Dialogue Box

     ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO FOR TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS

Introduction

The development strategy during the Ninth Five Year Plan takes cognisance of the need for a more open economy, involving larger foreign capital inflows and also imports. The process is helping to modernise industry and reduce costs of production. Priority has been given to reforms in the tariff structure.

The reopening of negotiations for the agreement on agriculture and industrial tariffs is likely to come up in the near future. At present, emphasis has been on reduction in average tariff rates without taking into consideration the peak rates prevailing in some of the developed countries. The present study aims to suggest an alternative tariff structure for agriculture and industrial sectors for the discussions. The idea is to develop a rational position in future so that the dispersion in average tariff rates is also taken into account. In addition, the study looks at the impact of rationalization of tariff structure in India on the imports and customs revenue, along with suggestions for inter-sectoral adjustments in tariffs.

Section-I looks at the status of tariff structure in India. Section-II looks at the status in India in comparison with some selected countries.

1. Tariff Structure – India

1.1 Present Tariff Structure

The tariff structure in India was highly complex till early 1990s. The average tariff duty in 1991-92 was 128% along with a very large number of separate tariff rates across commodity groups and also coupled with many exemptions. With the initiation of the reforms process, the average tariff rates were reduced and the structure has been somewhat rationalised.

During 1999-2000, the basic duty rates in India are mostly 0,5,15,25,35,40, and only 20 commodity groups are in the range of 100-230% (out of 5135 commodities based on 6-digit HS classification). The latter group of commodities of over 100% tariffs are imposed on certain spirits, beverages, and alcoholic products; carpets and selected cosmetic items. The average basic import duty is 32.54%, with a standard deviation (SD) of 13.25 and co-efficient of variation (CV) of 40.71. If a surcharge of 10% is included on all commodities which have a basic duty of less than 40%, as imposed in the Budget for the year 1999-2000, the average comes to 34% (SD-13.56, CV-38.16). The ratio of peak tariff rates to the average ratio comes to around 7 during the current year. At the same time, the agricultural and industrial average tariff rates are not markedly different (33-34%), as may be seen in Table-1. The dispersion in agriculture, as reflected by both SD and CV, is much higher than that in industrial sector.

 

Table 1 : Tariff Structure in India

Basic

Basic+Sur.
All Commodities

1999-00

1999-00
Avg.

32.54

34.24
SD

13.25

13.06
CV

40.72

38.14
Agriculture
Avg.

32.44

33.64
SD

27.67

27.5
CV

85.31

81.77
Mining
Avg.

20.2

21.82
SD

11.26

11.7
CV

55.73

53.63
Industry
Avg.

32.87

34.65
SD

8.88

8.61
CV

27.02

24.86
Computed from Budget Document, 1999-2000

1.2 Tariff Structure and Imports

A simple econometric exercise to look at the relation of imports and tariff structure was undertaken taking value of imports for the 99 commodity groups at 2 digit HS classification and the average tariff rates prevailing for these commodity groups from 1991-92 to 1998-99 in India. Various functional forms were attempted to estimate the relationship between imports (in $ terms) and the tariff rates during this period. These included imports as a function of tariffs, and imports as a function of tariffs and gross domestic product (GDP) but the relationship was weak. In the latter case, the R2 was better but the ‘t’ values were insignificant for most commodity sectors. This indicated a multi-collinearity problem, as was also suggested in the high correlation co-efficient between the independent variables in the variance – covariance matrix. Next, the relative share of imports to GDP as a function of tariff was attempted in linear and as a double log function.

