Skip to Content

Category Archives: turcocargo

MSC to Invest in Container Terminal at Port of Las Palmas | Brazil Modal

OPCSA terminal. Source: Pixabay under CC0 Creative Commons license


As explained, the objective is to consolidate the port facilities of the Gran Canaria capital as strategically important for maritime traffic with the African West Coast.

Representatives of APLP and MSC met in Geneva this week to analyze the commercial relations that both parties have at this moment in the Port of Las Palmas.

During the meeting, Diego Aponte, President and CEO of MSC, showed his commitment to the immediate development of the project in the port.

What is more, during the meeting, the port authority committed to increasing the competitiveness of the Port of Las Palmas and enhancing its port service offering.

Specifically, MSC would invest in the Operaciones Portuarias Canarias S.A. (OPCSA) container terminal which is wholly owned by Terminal Investments Limited (TIL Group), a subsidiary of MSC.

Among other enhancements, the rearrangement of the accesses to the terminal is planned, which will allow the facility to provide a greater berthing capacity and, therefore, the extension of the services it offers.

Around EUR 9 million (USD 10.05 million) will be allocated for the modernization process which would be implemented over the eight-year span.

Last year, OPCSA became the first terminal on the West African coast to implement the new Navis N4 operating system, moving towards the automation of its operations. With the new system in place, OPCSA outlined three main objectives – to improve the efficiency of local operations, initiate the modernization process and increase productivity of the terminal.


Source: World Maritime News


0 0 Continue Reading →

The Trade War Is Not Only About Trade

Many have assumed the United States and China would work out a trade deal. The tariffs and threats of further tariffs on Chinese exports to America—and the reciprocal tariffs on U.S. goods shipped to China—were simply part of the negotiating process. It would all get sorted out quickly, and world trade would adjust to the new rules ironed out between the economic giants.

But a funny thing happened on the way to a trade deal—it fell apart in spectacular fashion. Instead of a relaxation of economic hostilities, the conflict escalated with the Trump Administration potentially placing tariffs on essentially all goods from China.

While it is tempting to frame this trade conflict in the context of America becoming tiresome of the treatment of its businesses, this does not capture the true nature of the dispute or its entrenchment and longevity. This is a “restarting of history”—a return of economic and governance ideologies battling for supremacy.

Francis Fukuyama famously announced the “end of history” and the victory of liberal democracy and capitalism over all other challengers. Certainly, there were reasons to be hopeful. Capitalism and democracy had won the Cold War. The competition—Communism and is centralized power system—had collapsed in on itself. To Fukuyama, this was the last stand of a rival ideology against democracy and capitalism. No framework could compete.

But rather than the end of history, 1989 was truly only the end of volume one. And, unlike the Mel Brooks version, there is a volume two.

This was obvious to some nearly immediately following the Cold War. Writing for the New York Times Magazine in 1989, James Atlas suggested numerous ways that history could restart itself, one of which was “a newly industrialized China.”

While it seems obvious now, China was anything but powerful and industrialized in 1989. After all, 1989 was the year of Tiananmen Square, and Chinese GDP per capita was $307 at the time. China was anything but a threat. Fast forward thirty years, and China is a top three economic power.

But in 1989, it was widely assumed that China, and every other emerging economy, would be forced to adopt democratic and capitalistic reforms to remain prosperous and stable. This was the new common knowledge; the world just worked that way. That assumption became a frequently utilized argument—notably by Bill Clinton, who was president at the time. He and others believed that China would adopt democratic and capitalistic reforms because it had to do so to continue its economic rise.

China proved this was not the case, utilizing a single-party structure with more than a hint of authoritarianism. Economic growth initiatives were pushed down from the top, dictating the policies and growth targets. The tools Beijing used are well known to economists—protecting industries from foreign competition (known as the “infant industry” argument) and technology transfers (more commonly known as intellectual property theft) are as old as economics. In retrospect, it was not Beijing’s economic or the political model that drove the success of the Chinese brand of development, but rather the combination of the two.

Suddenly, the democracy-driven capitalist model was not the only game in town. Arguably, it was not even the most successful model. This has created some converts, and now illiberal democracies with tighter economic controls are becoming ever more frequent. Even some of the Eastern European countries, once hailed for their transitions to capitalist liberal democracy, are sliding closer to the China model. Though most remain far removed from outright totalitarianism with a state-controlled economy, it is no longer obvious they will remain this way.

