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the product group “vegetables, fruits, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> nuts” would have exp<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed by a large dollar value, $48.5–60.2 milli<strong>on</strong>. 86 In c<strong>on</strong>trast, U.S. exports <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> “vegetable oils <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> fats” would experience a large percentage expansi<strong>on</strong>, 232–324 percent. 87 In general, the simulated U.S. export effects are positive <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> are driven by the magnitude <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the tariff <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> the degree <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sensitivity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g>n c<strong>on</strong>sumers to prices. General equilibrium effects, however, may c<strong>on</strong>tribute to lower U.S. exports for certain product groups. In the absence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g>n tariffs, agricultural sectors in <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g> would c<strong>on</strong>tract <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> release productive resources to the rest <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g>n ec<strong>on</strong>omy. Other sectors would absorb these resources <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> thus exp<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> their level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> producti<strong>on</strong>. Because <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the relatively small average <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g>n tariff for “cereal grains, not elsewhere specified” (i.e., corn <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> sorghum), this product group could be <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the exp<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing domestic sectors, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> thus <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g>n imports in this sector would decline. Table 5.4 reports U.S. export effects for the 50 HS6 product categories with the highest U.S. export effects in dollar terms. These 50 product categories accounted for $380.7 milli<strong>on</strong>, or 79.7 percent, <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total U.S. agricultural exports to <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g> in 2007. In the absence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g>n tariffs, U.S. exports <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> these 50 products to <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g> would have been $189.7–279.2 milli<strong>on</strong> greater, a 50–73 percent expansi<strong>on</strong>. Alm<strong>on</strong>ds, certain vegetable fats <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> oils, soybean oil, fresh apples, cott<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> fresh grapes accounted for $301.7 milli<strong>on</strong>, or 63.2 percent, <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> U.S. agricultural exports to <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g> in 2007. In the absence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g>n tariffs, these exports would have exp<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed by $85.2–134.2 milli<strong>on</strong>, or 37–54 percent. Several other studies have analyzed <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g>n tariffs. One study that used methodologies similar to those used in this report found that, in the absence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g>n tariffs, <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g>n imports <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> agricultural commodities from all countries would have exp<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed by $6.5 billi<strong>on</strong>, or 93.9 percent, in 2001. 88 The study found that <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g>n imports <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> “vegetable oils <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> fats” would have exp<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed by $3.9 billi<strong>on</strong>, or 127.7 percent; “vegetables, fruits 85 The 26 product groups are those specified in the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) global trade model, <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the models used in this analysis. The GTAP model is discussed in appendix H. For more informati<strong>on</strong> about the GTAP model, see Hertel, Global Trade Analysis: Modeling <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Applicati<strong>on</strong>s, 1997; <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Narayanan <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Walmsley, Global Trade, Assistance, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Producti<strong>on</strong>: The GTAP 7 Data Base, 2008. 86 Table 5.4 shows that the expansi<strong>on</strong> in this product group is driven by growth in three products: alm<strong>on</strong>ds (product rank 2 in table 5.4), fresh apples (rank 5), <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> fresh grapes (rank 10). These three products account for about 97 percent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the expansi<strong>on</strong> in the aggregate group. 87 Table 5.4 shows that the expansi<strong>on</strong> in this product group is driven by growth in two products: (1) fixed vegetable fats <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> oils <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> their fracti<strong>on</strong>s (product rank 3 in table 5.4), <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> (2) soybean oil (rank 4). These two products account for about 98 percent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the expansi<strong>on</strong> in the aggregate group. 88 For an analysis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the 2001 <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g>n agricultural tariffs using the GTAP model, see Ganesh-Kumar, P<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>a, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Burfisher, “Reforms in <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g>n Agro-processing <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Agriculture Sectors in the C<strong>on</strong>text <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Unilateral <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Multilateral Trade Agreements,” 2005. 5-16
<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> nuts” by $0.9 billi<strong>on</strong>, or 65.8 percent; <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> “food products n.e.c.” by $0.3 billi<strong>on</strong>, or 85.7 percent. 89 89 Other studies have analyzed the combined effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g>n food <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> manufacturing tariffs, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> they do not provide simulated effects either for <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g>n agricultural imports or U.S. agricultural exports. See P<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>a <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Quiz<strong>on</strong>, “Growth <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Distributi<strong>on</strong> Under Trade Liberalizati<strong>on</strong> in <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g>,” 1999; P<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>a <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Ganesh-Kumar, “Trade Liberalizati<strong>on</strong>, Poverty <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Food Security in <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g>,” 2008; Hertel <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Keeney, “What Is at Stake: The Relative Importance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Import Barriers, Export Subsidies <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Domestic Support,” 2006; Anders<strong>on</strong>, Martin, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> van der Mensbrugghe, “Market <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Welfare Implicati<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Doha Reform Scenarios,” 2006; <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Polaski et al., <str<strong>on</strong>g>India</str<strong>on</strong>g>'s Trade Policy Choices: Managing Diverse Challenges, 2008. 5-17
- Page 1 and 2:
United States International Trade C
- Page 3 and 4:
U.S. International Trade Commission
- Page 5:
Abstract This report describes <str
- Page 8 and 9:
TABLE ES.1 India:
- Page 10 and 11:
U.S. agricultural products face str
- Page 12 and 13:
U.S. Foreign Direct Investment U.S.