BASE CASE Table 2
Regression Results and Imports and Revenue under Existing Tariff Rates
2 digit
Commodity
Groups 		a b   t value(b)   R2 Avg.
Tariff
1999-00
(%) 		M/GDP
1999-00 		Total
Imports
1999-00
US $ million 		Total
Revenue
1999-00
Rs. Crore
1 -7.650 0.480 3.690 0.730 34.2 0.003 0.9 1.4
2 -6.870 0.600 0.960 0.320 16.5 0.006 2.0 1.4
3 0.590 -2.255 5.230 0.901 16.5 0.003 1.1 0.8
4 -1.150 -0.760 -0.840 0.120 35.7 0.021 7.4 11.5
5 -3.060 -0.300 -4.400 0.790 15.5 0.021 7.3 4.9
6 -3.210 -0.640 -0.950 0.150 10.1 0.009 3.3 1.4
7 0.470 -0.270 -2.870 0.620 14.5 0.777 274.6 173.7
8 0.850 -0.240 -1.830 0.400 40.0 0.965 341.2 593.9
9 -1.290 -0.340 -2.300 0.510 32.3 0.084 29.9 42.0
11 -3.480 -0.900 -1.420 0.290 38.5 0.001 0.4 0.7
12 -3.050 0.020 0.110 0.000 33.1 0.051 18.0 25.8
13 -1.340 -0.300 -1.920 0.420 33.7 0.091 32.2 47.2
14 -5.430 -0.170 -0.980 0.160 16.5 0.003 1.0 0.7
15 5.650 -1.330 -3.040 0.650 37.1 2.328 823.0 1327.1
16 -7.900 -0.240 -0.220 0.010 40.0 0.000 0.1 0.1
17 7.850 -2.520 -2.780 0.610 31.2 0.441 155.9 211.5
18 1.900 -1.530 -3.570 0.720 39.9 0.024 8.4 14.6
19 -7.060 1.160 8.830 0.940 38.6 0.060 21.0 35.3
20 3.910 -2.898 3.350 0.740 40.0 0.001 0.4 0.7
21 2.350 -0.970 -3.280 0.620 56.8 0.209 73.7 182.0
22 2.870 -1.170 -2.420 0.540 129.8 0.059 21.0 118.6
23 -1.740 -0.250 -0.990 0.160 37.0 0.071 25.2 40.5
24 1.510 -1.460 -3.530 0.710 40.0 0.021 7.3 12.8
25 0.180 0.050 0.380 0.030 29.3 1.418 501.2 639.6
26 0.060 -0.250 -3.240 0.680 8.4 0.624 220.4 80.6
27 3.650 -0.080 -0.320 0.020 24.6 29.777 10527.1 11269.6
28 1.420 -0.070 -0.380 0.030 37.9 3.208 1134.0 1870.5
29 3.700 -0.520 -2.310 0.520 36.6 6.219 2198.4 3503.0
30 -1.860 0.180 0.680 0.080 37.2 0.298 105.5 170.6
31 1.010 0.020 0.130 0.000 25.4 2.929 1035.5 1143.2
32 1.260 -0.490 -8.590 0.940 37.1 0.600 212.1 342.5
33 -1.870 -0.120 -0.390 0.030 43.5 0.555 196.3 371.3
34 0.470 -0.500 -13.620 0.970 40.0 0.253 89.4 155.6
35 -0.960 -0.420 -4.020 0.760 38.5 0.083 29.2 48.9
36 -7.450 0.480 1.480 0.300 38.5 0.003 1.2 2.0
37 -0.010 -0.170 -3.480 0.710 27.5 0.564 199.2 238.3
38 1.780 -0.470 -4.670 0.810 37.3 1.082 382.6 620.8
39 1.770 -0.200 -1.570 0.330 38.5 2.829 1000.1 1674.9
40 1.900 -0.500 -4.770 0.820 38.8 1.073 379.5 640.5
41 -0.850 -0.010 -0.300 0.020 17.8 0.415 146.8 113.6
42 -3.480 -0.360 -0.880 0.140 40.0 0.008 2.9 5.0
43 -1.470 -0.830 -2.260 0.510 18.3 0.021 7.3 5.8
44 -0.380 0.070 0.310 0.140 30.8 0.869 307.3 412.0
45 -5.570 0.170 1.950 0.430 38.5 0.007 2.5 4.2
47 0.045 -0.101 0.469 0.099 5.5 0.881 311.3 74.5
48 -1.070 0.270 0.740 0.100 38.9 0.922 325.9 551.9
49 -1.440 0.170 0.370 0.030 17.4 0.385 136.1 102.8
50 -0.320 -0.190 -0.420 0.030 38.5 0.363 128.3 214.9
51 -0.970 0.110 0.480 0.040 32.6 0.556 196.6 278.9
52 0.780 -0.610 -1.620 0.350 37.0 0.241 85.3 137.1
53 -0.070 -0.720 1.590 0.330 39.2 0.066 23.5 40.1
54 -0.070 -0.240 -0.930 0.150 39.5 0.386 136.4 234.3
55 3.050 -0.930 -5.200 0.840 39.8 0.687 243.0 420.2
56 0.690 -0.770 -4.370 0.790 40.0 0.116 41.2 71.6
57 4.650 -2.580 -5.500 0.860 40.9 0.007 2.6 4.6
58 0.230 -0.780 -3.860 0.750 39.4 0.072 25.3 43.4
59 4.620 -1.480 -7.990 0.930 40.0 0.432 152.7 265.7
60 -1.600 -0.520 -3.010 0.640 40.0 0.030 10.5 18.2
61 -1.560 -0.920 -3.030 0.650 40.0 0.007 2.5 4.3
62 -1.430 -0.990 -1.760 0.380 40.0 0.006 2.2 3.8
63 -1.730 -0.080 -0.270 0.010 39.4 0.132 46.7 80.0
64 -1.950 -0.150 -0.870 0.130 40.0 0.082 28.9 50.3
65 -0.040 -1.960 -3.720 0.730 40.0 0.001 0.2 0.4
66 -0.330 -0.760 -3.070 0.650 40.0 0.044 15.4 26.8
68 -1.500 -0.230 -2.620 0.580 39.9 0.096 33.8 58.7
69 0.980 -0.250 -1.960 0.440 37.3 1.078 381.1 618.7
70 -0.360 -0.250 -2.230 0.500 40.0 0.277 98.1 170.7
71 1.690 0.290 2.370 0.530 29.5 14.456 5110.4 6549.1
72 2.360 -0.200 -1.820 0.400 37.5 5.129 1813.3 2961.0
73 0.680 -0.100 -1.100 0.190 38.5 1.370 484.4 811.2
74 2.050 -0.360 -6.540 0.900 38.5 2.087 737.8 1235.7
75 -0.540 -0.170 -1.730 0.370 16.5 0.362 127.9 91.8
76 2.690 -0.900 -5.650 0.860 27.5 0.746 263.8 315.6
79 0.760 -0.580 -1.980 0.440 38.5 0.257 91.0 152.4
80 0.480 -0.530 -3.910 0.750 27.5 0.279 98.6 118.0
81 -0.840 -0.260 -3.960 0.760 37.9 0.168 59.3 97.8
82 0.230 0.410 7.090 0.910 29.6 5.047 1784.1 2295.7
83 -0.880 -0.450 -3.290 0.680 40.0 0.079 27.9 48.5
84 5.330 -0.680 -15.180 0.980 28.2 21.291 7527.0 9246.5
85 3.430 -0.480 -5.180 0.840 32.4 5.820 2057.4 2895.2
86 -2.410 0.140 0.260 0.010 35.3 0.148 52.3 80.3
87 1.485 -0.317 2.916 0.680 39.5 1.377 486.8 835.8
88 2.224 -0.559 1.345 0.475 16.7 1.918 678.2 491.5
89 -1.200 0.130 0.520 0.050 16.8 0.435 153.6 112.2
90 0.710 0.020 0.320 0.020 31.2 2.179 770.3 1044.4
91 -2.000 -0.144 1.497 0.310 35.7 0.081 28.6 44.4
92 -3.05 -0.57 -1.08 0.19 38.5 0.006 2.1 3.5
93 -3.85 -0.71 -1.46 0.3 40.0 0.002 0.5 1.0
94 3.7 -1.67 -5.6 0.86 40.0 0.085 30.2 52.5
95 2.67 -1.44 -6.3 0.89 27.5 0.122 43.2 51.7
96 -0.92 -0.29 -4.91 0.83 40.0 0.137 48.3 84.1
97 -4.17 -0.78 -1.64 0.35 34.3 0.001 0.3 0.5
98 1.75 0.04 0.23 0.01 39.2 6.664 2356.0 4018.5
99 -0.63 -0.14 -0.51 0.05 0.0 0.533 188.3 0.0

Alternatively, the functions tried were :-

(Mi/GDP) = a + b*(Ti)

(Mi/GDP) = a * (Ti)b

where Mi is imports in US $ million and Ti is tariff rate in the ith commodity groups respectively seen at the 2 digit level.