Furthermore, the restarting of history is not without its own problems. It has been nearly thirty years—a generation—since the United States confronted a legitimate challenge to the settled model of capitalism and liberal democracy. Now America sees its brand of capitalism challenged domestically with the rise of democratic socialism, however nascent it might be.

What are the consequences of history restarting? Foremost, the United States has found its new enemy in China’s brand of social and economic regimes. This does not necessitate a “Cold War” between the United States and China, but the clashes over trade and economic conduct are simply indications of far more ingrained issues.

Washington and Beijing’s actions on trade and the escalation of economic tensions should not be underestimated. This is not a short-lived fight for “fairer” trade. It is a fundamental battle of ideologies. A wave of illiberalism and a controlled version of pseudo-capitalism is challenging capitalism and democracy as the model for the world to follow. The guise of economic gains and not “losing” anymore is being used to restart history—if it ever truly ended.

Samuel E. Rines is the chief economist at Avalon Advisors in Houston, Texas.

Image: Reuters


0 0 Continue Reading →

Less storm damage in the port of Rotterdam | Brazil Modal

In Rotterdam, the largest container port in Europe, land is scarce and expensive, and container depots use their square metres as efficiently as possible by stacking empty containers up to eight high. When a storm is imminent, depots have their hands full with securing the containers using tie ratchets or removing layers from the stack. A time-consuming job. “I’ve been working with containers all my life, and especially at empty depots you’ll encounter many problems during storm situations,” says Sjaak de Vos, director of Windbreaker International. “When I was still director of container depot Mainport Container Services (formerly Mainport Rotterdam Services) in Rotterdam, one of my supervisors once made a prototype of a connecting piece that connects the corners of the container – the corner castings – to each other, so the top layer becomes one solid block. It was a good idea, but nothing was done with it because there were still steps to be made in the execution.”

Like Lego

De Vos entered into a collaboration with research organisation TNO in Delft, which further developed the idea, tested it and searched for the most suitable material. “Steel, for instance, is much stronger, but it is way too heavy. Carbon is light, but far too expensive. We decided on the strongest form of cast iron, twenty centimetres long and weighing six kilos. The connector allows you to connect the containers in the top layer, just like Lego. It takes about five minutes extra to screw the Windbreaker into the corner castings. However, you will easily win back this time in case of a storm. Then you will barely have to worry about it.”


0 0 Continue Reading →

Game of Thrones fans couldn’t watch the finale in China because of trade war

Game of Thrones series finale streamed around the world last night, giving fans closure just about everywhere — except China.

Thousands of Chinese users who rely on streaming platform Tencent Video were outraged to discover they couldn’t access the most recent episode. A message that read “transmission medium problems” appeared in lieu of the finale, according to The Wall Street Journal. An HBO spokesperson told the Journal the network had no issue with transmitting the episode, but Tencent was restricted from airing it by the Chinese government because of ongoing trade disputes with the United States.

Fans in China not being able to stream Game of Thrones is just another example of how increasingly tense the trade disputes between the United States and China have become over the last few weeks. On top of Game of Thrones finale not streaming, this weekend also saw Google pull Huawei’s Android license in response to an order from the US Commerce Department. The department names a number of companies that must secure American government approval to buy technology from US brands.

China has accused the US government of having “extravagant expectations” for a trade deal, according to a Reuters report. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang insisted that trade talks failed between the United States and China because the US attempted “to achieve unreasonable interests through extreme pressure.” Trump, on the other hand, said that it was China’s fault the deal fell through, telling Fox News in an interview that aired Sunday that the United States and China “had a very strong deal, we had a good deal, and they changed it. And I said, ‘That’s okay, we’re going to tariff their products’.”

Fans not being able to watch Game of Thrones may not seem like a major issue compared to other fallouts from the United States’ trade negotiations with China, but it’s an example of how everyday people are being affected. Game of Thrones is one of the most popular shows in China, with the season being viewed more than “550 million times on Tencent Video during the most recent season,” the Journal reported. The episode did make its way to piracy sites, but it’s still unavailable to stream via Tencent Video.


0 0 Continue Reading →

Higher Volumes, Freight Rates Drive Hapag-Lloyd’s Earnings Up | Brazil Modal

Illustration. Source: Pixabay under CC0 Creative Commons license


The company said that earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) increased to EUR 214 million for the period, compared to EUR 51 million reported in the same quarter a year earlier.

