The recent reduction of duties on apples imported from several of the 44 countries supplying India has raised concerns among domestic growers, a situation further exacerbated by the latest India-US trade agreement. The scenario emerges despite Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal’s February 7 assertion that the interim pact offers only a quota-based duty concession on US apples and includes safeguards to protect Indian farmers. Growers argue that while India has trade agreements with New Zealand, the European Union (EU) and the US, imports from these regions have so far been limited due to high prices, an equation they fear could now change.
Earlier, apples attracted an import duty of 50%. Under the new arrangements, duties on apples from New Zealand have been cut to 25%, while those from the EU have been reduced to 20%. Although the final India-US deal is yet to be notified, Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal said that the duty on apples is expected to be capped at 25%.
At the same time, the government has raised the minimum import price (MIP), a non-tariff barrier, from Rs 60 per kg, fixed in 2023, to Rs 80 per kg. Goyal has said that MIP has been imposed on certain products, including apples, to protect the farmers and the MSMEs, and that no imports are allowed below the floor price.
“Today, Apple has an MIP of Rs 50. And there’s a 50% duty, which adds Rs 25. So, Rs 75 is the base, or the floor, below which goods don’t enter the country. So, in some sense, that’s the protection that the apple farmers also get: that nobody can dump material and make it so cheap that apples don’t get a fair value. Even in the quota we have given to the US, the MIP is Rs 80. They produce high-quality apples. There’s a Rs 20 duty on that. So, the landed price will be Rs 100,” Goyal told a news agency last week after the announcement of the trade deal, alleviating farmers’ concerns.
Under the earlier regime, with a 50% import duty and an MIP of Rs 50 per kg, the minimum landed cost of imported apples worked out to around Rs 75 per kg, excluding logistics and other charges, says Harish Chauhan, Convenor, Sanyukt Kisan Manch (SKM), Himachal Pradesh. “This effectively provided protection to domestic farmers up to Rs 100 per kg, making it unviable to import apples priced below that level.”
“Earlier, if a $1 apple was imported and subjected to a 50% duty, the landed cost would reach about Rs 136 per kg. Now, with the MIP fixed at Rs 80 and the duty reduced to 25%, the effective price comes to around Rs 100 per kg. This creates an incentive for under-invoicing,” adds Chauhan, who also convenes the Hill State Horticulture Forum of Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh.
Stakeholders argue that importers may declare prices closer to the MIP, leading to revenue loss for the exchequer and price pressure on domestic farmers. While they acknowledge that MIP can act as a useful non-tariff barrier against cheaper apples from countries such as Iran and Turkey, they say it offers little protection against high-cost producers like the US, EU, and New Zealand when combined with lower duties.
“Though recommended by the ministry and notified by the DGFT, the MIP is never enforced on the ground. Cutting import duty would drain government revenues and badly hurt farmers and the domestic horticulture industry,” Chauhan says.
Notably, India is the world’s seventh-largest apple producer and a major consumer, with an annual demand of about 2.5 million tonnes (MT). Domestic output is estimated at 2-2.1 MT, leaving a gap of 0.4-0.5 MT that is met through imports. Nearly 80% of production comes from Jammu & Kashmir, with the remainder from Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand. The apple economy is valued at roughly Rs 12,000 crore in Jammu & Kashmir and about Rs 4,500 crore in Himachal Pradesh, according to government data.
There are also concerns over volume caps under the trade agreements. Imports from the EU are capped at 0.5 MT in the first year, rising to 1 MT over 10 years, while New Zealand’s quota starts at 0.032 MT and rises to 0.05 MT in five years. “There is no clarity yet on the US cap,” says Chauhan.
Apple imports from the US rose from 0.105 MT in 2015 to 0.147 MT in 2018. In 2019, the US imposed tariffs on steel and aluminium. India retaliated by raising apple import duty from 50% to 70%, sharply cutting shipments to about 0.005 MT in 2022 and 0.007 MT in 2023. The Centre rolled back the retaliatory duty during US President Joe Biden’s visit in 2023, triggering a rebound to around 0.037 MT in 2024 and nearly 0.06 MT in 2025. “Whenever duties go up, imports fall, and vice versa. “We fear a return to 2018-level imports,” says Chauhan.
Bashir Ahmad Basheer, Chairman of the Kashmir Valley Fruit Growers-cum-Dealers Union, says, “Washington apples have far higher productivity per hectare, and large-scale imports will put domestic growers under severe pressure. Once the import routes open, volumes could spiral out of control. This would be a major setback for both the Himachal and Kashmir apple economies. Currently, Washington apples are largely sold in coastal states. Meanwhile, our input costs are rising, but yields are not increasing at the same pace.”