The latter function yielded a better fit and hence was chosen for further analysis. Here, the b co-efficients directly give the elasticity of the imports to GDP ratio for ith commodity group with respect to tariff rates for that commodity group. Using these elasticities the import to GDP ratio for financial year 1999-2000 were projected taking the actual tariff rates from the budget document, 1999-2000. Given the growth rates of GDP projected for 1999-2000 from the Plan document, the levels of imports were estimated for the year. On the basis of these estimated imports and the given tariff rates, the total revenue was also looked at. The exemptions allowed under different heads have not been included. It may be mentioned that a comparison of the actual revenue collection to the potential revenue based on the prevalent tariff rates during the years for which data was available i.e. 1991-92 to 1997-98 showed a lower revenue collection than potential. The ratio varied from 59% to 86%, which at least partly can be explained by a plethora of exemptions under different categories.

The projections based on the current status indicate that the imports during 1999-2000 would be of the order of US $ 47983 million. This would imply an increase of 14.6% over the actual US $ 41887 million during 1998-99. The revenue corresponding to these imports would be Rs. 63272 crore in 1999-2000. The detailed results are in Table 2.

It was observed that the elasticities were greater than 1 for only thirteen sectors where the change in tariff led to a higher percentage change in imports. These included activities of preparations of vegetables, fruit, nuts or other parts of plants; fish and crustaceans; animal or vegetable fats and oils and its products; preparation of cereals, flour and other products; beverages, spirts and vinegar; tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes; impregnated, coated and laminated textile fabrics and textile articles for industrial use; toys, games and sports requisites; carpets and other textile floor coverings; sugars and sugar confectionery; headgear and parts thereof; furniture, bedding and allied articles, lighting, fittings, illuminated articles, prefabricated buildings; cocoa and cocoa preparations. For all other sectors, the elasticities are less than one. In certain cases the elasticities were positive. Here any reduction rate would lead to a reduction in imports and also a decline in revenue.

Table 3
SCENARIO 1 (Avg. Tariff half the Base Case and Peak to Avg. Factor of 5)
 2 digit Commodity
Groups		 Avg. Tariff
1999-00 		M/GDP
1999-00 		Total Imports 1999-00
US $ million 		Total Revenue 1999-00
Rs. Crore
1 17 0.002 0.7 0.5
2 17 0.006 2.0 1.5
3 17 0.003 1.1 0.8
4 17 0.037 13.0 9.6
5 17 0.02 7.1 5.2
6 17 0.007 2.3 1.7
7 17 0.745 263.2 194.7
8 17 1.185 419.0 309.9
9 17 0.105 37.1 27.5
11 17 0.002 0.9 0.6
12 17 0.05 17.7 13.1
13 17 0.112 39.6 29.3
14 17 0.003 1.0 0.7
15 17 6.565 2321.1 1716.4
16 17 0 0.1 0.0
17 17 2.035 719.3 531.9
18 17 0.088 31.0 22.9
19 17 0.023 8.1 6.0
20 17 0.014 4.8 3.5
21 80 0.149 52.8 183.9
22 80 0.105 37.0 128.8
23 17 0.086 30.6 22.6
24 17 0.072 25.6 18.9
25 17 1.379 487.7 360.6
26 5 0.71 251.0 54.6
27 17 30.672 10843.3 8018.6
28 17 3.393 1199.5 887.0
29 17 9.269 3277.0 2423.4
30 17 0.259 91.6 67.8
31 17 2.906 1027.2 759.6
32 17 0.88 311.0 230.0
33 17 0.11 38.8 28.7
34 17 0.388 137.2 101.5
35 17 0.116 41.2 30.5
36 17 0.002 0.8 0.6
37 17 0.612 216.2 159.9
38 17 1.566 553.5 409.3
39 17 3.331 1177.7 870.9
40 17 1.622 573.3 423.9
41 17 0.415 146.9 108.6
42 17 0.011 3.9 2.9
43 17 0.022 7.7 5.7
44 17 0.834 294.8 218.0
45 17 0.006 2.2 1.6
47 5 0.889 314.3 68.4
48 17 0.737 260.6 192.7
49 5 0.311 110.1 24.0
50 17 0.424 149.9 110.8
51 17 0.518 183.0 135.3
52 17 0.387 137.0 101.3
53 17 0.121 42.9 31.7
54 17 0.472 167.0 123.5
55 17 1.515 535.4 396.0
56 17 0.225 79.6 58.8
57 17 0.07 24.7 18.3
58 17 0.138 48.8 36.1
59 17 1.532 541.7 400.6
60 17 0.046 16.4 12.1
61 17 0.016 5.5 4.1
62 17 0.014 5.1 3.8
63 17 0.141 50.0 36.9
64 17 0.093 32.9 24.3
65 17 0.004 1.3 1.0
66 17 0.083 29.5 21.8
68 17 0.116 41.1 30.4
69 17 1.312 463.9 343.0
70 17 0.344 121.5 89.8
71 17 12.325 4357.2 3222.2
72 17 6.01 2124.6 1571.1
73 17 1.487 525.7 388.7
74 17 2.801 990.3 732.3
75 17 0.36 127.3 94.1
76 17 1.15 406.7 300.8
79 17 0.413 146.2 108.1
80 17 0.36 127.3 94.1
81 17 0.207 73.1 54.0
82 17 4.021 1421.7 1051.3
83 17 0.116 41.0 30.3
84 17 30.067 10629.3 7860.4
85 17 7.925 2801.8 2071.9
86 17 0.134 47.2 34.9
87 17 1.798 635.8 470.1
88 5 3.76 1329.1 289.1
89 5 0.371 131.3 28.5
90 17 2.153 761.0 562.8
91 17 0.09 31.8 23.5
92 17 0.009 3.3 2.5
93 17 0.003 1.0 0.7
94 17 0.356 126.0 93.2
95 17 0.244 86.3 63.8
96 17 0.175 62.0 45.8
97 17 0.002 0.6 0.4
98 17 6.445 2278.5 1685.0
99 0 0.533 188.3 0.0

1.3 Alternative Scenario

In view of the WTO negotiations, the average tariff rates are required to be brought down from the existing level of 34%, as seen before. The dispersion is, however, not very high when seen in relation to the rates prevalent in some developed countries, particularly those in USA, Canada, Japan, EU, etc. In view of this, an exercise was undertaken to see the impact on imports and revenue, given the existing elasticities as obtained from above. Two scenarios are looked at (i) where the average tariff rates are reduced by half and the peak rate to the average ratio is 5, and (ii) where the average tariffs are halved and related to elasticity of imports ratio to tariffs.