The group net result was at EUR 96 million, against a net loss of EUR 34 million seen in the first quarter of 2018, while EBITDA surged to EUR 489 million from EUR 216 million reported in the previous year.

“Thanks to higher transport volumes, better freight rates and a stronger US dollar, we achieved a good result and got the year off to a very decent start,” said Rolf Habben Jansen, Chief Executive Officer of Hapag-Lloyd.

Revenues in the first quarter increased to EUR 3.1 billion, representing a change of by 17% compared to EUR 2.6 billion collected in the first quarter of 2018, while transport volume rose by 2% to 2,929 TTEU from last year’s 2,861 TTEU.

The average freight rate improved to 1,079 USD/TEU, and the result was also positively influenced by a stronger average exchange rate of 1.14 USD/EUR. In contrast, higher bunker prices of USD 425 per tonne, against USD 372 per tonne seen a year earlier, had a negative impact on the quarterly result.

“We are cautiously optimistic about 2019 despite slightly dampened forecasts for global economic growth and higher fuel prices. Q1 was in line with our expectations and we believe we can make further progress towards our strategic objectives throughout the rest of the year as we continue to roll-out and implement our Strategy 2023,” Jansen added.


0 0 Continue Reading →

Why has the U.S. raised trade war stakes?

The story so far: On July 6, 2018, the United States administration slapped a tariff of 25% on $50 billion worth of imports from China. China responded immediately with retaliatory tariffs on a similar scale. On May 10, 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump raised the tariff rate to 25% (from the existing level of 10%) on $200 billion of imports from China. Washington is now poised to extend tariffs on all imports from China, which implies that approximately $325 billion of additional goods will enter the U.S. tax net.

When did the trade war begin?

The first stone was cast in what looks to be a protracted global economic conflict when the Trump administration decided, in January 2018, to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machines. In March, tariffs were slapped on steel and aluminium. China, already facing allegations of dumping cheap metal across global markets, retaliated with duties on $3 billion of U.S. products. By May these tariffs were applied toward the European Union (EU), Mexico and Canada, respectively at 25% for steel and 10% for aluminium. Canada immediately announced plans to impose counter-tariffs on U.S. products worth about $13 billion, with Mexico and the EU following suit. While the U.S. tariffs were levied on raw materials used across the manufacturing, construction and oil industries, the EU, Mexico and Canada targeted consumer goods. The trade dispute between the U.S. and China now includes around 10,000 products of global trade.

Why did Mr. Trump impose tariffs on China?

The American President is a long-time critic of the U.S.’s deficit with its trading partners and believes that countries such as China do not provide a level-playing field for free trade, especially denial of market access. There is also bipartisan consensus in the U.S. that Beijing has taken advantage of the American economy for decades, including by theft of intellectual property, leading to the loss of millions of jobs.

The U.S. trade deficit with China has soared, rising from around $100 billion in 2000 to $419 billion in 2018. The Trump administration considers this a threat to economic, hence national, security. In fact, in addition to the tariffs, the White House has curtailed investment from Chinese entities and visas to Chinese nationals (such as researchers) — and these are directly aimed at curbing industrial espionage. The recent controversy over the arrest in Canada of Meng Wanzhou, CFO of China-owned telecommunications giant Huawei, the declaration of a national emergency for the telecommunications sector leading to a restriction on Chinese products in this area, and the placement of Huawei on the infamous Entity List for import control, hints at the level of anxiety that the Trump administration has over Chinese industrial spying.

Can tariffs address the deficit problem?

There are structural reasons why the trade deficit may be hard to reverse. The U.S. earns a bulk of its net income from services, such as finance, travel and tourism, whereas China exports a far greater proportion of manufactured goods. Therefore, even if the intention behind the crackdown on Chinese trade practices is purposeful protectionism — shielding U.S. domestic industries from foreign competition — it is unclear that the massive shifts in global supply chains required to achieve that goal will happen any time soon, or produce the macroeconomic effects that Mr. Trump hopes they will.

How does the Trump model of ‘tariff economics’ work?