In a February 7 letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Basheer pointed out that a tariff waiver on US apples would intensify stress on the Valley’s horticulture sector, as cheaper imports would be preferred by traders, hurting farmers. He noted that over seven lakh families in Kashmir depend directly or indirectly on horticulture.
Agriculture expert and economist Devinder Sharma warns that the 25% duty provision for apples under a potential India-US trade deal could be devastating for domestic growers, especially in Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh. “Such duty cuts would erode price protection and trigger a surge of cheaper imports directly competing with Indian apples in local markets,” he says.
Apple farmers are already grappling with climate change, erratic weather and rising costs. In Himachal Pradesh, Sharma noted, growers face a “double blow” from the proposed trade deal and the proposed withdrawal of the Rs 6,000 crore Revenue Deficit Grant (RDG). Sharma also flags serious concerns over quality and biosecurity. “No one is talking about quality checks, whether imported apples are genetically modified or meet Indian standards. If Washington apples struggle to find buyers even in the US, why should Indian farmers bear the burden?” he asks.
Recalling past experiences, Sharma says that when India first opened its apple market to the US some 10-15 years ago, imported consignments were found with pests and diseases. “We still lack adequate testing infrastructure. There are hardly any labs to verify whether imports are GM or non-GM. Rising imports inevitably increase pest risks, and India remains poorly prepared to deal with them,” he says.
Chauhan stresses that the demand-supply gap should not justify unchecked imports. “Instead of relying on imports, the focus should be on improving yields, storage, grading and logistics, where farmers lose 30-40% of produce,” he says.
Chauhan also points to the scale advantage enjoyed by US growers. The US produces 4.4-5 MT of apples annually, roughly double India’s output. Washington State alone accounts for about 0.7 MT, comparable to Himachal Pradesh’s production. “Ironically, Washington apples are not even the most preferred variety within the US,” he notes.
He adds that large retailers and corporates typically procure premium domestic apples at a base price of around Rs 90 per kg, which rises to Rs 130-140 per kg after packaging and retail costs. “If Washington apples land at similar prices, how will Indian farmers compete?” he asks.
Stakeholders fear that under the new tariff regime, Indian markets could be flooded with US apples, which, despite being less nutritious than apples from Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh, enjoy strong consumer preference due to the perception associated with American products.
However, the Indian farmers say they are not opposed to competition but stress the asymmetry in support systems. “In India, the total support given to a farmer is about $290 through schemes such as PM-Kisan. In the US, it is around $66,000. They have strong scientific and technical backing. We don’t,” they add.
Finally, stakeholders warn that large corporate cold chains may increasingly source apples in bulk from low-cost countries, such as Iran and Turkey, gradually eroding the market share of domestic growers. “Without stronger safeguards, farmers will lose ground over time,” says Chauhan.
Apple traders, however, disagree with farmers, saying the real market distortion comes from cheaper imports from Iran, Turkey and Afghanistan, while apples from the US, New Zealand and the EU have limited impact as higher production, freight, labour and packaging costs keep them expensive.
“Washington apples from the US are currently landing at $32-34 per 18-kg box, or about Rs 170 in India, and will remain expensive even if import duty is cut to zero. The fine print, whether the concession is time-bound or quota-based, will be crucial. The real distortion in the apple market comes from cheaper imports from Iran, Turkey and Afghanistan, while apples from the US, New Zealand and the EU have limited impact as higher production, freight, labour and packaging costs keep them expensive,” says Amitabh Dhawan, Director, JCO Agro Fresh.
Even in a worst-case scenario of zero duty under an eventual FTA, US apples would land at Rs 170-180 per kg, Dhawan adds. After factoring in importer margins, clearing, warehousing, container and wholesale costs, prices would rise to at least Rs 180-190, translating into a retail price of Rs 250-300. This is a niche segment that does not affect Indian apples, 80% of which sell in the Rs 50-150 range, with only 20% catering to the premium market.
“Protests should focus on cheaper imports from Iran and Afghanistan. Although Chinese apples are officially banned, they enter via Dubai with a change in origin, landing at Rs 150-200, with over 100 containers arriving almost every week. Apples from New Zealand and Chile are also landing in the $34-40 range,” notes Dhawan.
Source Name : Economic Times