In Scenario-1, the existing tariffs at the 99 commodity level in 1999-2000 were adjusted to suggested levels of 0,5,17,80 percent for different commodity groups. This resulted in overall average duty rate of about 17.5%, SD of 9.8 and CV of 55.9. The ratio of peak to average would come to 5. With this structure, the average industrial rates came to 15.9, SD of 3.61 and CV of 22.68. The level of imports and revenue collection were then projected based on these tariff rates for different commodity groups. The results from this exercise have been shown in Table-3. It may be observed that the total import bill would increase to an estimated US $ 57534 million. The revenue would decline to an estimated Rs. 41538 crore. This would imply an increase in imports of 19.9% from the present level of US $ 47983 million (estimated) in 1999-2000 and a decline of revenue by 34%. Thus, though the tariffs are halved and brought closer to the levels existing in other developing countries, the imports would not jump significantly, as commonly apprehended, due to low elasticity in most sectors. The decline in revenue is, of course, much higher.

In Scenario-2, the tariff rates in the commodity groups were related to their respective elasticities and also taken to be more uniform i.e., prevailing at 15% and 25%, and 40% in exceptional commodity groups (Misc. edible preparations; Beverages, spirits and vinegar; and Arms and ammunition and parts thereof) where the present actual rates are high. For the commodities with a relatively high and negative elasticities of imports share to tariff rates i.e. £ (-) 0.75, the tariff rates were fixed at 25%. For all other commodity groups, tariff rates were taken to be 15%. Some commodity groups have positive elasticities in imports share to the tariff rates. In such cases, a tariff rate of 25% was taken for the commodity group which had an elasticity of ³ (+) 0.75 and 15% rate for others.

The overall average tariff rate was similar to as in Scenario-1 i.e. the average of 18.4%. The SD is 5.9 and CV is 32.1. The industrial tariffs in Scenario-2 are comparatively lower than the all commodity rates, with greater uniformity in the tariff structure, with the average of 16.0%, SD of 4.4 and CV of 27.6. The overall peak to average ratio in this scenario was about 2.2. The impact on imports in Scenario-2 shows imports to increase to US $ 56504 million i.e. 19.8% over the (estimated) base line situation, which is quite similar to the status as in Scenario-1. The revenue would decline to Rs. 38403 crore which is 40% lower than the base line. The detailed results are in Table 4.

Table 4
 SCENARIO 2 (Avg. Tariff half the Base Case and Peak to Avg. Factor of 2.5) Based on Elasticity
2 digit  Commodity
Groups 		b Avg. Tariff
1999-00 		M/GDP
1999-00 		Total Imports 1999-00
US $ million 		Total Revenue 1999-00
Rs. Crore
20 -2.898 25 0.004 1.6 1.7
57 -2.58 25 0.026 9.1 9.9
17 -2.52 25 0.77 272.2 296.0
3 -2.255 25 0.001 0.4 0.5
65 -1.96 25 0.002 0.6 0.7
94 -1.67 25 0.187 66.2 72.0
18 -1.53 25 0.049 17.2 18.7
59 -1.48 25 0.866 306.1 332.9
24 -1.46 25 0.041 14.6 15.8
95 -1.44 25 0.14 49.5 53.9
15 -1.33 25 3.931 1389.7 1511.3
22 -1.17 40 0.236 83.3 144.9
62 -0.99 25 0.01 3.5 3.8
21 -0.97 40 0.293 103.5 180.1
55 -0.93 25 1.058 374.1 406.8
61 -0.92 25 0.011 3.8 4.2
11 -0.9 25 0.002 0.6 0.7
76 -0.9 25 0.813 287.4 312.6
43 -0.83 25 0.016 5.6 6.1
58 -0.78 25 0.102 36.1 39.3
97 -0.78 25 0.001 0.4 0.5
56 -0.77 25 0.167 59.1 64.3
4 -0.76 25 0.027 9.7 10.5
66 -0.76 25 0.062 22.0 23.9
53 -0.72 15 0.133 46.9 30.6
93 -0.71 40 0.002 0.5 1.0
84 -0.68 15 32.738 11573.6 7551.8
6 -0.64 15 0.007 2.5 1.6
52 -0.61 15 0.418 147.8 96.5
79 -0.58 15 0.445 157.2 102.5
92 -0.57 15 0.01 3.6 2.3
88 -0.559 15 2.034 719.2 469.3
80 -0.53 15 0.385 136.0 88.7
29 -0.52 15 9.893 3497.4 2282.0
60 -0.52 15 0.049 17.5 11.4
34 -0.5 15 0.413 146.0 95.3
40 -0.5 15 1.726 610.3 398.2
32 -0.49 15 0.935 330.6 215.7
85 -0.48 15 8.416 2975.3 1941.4
38 -0.47 15 1.661 587.1 383.1
83 -0.45 15 0.123 43.4 28.3
35 -0.42 15 0.123 43.4 28.3
42 -0.36 15 0.012 4.1 2.7
74 -0.36 15 2.93 1035.9 675.9
9 -0.34 15 0.11 38.8 25.3
87 -0.317 15 1.871 661.5 431.6
5 -0.3 15 0.021 7.4 4.8
13 -0.3 15 0.116 41.1 26.8
96 -0.29 15 0.182 64.2 41.9
7 -0.27 15 0.77 272.3 177.7
81 -0.26 15 0.214 75.5 49.3
23 -0.25 15 0.089 31.5 20.6
26 -0.25 15 0.54 190.7 124.5
69 -0.25 15 1.354 478.6 312.3
70 -0.25 15 0.355 125.3 81.8
8 -0.24 15 1.221 431.8 281.8
16 -0.24 15 0 0.1 0.0
54 -0.24 15 0.487 172.1 112.3
68 -0.23 15 0.12 42.3 27.6
39 -0.2 15 3.416 1207.6 787.9
72 -0.2 15 6.162 2178.4 1421.4
50 -0.19 15 0.434 153.5 100.1
14 -0.17 15 0.003 1.0 0.6
37 -0.17 15 0.625 220.9 144.1
75 -0.17 15 0.368 130.0 84.8
64 -0.15 15 0.095 33.5 21.9
91 -0.144 15 0.092 32.4 21.1
99 -0.14 15 0.533 188.3 122.9
33 -0.12 15 0.365 128.9 84.1
47 -0.101 15 0.796 281.3 183.6
73 -0.1 15 1.506 532.3 347.3
27 -0.08 15 30.98 10952.4 7146.4
63 -0.08 15 0.143 50.5 32.9
28 -0.07 15 3.423 1210.0 789.5
41 -0.01 15 0.416 147.1 96.0
12 0.02 15 0.05 17.7 11.5
31 0.02 15 2.898 1024.7 668.6
90 0.02 15 2.147 759.1 495.3
98 0.04 15 6.413 2267.2 1479.3
25 0.05 15 1.371 484.6 316.2
44 0.07 15 0.827 292.2 190.7
51 0.11 15 0.511 180.5 117.8
89 0.13 15 0.428 151.4 98.8
86 0.14 15 0.131 46.4 30.3
45 0.17 15 0.006 2.1 1.4
49 0.17 15 0.375 132.7 86.6
30 0.18 15 0.253 89.6 58.5
48 0.27 15 0.713 251.9 164.4
71 0.29 15 11.886 4201.9 2741.7
82 0.41 15 3.82 1350.5 881.2
1 0.48 15 0.002 0.6 0.4
36 0.48 15 0.002 0.8 0.5
2 0.6 15 0.005 1.9 1.2
19 1.16 25 0.036 12.7 13.8

