A $500,000 Lesson:Why 15 Indian Mango Shipments Were Destroyed in the U.S.A. and What It Tells Us About Trade Compliance & Diplomacy

[DrJoshua Ebenezer]

Even the king of fruits isn’t immune to the might of trade compliance. In a costly episode this May, 15 consignments of Indian mangoes were rejected and destroyed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) over documentation issues related to mandatory irradiation. The total financial loss: $500,000.

While the treatment itself had been carried out at a USDA-approved facility in Navi Mumbai, discrepancies in the USDA’s PPQ203 certification led to the consignments being denied entry at major U.S. airports, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Atlanta. Exporters were left stunned, as they had followed all protocol under USDA and Indian customs oversight.

 This isn’t just a clerical error, it’s a reminder of the fine line between compliance and diplomatic leverage in international trade. The India & U.S. agricultural trade relationship has often been punctuated by similar episodes.

Take, for instance:

1. India’s mango export ban to the U.S. between 1989–2007, which was lifted only after intense bilateral negotiations and the establishment of USDA-monitored irradiation facilities in India.
2. In 2019, India revoked tariff concessions on 28 U.S. products (including apples and almonds) in retaliation for the U.S. withdrawing India’s GSP (Generalized System of Preferences) benefits.
3. The U.S. has repeatedly suspended mango imports from countries like Pakistan and Mexico due to phytosanitary violations—even when treatment protocols were in place.

These are not isolated incidents; they reflect how tightly biosecurity enforcement is linked to trade policy and diplomatic posture.

From a legal standpoint, the U.S. was within its rights:

1. Under 7 CFR 319.56-4, irradiation is mandatory for mangoes entering the U.S.
2. PPQ Form 203 must be accurately completed and accompany the shipment.
3. Under 19 CFR 141.113, any documentation discrepancy—even if unintentional—can result in cargo being detained or rejected.
4. As per 7 CFR 319.56-6, the only options post-rejection are destruction or re-export—both at the importer’s expense.

Yet, exporters rightly question: Should they bear the loss for a document issued by a USDA official in a USDA-monitored facility?

While the WTO's SPS Agreement gives countries the right to enforce sanitary standards, it also mandates that such standards:

1. Be based on scientific justification.
2. Be least trade-restrictive.
3. And not serve as disguised trade barriers.

India may find support in recent WTO jurisprudence that emphasizes proportionality and procedural fairness in SPS enforcement. Moreover, Indian exporters could also draw parallels with the U.S. response to similar documentation errors from Latin American avocado exporters, where cargoes were held but not destroyed outright, after timely clarification was provided by their trade missions.

This episode underscores why India must: a) Raise such incidents through the Trade Policy Forum (TPF), the institutional bilateral mechanism with the U.S. for addressing trade irritants. b) Use this as a test case to review accountability in USDA-monitored processes within Indian territory. c) And push for a redressal mechanism for perishables wrongly penalized due to procedural lapses, much like the “early resolution windows” seen in U.S. Mexico fresh produce trade.

This isn’t just about 15 mango consignments. It’s about building resilient systems where exporters aren’t at the mercy of bureaucratic lapses. Where documentation is digitized, traceable, and dispute resolvable. Where compliance doesn’t become a casualty of diplomacy, but a facilitator of trust in trade.

If India wants to be a global export powerhouse, especially in agri-exports, it must demand accountability with diplomacy, not just duty compliance.

------

Author: Advocate. Immanuel Samraj Barnabas