Consider the example of Apple Inc., the Silicon Valley tech giant that Mr. Trump has alluded to on Twitter. Apple has approximately 27 China-based suppliers, most of whom manufacture electrical components for the tech giant. If, through the imposition of tariffs on the products that these suppliers manufacture, the effective cost of production for Apple rises to an uneconomical level, Apple might be compelled to look elsewhere for those components. If many such companies are impacted, that could potentially damage China’s economy to the benefit of relatively low-cost economies.

However, for this competitive tariff ‘model’ to work in reality, the cost of production would have to come down substantially in the U.S. too. Mr. Trump has tweeted that he would offer companies such as Apple “ZERO tax, and indeed a tax incentive,” were they to relocate their production facilities to the U.S. Would this suffice, given the relatively higher cost of labour and capital in the U.S.? Possibly not.

What has the economic impact of the tariffs been?

Higher tariffs have already had an impact on prices for American companies and individuals. The price of steel and washing machines, for example, has already spiralled upward in the U.S. since the trade war kicked off. Reports suggest China’s retaliatory tariffs, and the resulting steep fall in demand for U.S. export products, have impacted everything from soybean from North Dakota to bourbon from Kentucky and fossil fuels, copper and wood. General Motors has cut jobs at assembly plants in the Midwest owing to hundreds of millions of dollars of additional cost associated with the tariffs.

Simultaneously, stock markets have almost inevitably reacted badly to every new announcement of additional tariffs. For example, after the latest failure of bilateral negotiations in Washington, the Dow Jones Industrial Average saw its worst one-day performance in months.

However, the impact that tariffs on Chinese have on overall inflation should not be exaggerated. According to reports, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco have estimated that “China tariffs have added 0.1% to inflation for consumers and 0.3% for business investment goods”.

Similarly, it may be a while before the full, price-based impact on the Chinese economy is felt. A study by Syracuse University in the U.S. shows that for electronic and computer products, for example, “non-Chinese multinational corporations operating in China supply 87% of the products that will be affected by tariffs, while Chinese firms send only 13%”.

How has corporate America responded?

Apple Inc. fired off a letter to the Trump administration in September 2018 warning that the tariffs were likely to hit many of its core products, including watches, headphones, chargers and adapters. The company said to Robert Lighthizer, Mr. Trump’s senior trade negotiator, “Our concern with these tariffs is that the U.S. will be hardest hit, and that will result in lower U.S. growth and competitiveness and higher prices for U.S. consumers.”

More broadly, while industry groups have generally cheered the White House for taking on China over trade secrets theft or deliberate market manipulations, the mounting costs of tariffs has taken a toll on their operations, leading executives such as Rick Helfenbein, CEO of the American Apparel & Footwear Association to describe Mr. Trump’s policies as a “self-inflicted wound that will be catastrophic for the nation’s economy”.

What has India’s position been?

While India had last year secured an exemption from the U.S. on steel and aluminium tariffs, the U.S. Trade Representative said in March 2019 that India would no longer be eligible for preferential market access to the U.S. under the Generalised System of Preferences programme. This meant New Delhi lost out on $190 million per year in duty reductions. This comes on the back of repeated allusions by Mr. Trump to India’s high tariff barriers, for example impacting Harley-Davidson motorcycles and medical devices.

With an overall bilateral trade value of $126.2 billion in 2017, the U.S.’s goods and services deficit with India was $27.3 billion (2017). In June 2018 India joined the EU and other countries in imposing retaliatory duties to counter Washington’s tariff on steel and aluminium.

When can we expect the dispute to be resolved?

In 2018, at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Mr. Trump called a “temporary truce” with President Xi Jinping of China after the bruising year-long trade battle between their countries. The agreement that they reached was effectively to pause the trade war and apply themselves toward agreeing a pact. However, it failed to produce any tangible progress. In May 2019, negotiators from the two countries met again in Washington, even as Mr. Trump proceeded with his latest round of tariff rate hike on $200 billion of Chinese imports from 10% to 25%. Unsurprisingly, those talks did not make much headway either. A solution remains elusive for now.


0 0 Continue Reading →

Ins and Outs of Demurrage and Detention | Brazil Modal

Image Source: Pexels, Pixabay

If this free time is exceeded, a user has to pay a demurrage and detention charge, usually calculated per day.

World Maritime News spoke to Florian Frese, Director of Marketing at xChange, a Germany-based startup focusing on repositioning of containers, to find out more about demurrage and detention in the container shipping industry.