It may be seen from above that a reduction in tariffs will result in decline in revenue, which may partly be compensated by higher levels of dutiable imports and lower incentive for underinvoicing, misdeclaration and smuggling. Secondly, the extent of diversion of imports into exempt channels will decrease as tariff rates are brought down, as has been experienced in many developing countries undergoing reforms.

2. Tariff Structure – India and Other Countries

2.1 Present Status of Tariff Structure

The status of tariff structure in India was compared with other selected countries using the latest Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) data base as indicated in McDougall and Elbehri (1998). Table-5 gives the detailed commodity-wise tariff structure in countries like Australia, Japan, Korea, Canada, USA, Great Britain, Sweden and the EFTA composite region. GTAP gives 43 commodity groups. Tariff structure in India during 1999-2000 has been adjusted to bring it in line with the commodity group given in the GTAP data base. Table-6 shows the aggregated status of average duty rates and the dispersion prevailing in these countries for all commodities along with the break up of industrial, agriculture and mining sectors separately. It may be observed that the average duty rates in India during 1999-2000 fall from 34.24 when seen as per 99 commodity groups to 29.7 when aggregated to the 43 commodity groups to match the data for other countries as per GTAP classification. The CV declined from 38.14 to 33.28 with this change in aggregation.

The comparative study of India with these countries shows that the average duty rates range from 4.18% in Canada to 67.15% in Japan and 70.90% in the EFTA region. The sector-wise analysis shows that the average rates are much higher in agriculture sector than mining and industry in most of the developed countries examined here. The average rates are highest for food items like cereals, dairy and meat products and also sugarcane, particularly in developed countries of Japan, Korea, Great Britain, Sweden and EFTA countries. In these countries, the tariff rates in the mining and industrial sectors are low. On the other hand, in India, the agricultural tariffs are much lower as compared to these countries, even though industrial and mining tariff rates still prevail much higher. As far as the CV is concerned, it is very high for most of the countries reaching 226.92 in Japan, 231.04 in Sweden, with the highest being 318.74 in Canada. In India, the CV is relatively low, as also seen before. The overall ratio of the peak tariff rate in the selected developed countries to the average is similarly very high and is over 10 for countries like USA and Britain, and 20.58 in Canada.   

