인도는 ‘관세 왕(Tariff King)’인가? 사실은 그렇지 않다 | 오피니언

게재일: 2025년 8월 31일 오후 12:17 (EDT)

작성자: 모한 쿠마르 (전 인도 대사, Jadeja Motwani 미국학연구소 소장)

출처: Newsweek Opinion

인도의 관세가 과도하게 높다는 잘못된 인식이 널리 퍼져 있다. 그러나 ‘살기 좋은 나라냐’, ‘시민의 예의범절이 어떠냐’, ‘외국인을 얼마나 환대하느냐’ 같은 주관적인 평가와 달리, 관세는 수치로 확인 가능한 것이다. 따라서 사실을 놓고 따져보아야 한다.

우선, 저소득 개발도상국인 인도에서의 관세 기능과 고소득 선진국인 미국에서의 관세 기능이 어떻게 다른지 아는 것이 도움이 될 것이다. 전통적으로 저소득 개발도상국은 두 가지 이유로 관세를 사용한다. 첫째, 자국 산업을 보호하기 위해서이고, 둘째, 세수를 확보하기 위해서다. 특히 유아기 산업을 보호하고 산업 기반을 마련해야 할 때는 보호주의적 관세가 정당화된다. 또한 알코올이나 고급 오토바이에 부과되는 관세처럼 재정 수입을 얻는 기능도 있다.

인도의 관세는 1980년대에는 높았지만, 1991년 개혁과 우루과이라운드 협상(WTO 설립으로 이어짐) 이후 크게 낮아졌다. 그 이후로 인도의 관세는 매년 점진적으로 인하되는 추세를 보였다.

엄밀히 말하면, 관세에는 두 가지 유형이 있다. 하나는 적용관세(applied tariff)로, 외국산 제품이 국경을 통과할 때 실제로 부과되는 세금이다. 다른 하나는 약속관세(bound tariff)로, WTO 최혜국(MFN) 의무에 따라 법적으로 부과할 수 있는 최대 수준의 세율을 뜻한다.

미국이 시작한 ‘관세 전쟁’은 WTO 규정을 위반한 것이다. 물론 WTO 자체가 제 기능을 못하고 있긴 하지만, 저소득 개발도상국이 G7 국가보다 높은 관세를 유지하는 것은 당연하다.

그렇다면 인도의 실제 관세 수준은 어떨까? 인도를 평가할 때는 보통 두 가지 기준을 쓴다. 하나는 단순 평균관세(simple average tariff)이고, 다른 하나는 무역가중 평균관세(trade-weighted tariff)다. 단순 평균관세는 15.98%로 다소 높아 보인다. 그러나 이는 학술적인 수치에 불과하다. 실제로 중요한 것은 교역량을 반영한 무역가중 평균관세인데, 인도의 경우 4.6%에 불과하다. 이는 ‘인도가 관세 왕’이라는 주장과는 거리가 멀다. 단순 평균은 모든 품목을 같은 비중으로 취급하기 때문에 왜곡이 생기는 것이다.

물론 인도는 농업과 자동차 부문에서 상대적으로 높은 관세를 유지한다. 농업은 인구의 절반이 생계와 직결되어 있으며, 소규모 영세농 중심이고 기계화도 덜 되어 있다. 따라서 인도에 농산물 시장 개방을 요구하는 것은 사실상 ‘자살을 요구하는 것’과 다름없다. 게다가 서방 농업은 직접•간접 보조금 혜택을 받고 있어 형평성에도 맞지 않는다.

실제로 인도의 농산물 평균 관세는 약 33%이지만, 이는 EU(유제품 평균 37.5%, 최대 205% / 과일•채소 최대 261%), 일본(유제품 평균 61.3%, 최대 298% / 곡물 최대 258% / 육류•채소 최대 160%), 한국(농산물 평균 54%, 채소 최대 800% / 과일 최대 300%) 등에 비하면 높다고 보기도 어렵다.

자동차 산업도 대규모 고용을 창출하는 핵심 산업이므로 보호가 불가피하다.

심지어 인도의 단순 평균관세 15.98%도 방글라데시(14.1%), 아르헨티나(13.4%), 튀르키예(16.2%) 등과 비슷하거나 낮은 수준이다.

미국은 비농산물 수출에 관세 장벽이 있다 주장하지만, 전자•IT 분야를 보면 인도는 대부분의 IT 하드웨어, 반도체, 컴퓨터 및 관련 부품에 0% 관세를 적용한다. 전자제품 평균은 10.9%, 컴퓨터 기기 평균은 8.3% 수준이다.

이에 비해 베트남(전자 8.5%~35%), 중국(전자 5.4%~20%, 컴퓨터 최대 25%), 인도네시아(전자 6.3%~20%, 컴퓨터 최대 30%) 등은 더 높다.

따라서 인도가 농업•자동차 분야에서 방어적 관세를 유지하는 것은 정당화되며, 다른 부문에서는 결코 ‘관세 왕’이라고 부를 만한 수준이 아니다.