- Page 15 and 16:
CONTENTS Page Abstract ............
- Page 17 and 18:
CONTENTS―Continued Chapter 6 <str
- Page 19 and 20:
CONTENTS―Continued Figures 1.1. <
- Page 21 and 22:
ACRONYMS AND TERMS AAY Antodaya Ann
- Page 23:
ACRONYMS AND TERMS—Continued RGGV
- Page 26 and 27:
TABLE 1.1 India: A
- Page 28 and 29:
FIGURE 1.1 India:
- Page 30 and 31:
India’s central
- Page 32 and 33:
Despite their weak economic pr<stro
- Page 34 and 35:
Approach Current India</str
- Page 36 and 37:
Bibliography Birner, Regina, Surupt
- Page 38 and 39:
World Bank. Agriculture for Develop
- Page 40 and 41:
FIGURE 2.1 India:
- Page 42 and 43:
TABLE 2.1 India: A
- Page 44 and 45:
FIGURE 2.3 India:
- Page 46 and 47:
premium); (2) India</strong
- Page 48 and 49:
include government export restricti
- Page 50 and 51:
TABLE 2.3 India: A
- Page 52 and 53:
FIGURE 2.6 India:
- Page 54 and 55:
Exports by Major Trading Partner <s
- Page 57 and 58:
CHAPTER 3 Domestic Consumption Over
- Page 59 and 60:
TABLE 3.2 India: P
- Page 61 and 62: more likely to have been exposed to
- Page 63 and 64: BOX 3.3 Indian Con
- Page 65 and 66: TABLE 3.3 India: T
- Page 67 and 68: are expected to see income growth <
- Page 69 and 70: Food Preferences India</str
- Page 71 and 72: Regional Variation Geographic <stro
- Page 73 and 74: CCC. “Know India
- Page 75 and 76: CHAPTER 4 Indian A
- Page 77 and 78: For most crops, however, In
- Page 79 and 80: The Farm Sector soybeans 29 —but
- Page 81 and 82: Food processing in India</s
- Page 83 and 84: BOX 4.1 The Central Government’s
- Page 85 and 86: BOX 4.2 Does the Minimum Support Pr
- Page 87 and 88: August 3, 2009, New Delhi announced
- Page 89 and 90: known as zamindars, have doubled or
- Page 91 and 92: that the PFA Act was strictly enfor
- Page 93 and 94: ———. Bharat Nirman: A Time-Bo
- Page 95 and 96: Organisation for Economic Co-operat
- Page 97 and 98: CHAPTER 5 TARIFFS Overview
- Page 99 and 100: sensitive. They include vegetable f
- Page 101 and 102: wholly milled rice and</str
- Page 103 and 104: The Indian governm
- Page 105 and 106: India also reporte
- Page 107 and 108: Reference Prices Reference prices,
- Page 109 and 110: Landing Fees <stro
- Page 111: Simulated Effects
- Page 115 and 116: 5-19 TABLE 5.4 India</stron
- Page 117 and 118: Bibliography Acharya, Keya. “Thor
- Page 119 and 120: Indian Express.com
- Page 121 and 122: CHAPTER 6 Nontariff</strong
- Page 123 and 124: foreign sources. 6 For example, SPS
- Page 125 and 126: BOX 6.1 Milk and M
- Page 127 and 128: BOX 6.2 Wheat—Continued Yet, <str
- Page 129 and 130: perpetuated continuously. The impor
- Page 131 and 132: notices that must be integrated wit
- Page 133 and 134: import corn under the TRQ is too bu
- Page 135 and 136: Customs Procedures India</s
- Page 137 and 138: Corruption Interests within <strong
- Page 139 and 140: TABLE 6.2 India: E
- Page 141 and 142: Bibliography American Apparel <stro
- Page 143 and 144: Mattson, Jeremy W., Won, W. Koo, <s
- Page 145: ———. 2009 National Trade Esti
- Page 148 and 149: TABLE 7.1 India: C