Table 5 Average import tariffs, by commodity in Selected Countries 
Commodity Groups A U S J P N K O R C A N U S A G B R S W E E F T IND
Paddy rice 1.2 503 25.6 0 0.3 128.2 111.7 0 0
Wheat 0 535.1 59.2 0.3 1.8 3.1 0.4 235.1 0
Cereal grains n.e.c. 0 450 195.3 0.2 0 5.8 12.9 160.4 29.8
Vegetables, fruit, nuts 2.2 5.9 33.5 0.2 1.3 2.5 1.7 67.4 27.2
Oil seeds 0 0 7.4 0 0 0 0 501 33.1
Sugarcane, Sugar beet 2 142.9 51.7 7.3 63.8 75.9 76 277 NA
Plant-based fibres 3.3 42 2 3.2 0.1 37.9 33.9 68 NA
Crops n.e.c. 6 1.1 5.9 0.1 3.6 1.4 1.2 49.8 28.5
Cattle, sheep, etc. 0 48.1 4.9 0 0 53.5 97.3 205.1 34.2
Animal prods. n.e.c. 0 1 4 0 0.3 0.3 0.2 24.9 10.4
Raw milk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA
Wool, Silk-worm cocoons 0 0 10.7 0 8.4 0 0 50.9 22.8
Forestry 0 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 0.2 31.5
Fishing 0 4.4 12.9 0 0.3 4 1.4 0.3 16.5
Coal 0 0 1 0 0 0.4 0.3 0.2 16.5
Oil 0 0.7 5 8.6 0.2 0 0 0.7 14.7
Gas 4.8 0 2.8 0 0 0 0 0.3 NA
Minerals n.e.c. 0.6 0 1.8 0 0.1 0 0 0 22.4
Cattle, sheep, etc., meat prods. 0 48.1 40.3 0 0 64.4 43.6 205.1 16.5
Meat prods. n.e.c. 0.3 61.2 40.3 5.8 1.8 1.1 3.1 187.3 39.6
Vegetable oils and fats 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 0 501 37.1
Dairy prods. 12.8 350.5 100.9 86.1 51.8 20.5 4.7 265.1 35.6
Precessed rice 1.2 503 126.8 0 0.3 19.5 64.6 0 NA
Sugar 3.1 142.9 4.9 7.3 63.8 61.9 23 227 31.2
Food prods.n.e.c. 3.6 6.8 17.9 4.2 1.9 2.8 2.2 2.8 41.6
Beverages, tobacco prods. 5.3 3.7 35.3 6.9 19 3.6 2.7 4.1 99.8
Textiles 21.5 3.5 7.1 5.6 7.3 2.3 1.1 1.5 39.1
Wearing apparel 6.6 6.8 8 18 11.6 7.2 4.7 4.5 40
Leather prods. 19.3 9.6 5.8 12 8 2.8 2 2.9 31.7
Wood prods. 7.2 0.9 6.9 1 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.4 27.8
Paper prods.,publishing 6.5 0.5 4.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.1 34.8
Petroleum, coal prods. 0.1 2.7 4.3 1.3 3.5 0.5 0.1 0.2 28.1
Chemical, rubber,plastic prods. 7.7 2.2 7.5 1.5 2.9 1 0.4 0.4 37
Mineral prods. N.e.c. 9.8 1.6 7.4 1.4 5 1.3 0.7 0.4 35.2
Ferrous metals 7 1.6 6 2.2 2.8 0.7 0.3 0.3 37.7
Metals n.e.c. 5.6 0.4 5 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.4 33
Metal prods. 12.6 1 8 1.7 2.6 1.5 0.7 0.4 32.8
Motor vehicles, parts 15.6 1.3 8.8 0.8 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.5 39.5
Transport equipment n.e.c. 3.5 2.4 2.7 0.7 1.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 24.7
Electronic equipment 4.9 0.9 8 0.4 1.1 2.6 1 1.2 32.3
Machinery, equipment n.e.c. 9.4 0.2 8 1.1 2.3 1.5 0.7 0.4 29.1
Manufactures n.e.c. 11.7 1.3 7.7 1.3 2.4 3 1.6 0.6 35.2
Electricity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source : GTAP Database
AVG. 4.5 67.1 21 4.2 6.4 12 11.6 70.9 29.7
STD.DEV. 5.5 152.4 37.6 13.3 15.3 26.4 26.7 129.1 16.2
CV 121.5 226.9 179.5 318.7 241.4 220.2 231 182 54.6
Max 21.5 535.1 195.3 86.1 63.8 128.2 111.7 501 99.8
Ratio Max. /Avg. 4.7 8 9.3 20.6 10 10.7 9.7 7.1 3.4
Source : Derived from GTAP Database, Version 4
           : For India Derived from Information contained in the Budget Document, 1999-00.
A U S Australia (1993)
J P N Japan (1996)
K O R Republic of Korea ( 1995)
C A N Canada (1996)
U S A United States of America (1996)
G B R Great Britain
S W E Sweden
E F T EFTA (Composite Region) (includes Iceland, Norway and Switzerland)
IND India (1999-2000)

 

Table 6 : Average import tariffs, by commodity and importing region
A U S J P N K O R C A N U S A G B R S W E E F T IND
All Commodities
AVG. 4.5 67.1 21 4.2 6.4 12 11.6 70.9 29.7
STD.DEV. 5.5 152.4 37.6 13.3 15.3 26.4 26.7 129.1 16.2
CV 121.5 226.9 179.5 318.7 241.4 220.2 231 182 54.6
Max 21.5 535.1 195.3 86.1 63.8 128.2 111.7 501 99.8
Ratio Max. /Avg. 4.7 8 9.3 20.6 10 10.7 9.7 7.1 3.4
Agriculture
AVG. 2 135.5 36.8 5.8 10.4 23 22.8 144.4 30.5
STD.DEV. 3.1 197.9 49.5 18.6 21.2 34.8 35.2 154.6 21.8
CV 159.2 146.1 134.5 321.4 204.3 151.6 154.2 107 71.6
Max. 12.8 535.1 195.3 86.1 63.8 128.2 111.7 501 99.8
Ratio Max. / Avg. 6.6 3.9 5.3 14.9 6.1 5.6 4.9 3.5 3.3
Industry
AVG. 9 2.4 6.8 3 3.2 2 1.1 0.9 30.8
STD.DEV. 6.1 2.6 2.8 5 3.3 1.7 1.1 1.2 10.3
CV 68 108.6 41.7 166.6 103.2 88.8 103 129 33.3
Max. 21.5 9.6 12.9 18 11.6 7.2 4.7 4.5 40
Ratio Max. / Avg. 2.4 4 1.9 6 3.7 3.7 4.4 4.9 1.3
Mining
AVG. 1.9 0.6 3.3 1.7 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.3 22.9
STD.DEV. 2.6 1.1 1.7 3.4 1.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 7.7
CV 141.4 166.1 51.5 196.3 183 119 138.2 78.9 33.6
Max. 5.6 2.7 5 8.6 3.5 0.8 0.5 0.7 33
Ratio Max. / Avg. 3 4.3 1.5 5 4.7 2.8 3.3 2.3 1.4

Source : Derived from GTAP Database, Version 4
           : For India Derived from Information contained in the Budget Document, 1999-00.
A U S Australia (1993)
J P N Japan (1996)
K O R Republic of Korea ( 1995)
C A N Canada (1996)
U S A United States of America (1996)
G B R Great Britain
S W E Sweden
E F T EFTA (Composite Region) (includes Iceland, Norway and Switzerland)
IND India (1999-2000)

2.2 Alternative Scenario

An exercise was undertaken to look at the impact of reduction in tariff rates in selected developed countries, on the lines discussed in the alternate scenario for India. In Case-1, the tariffs were reduced to half for certain agricultural commodities in countries like Japan, Korea, Great Britain, Sweden, EFTA, and also for some sectors in USA and Canada. Tariff structure in Australia was not altered since the rates are anyway low. In Case-2, the agricultural tariffs were reduced such that the ratio of peak to the average rates came down to around 5 for these selected countries. The results are given in Table-7 and 8 respectively.

It may be seen that in Case-1, reduction in the agricultural tariffs would bring down the overall tariff from 67.1% to 36.5% in Japan, 21% to 16.1% in Korea, 12% to 9.7% in Great Britain, 11.6% to 8.3% in Sweden and 70.9% to 38.9% in EFTA countries and in USA from 6.4% to 4.4%. In case of Canada, tariff rate was halved for dairy products only and this brought down the overall average from 4.2 to 3.2. The dispersion as seen by the CV declines somewhat marginally in all these countries.

