India flags trade concerns, market access barriers; China reacts

India raised two connected concerns: its trade deficit with China was widening, and Indian products still faced limited access to the Chinese market. Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman called non-tariff barriers the biggest obstacle, despite years of engagement and repeated requests for better access.

She pointed to restrictions affecting generic medicines, bovine meat, vegetables and other perishable goods. India also objected to China’s use of phytosanitary measures and other non-tariff rules. Sitharaman said India had pursued discussions rather than punitive tariffs or countervailing duties.

China responded through foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning. She said China never aimed for a trade surplus and was ready to work with India on each other’s economic and trade concerns. The two sides are continuing trade discussions, but India says the deficit and market-access barriers remain unresolved.

Non-tariff barriers are government rules, procedures or requirements that affect imports without directly charging a tariff. They may concern product safety, health, testing, labelling, certification or approval. Such rules can be legitimate, but they can also make market entry slower, costlier or harder for exporters.

Phytosanitary measures focus on plant health and protection from pests or diseases. For example, vegetables and other agricultural goods may need inspections, certificates or compliance with detailed conditions before import. India argued that these requirements, along with other restrictions, limited access for its goods in China. Sitharaman said the concerns could be addressed through investigations and discussions.

The issue matters because India has sought access for pharmaceuticals and agricultural products for nearly a decade. China’s rules have remained a major Indian complaint, even while bilateral trade has grown and both governments signal interest in improving trade ties.

India’s trade deficit with China reached $105.93 billion during January–September. China Customs data showed that the deficit increased 20.7% from the corresponding period a year earlier. This means the value of India’s purchases from China exceeded the value of its sales to China by that amount.

Bilateral trade totalled $144.45 billion in the nine-month period, up 25.4%. China’s exports to India rose 23.3% to $125.19 billion. India’s exports to China grew faster, rising 40.7% to $19.26 billion. The export figures show growth on both sides, but they are very different in absolute size.

That gap explains why the deficit remained heavily tilted toward China. India’s faster export growth did not offset the much larger value of Chinese exports to India. The figures strengthened India’s argument for better market access and more balanced trade.

A trade deficit depends on the value of exports and imports, not only on their growth rates. India can increase its sales to China quickly while still buying much more from China. If imports start from a much larger base, their total value can remain far higher even when exports grow faster in percentage terms.

The January–September figures show this clearly. India’s exports to China rose 40.7% to $19.26 billion. China’s exports to India increased 23.3%, but reached $125.19 billion. The difference between those values produced a $105.93 billion deficit.

This pattern matters because stronger Indian exports alone may not remove the imbalance. India is seeking better access for pharmaceuticals, agricultural goods and other products, while China says it is ready to address both sides’ concerns. Continued trade discussions could affect whether the gap narrows, but the article reports no resolution yet.

India has consistently sought greater access to China for information technology, pharmaceuticals and agricultural goods. These sectors matter because the article identifies them as areas where India wants more opportunities to sell into the Chinese market. Sitharaman also named generic medicines, bovine meat, vegetables and other perishable products.

Pharmaceuticals may face product approvals and other market-entry requirements, while agricultural goods can be subject to health and plant-protection rules. The article specifically highlights China’s phytosanitary measures. Such requirements can restrict access when exporters cannot secure approvals, meet conditions or complete the required investigations. They can therefore act as non-tariff barriers even without customs duties.

India says it has sought better access for nearly a decade but made little progress. That lack of progress is important because Indian exports rose to $19.26 billion, yet remained far below China’s exports to India. Both countries now signal continued discussions on trade issues.

India has several possible responses when market access remains restricted. It could impose tariffs, use countervailing duties where relevant, or seek stronger trade remedies. It could also reduce reliance on one market by developing sales and supply relationships with other trading partners. Diversification is a general option; the article does not say India is currently pursuing it.

The article says India has chosen negotiations instead of punitive tariffs or countervailing duties. Sitharaman argued that phytosanitary and other non-tariff issues could be handled through investigations and discussions. This approach avoids immediate escalation but can take time and may produce limited results when restrictions persist.

India’s trade deficit continued to grow despite years of engagement, so dialogue alone has become harder to rely on. The two sides are still holding trade discussions. China has expressed willingness to address concerns in a balanced way, while India continues to emphasise market access and the widening deficit.

A trade deficit is the value difference created when one country buys more goods from another country than it sells to that country. In India’s case, imports from China were much larger than exports to China during January–September. The deficit therefore measured the size of that gap, not the total amount of trade.

The figures show why the balance matters. India exported $19.26 billion to China, while China exported $125.19 billion to India. Bilateral trade still rose to $144.45 billion, but the exchange was heavily tilted toward China. Faster Indian export growth did not overcome the much larger import value.

A persistent deficit can become an economic and political concern because it influences requests for market access and possible trade responses. India links its widening deficit to restrictions on Indian goods. China says it is ready to address both countries’ concerns, while discussions continue.