- Page 150 and 151: First Point of Sal
- Page 152 and 153: Private mandis Som
- Page 154 and 155: approximately 65 million households
- Page 156 and 157: 7-10 TABLE 7.2 India</stron
- Page 158 and 159: poor communications infrastructure
- Page 160 and 161: limited popularity with farmers bec
- Page 162 and 163:
The lack of infras
- Page 164 and 165:
found that 39 percent of</s
- Page 166 and 167:
Bibliography Banerjee, A. Dairying
- Page 168 and 169:
Tiwari, Shri Rajendra Kumar. “Pos
- Page 170 and 171:
FDI Regulations and</strong
- Page 172 and 173:
TABLE 8.2 India: A
- Page 174 and 175:
Food Processing and</strong
- Page 176 and 177:
There is not necessarily a strong l
- Page 178 and 179:
For processing of
- Page 180 and 181:
BOX 8.3 Restrictions on Foreign Joi
- Page 182 and 183:
Under certain circumstances, FDI ca
- Page 184 and 185:
commenced. States tend to be quick
- Page 186 and 187:
Bibliography Bahn, Niti, an
- Page 188 and 189:
International Center for Alcohol Po
- Page 190 and 191:
Structure of the <
- Page 192 and 193:
BOX 9.1 The UPOV System for Plant V
- Page 194 and 195:
that the public sector in I
- Page 196 and 197:
Whether this situation will soon ch
- Page 198 and 199:
The U.S.-India Bus
- Page 200 and 201:
eggplant, which began field trials
- Page 202 and 203:
Maskus, Keith E. “Intellectual Pr
- Page 205:
APPENDIX A REQUEST LETTER
- Page 208 and 209:
The Honorable Sham L. Arano
- Page 211 and 212:
cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTI
- Page 213:
APPENDIX C HEARING WITNESSES
- Page 216 and 217:
ORGANIZATION AND WITNESS: Tuttle Ta
- Page 219 and 220:
Summary of Views <
- Page 221 and 222:
advertising and pr
- Page 223 and 224:
highest in the Asia-Pacific region.
- Page 225 and 226:
to U.S. exports to India</s
- Page 227 and 228:
transparent sanitary regulations th
- Page 229 and 230:
hotel and catering
- Page 231 and 232:
Western Pistachio Association 26 In
- Page 233:
APPENDIX E POTENTIAL FOR U.S. AGRIC
- Page 236 and 237:
E-4 TABLE E.1 India</strong
- Page 238 and 239:
E-6 TABLE E.1 India</strong
- Page 240 and 241:
E-8 TABLE E.1 India</strong
- Page 243:
APPENDIX F INDIAN AGRICULTURAL PROD
- Page 246 and 247:
TABLE F.1 India: A
- Page 248 and 249:
FIGURE F.1 India:
- Page 250 and 251:
is in nonirrigated areas with yield
- Page 252 and 253:
Consumption India
- Page 254 and 255:
efrigeration. This characteristic i
- Page 256 and 257:
70 percent of tota
- Page 258 and 259:
eportedly preferred in southern <st
- Page 260 and 261:
Cotton During MY 2003/04-2007/08, <
- Page 262 and 263:
Government of <str
- Page 265:
APPENDIX G UNION AND STATE/UNION TE
- Page 268 and 269:
certain agricultural goods in the p
- Page 270 and 271:
Bibliography Chaulan, Shri U.K. “
- Page 273 and 274:
Simulation Framework The effects <s
- Page 275 and 276:
Producers determine the optimal sup
- Page 277 and 278:
Applied ad valorem tariff equivalen
- Page 279 and 280:
We considered the possibility that
- Page 281 and 282:
Estimation of <str
- Page 283 and 284:
Bibliography Anderson, Kym, Mariann