In Case-2, when the peak to average ratios were brought to around 5, it may be observed that the overall average rates fall to 16.8% in Japan, 15.7% in Korea, 2.6% in Canada, 3.6% in USA, 7.4%, 5.8% in Sweden and 20% in EFTA countries. Here the fall in dispersion, as seen by the CV is much more pronounced in all the countries.

It may be mentioned that the results of the analysis are based on 43 commodity classification given by GTAP. In this classification, the share of agricultural commodities, where the bulk of the reductions are suggested, constitutes around 50% of the total number of commodities. The results will look very different if different levels of aggregation are taken and the average tariff rates and dispersion in alternative scenarios suggested here.

It is important to emphasize development of a criteria for finalisation of tariff structure which is fair and rational. The basis could be average tariff rates, co-efficient of variation or even the peak to average rate. Countries like India and many other LDCs have relatively high but similar average rates for both agricultural and industrial imports. Reduction of tariffs in these LDCs is being underlined. On the other hand, as seen above, many of the developed countries have very high agricultural (average) tariffs along with very low industrial tariffs. Some of these developed countries could be asked to limit the dispersion and reduce peak rates, particularly agricultural tariff rates. It is these aspects which need to be focused while negotiating reduction of tariff rates.

 

Table 7 Adjusted Average Import Tariff - Case I
A U S J P N K O R C A N U S A G B R S W E E F T IND *
Paddy rice 1.2 250 25.6 0 0.3 65 55 0 0
Wheat 0 270 59.2 0.3 1.8 3.1 0.4 120 0
Cereal grains n.e.c. 0 225 100 0.2 0 5.8 12.9 80 13.1
Vegetables, fruit, nuts 2.2 5.9 33.5 0.2 1.3 2.5 1.7 67.4 15.8
Oil seeds 0 0 7.4 0 0 0 0 250 17
Sugarcane, Sugar beet 2 70 51.7 7.3 35 40 40 140 NA
Plant-based fibres 3.3 42 2 3.2 0.1 37.9 33.9 68 NA
Crops n.e.c. 6 1.1 5.9 0.1 3.6 1.4 1.2 49.8 15.9
Cattle, sheep, etc. 0 48.1 4.9 0 0 53.5 50 100 15
Animal prods. n.e.c. 0 1 4 0 0.3 0.3 0.2 24.9 10.7
Raw milk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA
Wool, Silk-worm cocoons 0 0 10.7 0 8.4 0 0 50.9 17
Forestry 0 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 0.2 17
Fishing 0 4.4 12.9 0 0.3 4 1.4 0.3 17
Coal 0 0 1 0 0 0.4 0.3 0.2 17
Oil 0 0.7 5 8.6 0.2 0 0 0.7 17
Gas 4.8 0 2.8 0 0 0 0 0.3 NA
Minerals n.e.c. 0.6 0 1.8 0 0.1 0 0 0 13.8
Cattle, sheep, etc., meat prods. 0 48.1 40.3 0 0 64.4 43.6 100 17
Meat prods. n.e.c. 0.3 61.2 40.3 5.8 1.8 1.1 3.1 95 17
Vegetable oils and fats 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 0 250 17
Dairy prods. 12.8 175 50 45 25 20.5 4.7 140 17
Precessed rice 1.2 250 65 0 0.3 19.5 64.6 0 NA
Sugar 3.1 70 4.9 7.3 35 61.9 23 115 17
Food prods.n.e.c. 3.6 6.8 17.9 4.2 1.9 2.8 2.2 2.8 26.4
Beverages, tobacco prods. 5.3 3.7 35.3 6.9 19 3.6 2.7 4.1 59
Textiles 21.5 3.5 7.1 5.6 7.3 2.3 1.1 1.5 17
Wearing apparel 6.6 6.8 8 18 11.6 7.2 4.7 4.5 17
Leather prods. 19.3 9.6 5.8 12 8 2.8 2 2.9 17
Wood prods. 7.2 0.9 6.9 1 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.4 15
Paper prods.,publishing 6.5 0.5 4.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.1 14.9
Petroleum, coal prods. 0.1 2.7 4.3 1.3 3.5 0.5 0.1 0.2 17
Chemical, rubber,plastic prods. 7.7 2.2 7.5 1.5 2.9 1 0.4 0.4 17
Mineral prods. N.e.c. 9.8 1.6 7.4 1.4 5 1.3 0.7 0.4 17
Ferrous metals 7 1.6 6 2.2 2.8 0.7 0.3 0.3 16.9
Metals n.e.c. 5.6 0.4 5 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.4 17
Metal prods. 12.6 1 8 1.7 2.6 1.5 0.7 0.4 16.4
Motor vehicles, parts 15.6 1.3 8.8 0.8 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.5 17
Transport equipment n.e.c. 3.5 2.4 2.7 0.7 1.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 10.1
Electronic equipment 4.9 0.9 8 0.4 1.1 2.6 1 1.2 17
Machinery, equipment n.e.c. 9.4 0.2 8 1.1 2.3 1.5 0.7 0.4 17
Manufactures n.e.c. 11.7 1.3 7.7 1.3 2.4 3 1.6 0.6 16.6
Electricity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source : GTAP Database
AVG. 4.5 36.5 16.1 3.2 4.4 9.7 8.3 38.9 16.2
STD.DEV. 5.5 75.9 21.6 7.5 8.5 18.9 17 64.9 8.7
CV 121.5 207.9 133.7 233.5 193.7 195.4 204.8 166.7 53.8
Max 21.5 270 100 45 35 65 64.6 250 59
Ratio Max. /Avg. 4.7 7.4 6.2 13.9 8 6.7 7.8 6.4 3.6
Source : Derived from GTAP Database, Version 4
           : For India Derived from Information contained in the Budget Document, 1999-00.
A U S Australia (1993)
J P N Japan (1996)
K O R Republic of Korea ( 1995)
C A N Canada (1996)
U S A United States of America (1996)
G B R Great Britain
S W E Sweden
E F T EFTA (Composite Region) (includes Iceland, Norway and Switzerland)
IND * India (1999-2000)

 