모한 쿠마르 박사는 전 인도 대사이자, OP 진달 글로벌대학교에 새로 설립된 Jadeja Motwani 미국학연구소의 소장이다.

이 글에서 표현된 견해는 필자 개인의 의견이다.

 

Is India a 'Tariff King'? Not Really | Opinion

Author:- Dr. Mohan Kumar, former Indian ambassador and director general of the newly established Jadeja Motwani Institute for American Studies at the OP Jindal Global University

There is a widespread but fallacious perception that India's tariffs are inordinately high.  There are subjective factors when it comes to a country like livability, public courtesy, or even how foreigners are welcomed. But tariffs are quantifiable and there should really be no place for subjectivity. So, let us consider the facts in the case.

Before we do that, however, it might be useful for the average reader to know as to what function tariffs perform in a low-income developing country like India, as opposed to say, a high-income developed country like the United States of America. Traditionally, low-income developing countries use tariffs for two reasons: one, to protect their domestic industry and two, to gain revenue from it. Protection of domestic industry is an accepted argument by economists all over the world, especially if the industry is an infant one and the country needs to develop an industrial base. Then, there is the revenue gaining function, which is illustrative of a country's duties on alcohol or luxury motorcycles, for instance.

India's tariffs, which were high in the 1980s, were brought down significantly since the 1991 reforms were initiated and during the negotiations related to the Uruguay Round, which led to the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Since then, the secular trend in India has been one of gradual reduction of the applicable tariffs year after year.

From a technical point of view, there are two kinds of tariffs that countries have. One is applied tariffs, which as the name indicates is the actual tariff (normally ad valorem) imposed at the border when a foreign good enters a country.

The other one is bound tariffs, which is the maximum tariff that a country can impose on a foreign good from a legal obligation arising from its most-favored-nation (MFN) commitments to the WTO.

It goes without saying that the tariff war initiated by the U.S. is in violation of its commitments under the WTO agreements. But then, the WTO itself has been moribund for a while. It is also worth noting that tariffs cannot be the same for all countries. It is a truism that low-income developing countries will have higher tariffs (for reasons mentioned above) compared to G7 countries.

So, where does India figure in all of this? When India is judged on tariffs, there are two parameters which are used. One is simple average tariffs, and the other is trade-weighted tariffs. If you use the former metric, India's tariff does seem high (15.98 percent). But this is in many ways academic because for most of the goods that come into the Indian market, it is the trade-weighted applied tariff that matters. And the trade-weighted tariff that India maintains is a very respectable 4.6 percent. This level of tariff gives the lie to claims that India is somehow a tariff king. Simple averages distort the picture since they treat all products alike regardless of the trade volumes. So, why is there such a big difference between India's simple average tariff and its trade-weighted tariff?

India does maintain relatively high tariffs in agriculture and automobiles. In both these cases, the main purpose of the tariffs is to protect domestic industry. Agriculture in India is sui generis and like no other major country in the world. Around 50 percent of India's mammoth population directly or indirectly depends on agriculture. Besides, agriculture in India is not mechanized and land holdings are so small that farming is about survival and not about commerce. Asking India to open its farm sector to imports is akin to asking it to commit suicide, which no elected government in India would agree to. This demand is especially egregious since Western farmers are beneficiaries of direct and indirect subsidies.

Given all of this, India does maintain relatively high tariffs for agriculture products, average rates of around 33 percent on meat, dairy, fruits, and cereals. But this is not surprising if you consider the fact that the European Union's average rate is 37.5 percent on dairy products going up to 205 percent, and up to 261 percent on fruits and vegetables. Compare this with Japan whose rate is 61.3 percent on dairy products, going up to 298 percent, and up to 258 percent on cereals, and 160 percent on meat and vegetables. Or South Korea, whose average is 54 percent on agricultural goods with 800 percent on vegetables, and 300 percent on fruits. Who is the tariff king in agriculture, you might ask? As for automobiles, this sector creates mass employment and is crucial for that reason.

Even India's simple average tariff levels at 15.98 percent is in line with global norms for developing economies. Bangladesh (14.1 percent), Argentina (13.4 percent), and Türkiye (16.2 percent), which are all countries with comparable or higher GDP per capita, maintain similar or higher tariffs.

On the U.S. saying their exports of non-agricultural products face tariff barriers in India , it is worth noting that U.S. exporters often face equal or lower tariffs in India compared to many Asian peers. In electronics and technology for instance, India has 0 percent tariff on most IT hardware, semiconductors, computers, and associated parts, with average tariffs of 10.9 percent on electronics and 8.3 percent on computing machinery.

In comparison, Vietnam has a tariff of 8.5 percent on electronic equipment, going up to 35 percent. China  has a tariff rate of 5.4 percent going up to 20 percent on electronics, and up to 25 percent on computing machinery. And Indonesia has a tariff rate of 6.3 percent on electronic equipment, going up to 20 percent, and up to 30 percent on computing machinery.

It is true that India maintains justifiable tariff protection for its agricultural, dairy, and auto markets for valid reasons. But its trade-weighted applied tariff in other sectors does not justify it being called a "tariff king" at all.