Referring to the time in port after arrival, demurrage is a charge levied when the full container has not been picked up and moved out of the port for unpacking within the set free-days. For conventional shipping, the free-days are often somewhere between 3-5 days.

Detention refers to the time outside the port, where the shipper holds on to the carrier’s container beyond the allowed free-days. Thus, a detention charge is applied when the container has been picked up, but not returned to the carrier. That is done in an attempt to decrease the container’s turnaround time and make shipping more efficient, according to Frese.

“Of course, you can always negotiate with shipping lines, but usually free time ends after 1-10 days. It completely depends on their schedule and the port itself where they have standard processes. For most companies and container types, demurrage fees are close to USD 100 per container and per day,”

Additionally, Frese explained that longer demurrage free periods would not help solve congestion at terminals fueled by shipping alliances and ULCVs that contribute to higher peaks and congestion. Such a situation would shift costs from shippers to shipping lines.

With the US China trade war for example, imports have risen dramatically in the last month, which led to too many containers being at the port in Los Angeles. Too many containers plus too little capacity inside the terminal/port leads to high demurrage and detention charges, he said.

“Reasons why per diem charges arise include inspection holds, lack of sufficient terminal appointments, closed terminals, congestion caused by inclement weather, port suggestion and lack of available chassis. A problem is that there is no uniform definition for demurrage and detention for when a container is considered as available for pick-up which leads to arguments.”

With Carrier Own Container (COC) shipping there is really not much to be done against demurrage & detention as global trade volumes, capacities or the weather itself cannot be influenced on. That is why many shippers turn to Shipper’s Own Container (SOC) to increase their flexibility. They usually come with a high amount of free days, low per diem-fees and they simply have to be returned at the partners depot, according to Frese.

“To keep it simple, shipping lines are charging fees to maximize their profits. The trend of mega ships for example even increased demurrage and detention as it leads to bigger peaks, more congestion and unreliable vessel schedules,” he said.

Elaborating about the ways in which demurrage and detention charges can be avoided, Frese listed a number of solutions, including pre-clearing cargo and issuing delivery instructions to the inland carrier in advance, as well as having a trucker “back-up” plan when dealing with a particularly congested port.

Image Source: Pexels, Pixabay

Additional solutions include dispatching cargo as far in advance as possible, negotiating more time for live loads/unloads, scheduling loading/unloading with the detention clock in mind, or simply using SOC containers. Requesting extended free time could also help, however, this only works for large shippers since they are based on the volume of containers arriving on a vessel at any given time.

“The easiest way to sanction those unreasonably high charges is to completely avoid COC containers when possible. Otherwise it is a vicious circle, the port blames the shipping lines, the shipping lines blame shippers and truckers … the best way is to bring your own container to completely avoid such fees.”

When asked about digitalization in the supply chain, Frese noted that an increase in transparency and electronic data transfers would fuel speed at ports and help reduce the “transition time” of every container. Additionally, data standards and all parties, including ports, shipping lines, truckers, shippers, working together would also help solve the problem.

Speaking about SOC vs. COC containers, Frese explained that COC containers, used for standard shipments, are simple to use. The process starts and finishes with paying the carrier a given „all in“ rate to move the freight. SOC containers on the other hand are for everything else and include control of supply, control of ownership and control of cost by avoiding unexpected demurrage and detention cost.


Source: World Maritime News


0 0 Continue Reading →

EU fines five major banks for foreign exchange rigging – World News Monitor

BRUSSELS, May 16 (Xinhua) — In two decisions, the European Commission on Thursday levied a combined fine of over 1 billion euros (1.12 billion U.S. dollars) on five major banks for taking part in two cartels in the spot foreign exchange market for 11 currencies.

The first decision imposes a total fine of 811 million euros on Barclays, the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Citigroup and JPMorgan. The second fine, totaling 258 million euros, was levied on Barclays, RBS and MUFG Bank. UBS is an addressee of both decisions, but was not fined as it had revealed the existence of the cartels to the Commission.

Foreign exchange, or “Forex” in Europe, refers to the trading of currencies. When companies exchange large amounts of a certain currency against another, they usually do so through a Forex trader.

The European Commission’s investigation revealed that some individual traders in charge of Forex spot trading of these currencies on behalf of the relevant banks exchanged sensitive information and trading plans, and occasionally coordinated their trading strategies through various online professional chatrooms.