Table 8 Adjusted Average import tariff - Case II
A U S J P N K O R C A N U S A G B R S W E E F T IND
Paddy rice 1.2 85 25.6 0 0.3 35 30 0 0
Wheat 0 85 59.2 0.3 1.8 3.1 0.4 50 0
Cereal grains n.e.c. 0 85 80 0.2 0 5.8 12.9 40 13.1
Vegetables, fruit, nuts 2.2 5.9 33.5 0.2 1.3 2.5 1.7 35 15.8
Oil seeds 0 0 7.4 0 0 0 0 100 17
Sugarcane, Sugar beet 2 35 51.7 7.3 20 40 30 70 NA
Plant-based fibres 3.3 42 2 3.2 0.1 37.9 30 35 NA
Crops n.e.c. 6 1.1 5.9 0.1 3.6 1.4 1.2 49.8 15.9
Cattle, sheep, etc. 0 48.1 4.9 0 0 40 30 50 15
Animal prods. n.e.c. 0 1 4 0 0.3 0.3 0.2 24.9 10.7
Raw milk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA
Wool, Silk-worm cocoons 0 0 10.7 0 8.4 0 0 50.9 17
Forestry 0 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 0.2 17
Fishing 0 4.4 12.9 0 0.3 4 1.4 0.3 17
Coal 0 0 1 0 0 0.4 0.3 0.2 17
Oil 0 0.7 5 8.6 0.2 0 0 0.7 17
Gas 4.8 0 2.8 0 0 0 0 0.3 NA
Minerals n.e.c. 0.6 0 1.8 0 0.1 0 0 0 13.8
Cattle, sheep, etc., meat prods. 0 48.1 40.3 0 0 35 30 50 17
Meat prods. n.e.c. 0.3 30 40.3 5.8 1.8 1.1 3.1 50 17
Vegetable oils and fats 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 0 100 17
Dairy prods. 12.8 85 80 20 20 20.5 4.7 70 17
Precessed rice 1.2 85 35 0 0.3 19.5 30 0 NA
Sugar 3.1 35 4.9 7.3 20 35 23 60 17
Food prods.n.e.c. 3.6 6.8 17.9 4.2 1.9 2.8 2.2 2.8 26.4
Beverages, tobacco prods. 5.3 3.7 35.3 6.9 19 3.6 2.7 4.1 59
Textiles 21.5 3.5 7.1 5.6 7.3 2.3 1.1 1.5 17
Wearing apparel 6.6 6.8 8 18 11.6 7.2 4.7 4.5 17
Leather prods. 19.3 9.6 5.8 12 8 2.8 2 2.9 17
Wood prods. 7.2 0.9 6.9 1 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.4 15
Paper prods.,publishing 6.5 0.5 4.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.1 14.9
Petroleum, coal prods. 0.1 2.7 4.3 1.3 3.5 0.5 0.1 0.2 17
Chemical, rubber,plastic prods. 7.7 2.2 7.5 1.5 2.9 1 0.4 0.4 17
Mineral prods. N.e.c. 9.8 1.6 7.4 1.4 5 1.3 0.7 0.4 17
Ferrous metals 7 1.6 6 2.2 2.8 0.7 0.3 0.3 16.9
Metals n.e.c. 5.6 0.4 5 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.4 17
Metal prods. 12.6 1 8 1.7 2.6 1.5 0.7 0.4 16.4
Motor vehicles, parts 15.6 1.3 8.8 0.8 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.5 17
Transport equipment n.e.c. 3.5 2.4 2.7 0.7 1.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 10.1
Electronic equipment 4.9 0.9 8 0.4 1.1 2.6 1 1.2 17
Machinery, equipment n.e.c. 9.4 0.2 8 1.1 2.3 1.5 0.7 0.4 17
Manufactures n.e.c. 11.7 1.3 7.7 1.3 2.4 3 1.6 0.6 16.6
Electricity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source : GTAP Database
AVG. 4.5 16.8 15.7 2.6 3.6 7.4 5.8 20 16.2
STD.DEV. 5.5 28.4 20.4 4.6 5.9 12.9 10.6 29.3 8.7
CV 121.5 169 130.2 175.6 163.7 174.8 182.4 146.6 53.8
Max 21.5 85 80 20 20 40 30 100 59
Ratio Max. /Avg. 4.7 5.1 5.1 7.6 5.6 5.4 5.2 5 3.6
Source : Derived from GTAP Database, Version 4
           : For India Derived from Information contained in the Budget Document, 1999-00.
A U S Australia (1993)
J P N Japan (1996)
K O R Republic of Korea ( 1995)
C A N Canada (1996)
U S A United States of America (1996)
G B R Great Britain
S W E Sweden
E F T EFTA (Composite Region) (includes Iceland, Norway and Switzerland)
IND India (1999-2000)

3. Concluding Remarks

From the above preliminary analysis of tariff structure in India and other selected developed countries, it may be suggested that the negotiations for reduction of tariff rates by LDCs should also include a categorical discussion on reduction in dispersion and peak rates by the developed countries. The peak rates in these latter set of countries are very high for several agricultural commodities, most of which are important export items of many LDCs. The overall tariff rates are required to be more uniform globally, along with due regard to permissible level of dispersion. It is of course, important to mention that the study is based on aggregated data at the 43 commodity level (as brought out by the GTAP). There is need to see greater levels of dis-aggregation for more detailed and meaningful negotiations.

As far as India is concerned, it is well recognized that we need to further streamline the tariff structure so that it is considerably simplified with greater transparency in the operations of the external sector. This would facilitate gains in industrial efficiency and enhance competitiveness. It was observed that in such a changed scenario where the average rates were brought down by half, the imports may not increase substantially although the revenue would suffer. For this the exemptions need to be done away with.

References:

  • Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics, ‘Statistics of the Customs and Excise Revenue Collection of the Indian Union, relevant issues.
  • Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Budget Documents, relevant issues.
  • Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Economic Survey, relevant issues.
  • Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence, Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, relevant issues.
  • McDougall, R and Elbehri, A (1998), Protection and Support in McDougall, R.A., A. Elbehri and T.P. Truong(ed.) : Global Trade Assistance and Protection : The GTAP Database, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University.
  • Pritchett, L and Sethi, G (1994) ‘Tariff Rates, Tariff Revenue, and Tariff Reform : Some New Facts, World Bank Economic Review, Vol.8, No.1. January ’94.
  • World Bank (1998), India 1998 Macro-economic Update, Washington D.C.
  • World Trade Organisation, (1995), WTO – Legal Text, WTO, Geneva.