The information exchanges, following the tacit understanding reached by the participating traders, enabled them to make informed market decisions on whether to sell or buy the currencies they had in their portfolios and when.

“Today we have fined Barclays, the Royal Bank of Scotland, Citigroup, JPMorgan and MUFG Bank, and these cartel decisions send a clear message that the Commission will not tolerate collusive behaviour in any sector of the financial markets,” said EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager.

“The behavior of these banks undermined the integrity of the sector at the expense of the European economy and consumers,” she added.


0 0 Continue Reading →

Värde Agrees Sale and Leaseback for Landbridge VLCC | Brazil Modal

Illustration. Source: Pixabay under CC0 Creative Commons license


The vessel in question is the 2016-built fuel-efficient tanker Landbridge Prosperity.

Landbridge, a subsidiary of Chinese industrial company Landbridge Group, will continue to operate the 308,285 dwt ship under a bareboat charter, before repurchasing it at the conclusion of the charter period.

“We are pleased to begin a financing relationship with Värde,” Vincent Lai, CEO of Landbridge, said, adding that the transaction is a part of the company’s scrubber retrofitting programme for the entire fleet.

The parties did not reveal the financial terms of the transaction, which was arranged by Pareto Securities.


0 0 Continue Reading →

India fears US-China trade war will lead to dumping of Chinese steel: Sources

NEW DELHI: India fears China could soon start flooding excess steel into its market after the United States raised tariffs on Chinese products due to the escalating trade war between the world’s two largest economies, according to three government sources and four industry officials.

As a result, the Indian steel industry has asked the Indian government to put in so-called safeguard duties of as much as 25 percent to protect it from growing imports. These would be imposed on steel that the government determines has been dumped in India at prices below the cost of production.

Since last year, China and the United States have been locked in a trade conflict as Washington seeks to fix the trade balance, currently tilted in favour of Beijing. The two nations have raised or threatened to raise tariffs on each other’s goods, moves that could re-draw trade flows and that have threatened to derail the global economy.

“China has excess (steel) capacity and there is a concern they could re-route it through other countries like Vietnam and Cambodia into India,” an Indian government source with direct knowledge of the matter said.

“Steel sector is vulnerable,” the source said, declining to be identified due to the sensitive nature of discussions.

India, the world’s second-largest steel producer, turned net importer in the year ended March 31, 2019 after a gap of three years. That is because the country lacks the capability to produce high-quality steel and has lost some of its global clients to cheaper exports from China, Japan and South Korea.

“China, Japan, Korea which are major exporters to U.S., Europe and Canada, because of trade actions, they are also diverting steel into India,” Seshagiri Rao, joint managing director at JSW Steel Ltd, told Reuters.


“It is very much essential for government of India to increase the safeguard duty to 25 percent as soon as possible,” said Rao. Currently, there are a range of such duty levels.

Last month, steel companies JSW, Steel Authority of India , Tata Steel, Jindal Steel and Power – controlling over 45 percent of India’s total steel production – met with government officials to ask for safeguards, according to a source who attended the meeting.

During the meeting, Steel Secretary Binoy Kumar, the top bureaucrat in the Ministry of Steel, also said that the steel industry was at risk from global excess capacity, the source said.

Kumar said India need to act soon to protect its fragile steel industry from predatory imports as it would be difficult to revive it if the situation was allowed to deteriorate for three-to-four years. However, he said a decision on safeguard duties has not yet been taken.

The steel ministry did not respond to Reuters’ emails and phone calls seeking comments. Neither did SAIL, Tata and JSPL.

“What we are seeing is that part of displaced exports is already making inroads,” said Arnab Kumar Hazra, assistant secretary general at the Indian Steel Association, which represents major steel producers. There was therefore every reason to argue for safeguard duties given the perceived threat, he said.

India had imposed a slew of safeguards in 2015-2017 on several steel products to curb cheaper imports and protect local industry, prompting Japan to refer India’s behaviour to the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute panel.

India’s trade deficit with China jumped more than a nine fold over the past decade to $63.05 billion in the year ending March 2018.

With the latest U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods, India fears Beijing could also re-route exports of electronic items, toys, furniture and organic chemicals to India through other Southeast Asian nations.

New Delhi and Beijing have been negotiating over greater market access as China wants to exports milk products and apples to India while New Delhi wants to sell China bovine meat, sources said.


0 0 Continue Reading →