Since the financial crisis began in the late 2000s, the tendency of protective trade has been strengthened in the globe. In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi evaluated the current FTAs of India as non-beneficial to India. The Modi administration has redirected its FTA strategy from the quantitative expansion that the previous administration pursued to the strategy that emphasizes qualitative growth. It is possible that the Modi administration implements protective trade policies directly and indirectly in order to push the 'Make in India' industrial growth policy that seeks to make India a global manufacturing hub. Therefore, negotiations for improving the Korea-India CEPA are likely to be delayed and face various obstacles.
  This study investigates relevant government bodies, institutions and policies on TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) and SPS (Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures) in India. It also analyzes relevant specific trade concerns to TBT and SPS, and explores the effects of TBT and SPS on exports to India.
  In Chapter 2, this report examines government bodies and institutions related to TBT and SPS and also relevant articles and Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) to the FTAs that India has already signed. India's standards and regulation systems are complex and poorly established, compared to those of advanced countries and hence India has continuously expanded its regulations and has established, revised and supplemented its systems. While most of the FTAs by India deals with TBT and SPS, the Japan-India CEPA and Singapore-India CECA are more detailed, compared to the Korea- India CEPA. On the other hand, India is not yet active to enforce MRAs.
  Chapter 3 analyzes pending specific trade concerns (STCs) on India's TBT and SPS, and especially the STCs on Korea by reviewing WTO's TBT and SPS Committees and STCs from the various trade reports. Most TBT related STCs raised by India were raised by the EU and the US and automobile-related items were the most frequently discussed. Most countries that raised TBT and SPS against India were advanced countries including the US. The most controversial issues were the differences between India's standards and international standards.
  In addition to the qualitative analysis, chapter 4 provides an empirical analysis of the effects of India's TBT and SPS measures on the exports to India of trading partners.
  First, in case of the entire trading countries and industries, the results show that overall India's TBT measures had a positive effect on exports to India while SPS measures are not expected to have much influence. In other words, India's TBT measures have a positive effect on export through the provision of market information and increasing product reliability against expectations.
  Secondly, when the industries are divided into agriculture and manufacturing, the estimates show that TBT has significant positive on exports to India in the manufacturing sector while SPS’s effect is limited. Our empirical results are in line with previous studies. However, the results for SPS were still statistically insignificant.
  Lastly, results of the effects of TBT and SPS on individual industries were disparate. TBT forms a trade barrier for processed primary goods, processed minerals, general machines, and electric machines, while rubber/chemicals and nonmetallic minerals that have high portions of intermediary goods and precision machinery and other manufacturing sectors that have high levels of capital goods gained positive impacts. In the case of SPS, exports of processed primary goods and the paper/lumber industry were expedited as a result of India's SPS measures while exports of the rubber/chemicals industry were blocked.
  This study provides suggestions and policy implications. It is suggested that the creation of a new division exclusive to the TBT and SPS measures on the Agri-food sector, policies in response to the political industrial application of the TBT and SPS, and policies in response to the poor administration systems on the TBT and SPS are needed. Lastly, it is recommended that the Korean government seeks to conclude an MRA with India to invigorate economic cooperation, including merchandise trade, between the two countries.
 

국문요약

제1장 서론

1. 연구의 필요성 및 목적
가. 연구의 배경과 필요성
나. 연구의 목적
2. 연구의 구성 및 방법

제2장 인도의 TBT와 SPS 관련 조직과 제도

1. 인도의 규제 및 표준 체계
2. 인도의 TBT 및 SPS 관련 주요 제도
가. BIS 인증
나. CDSCO 등록
다. 식료품 관련 규정
라. 기타
3. FTA 및 MRA 체결국과의 협력 동향
가. FTA에서의 TBT, SPS 관련 논의
나. 상호인정협정(MRA) 체결 사례 

제3장 인도 TBT 및 SPS 관련 특정무역현안(STC) 사례

1. 인도의 TBT 관련 STC 사례
가. 인도가 제기 받은 TBT 관련 STC 사례 
나. 인도가 제기한 TBT 관련 STC 사례
2. 인도의 SPS 관련 STC 사례
가. 인도가 제기 받은 SPS 관련 STC 사례
나. 인도가 제기한 SPS 관련 STC 사례
3. 한국의 對인도 TBT 관련 STC 현안 사례
가. 타이어 인증 규제
나. 철강 품질관리 규제
다. 2차 전지 안전 규제
라. 對인도 진출 우리 기업의 TBT 관련 비관세장벽 현황
4. 소결

제4장 인도의 TBT와 SPS가 對인도 수출에 미치는 영향

1. 이론적 배경 
2. 실증분석 방법 및 통계자료
가. 실증분석 모형
나. 자료
3. 실증분석 결과
가. 전체 산업 대상
나. 국가 특성별 분석
다. 산업 특성별 분석

제5장 결론 및 정책적 시사점

1. 요약
2. 한국의 對인도 수출전략에 대한 시사점
가. 농식품 분야의 TBT？SPS 전담 인력 및 대응 부서 신설 필요
나. TBT와 SPS의 산업 정책 활용에 대한 대응책 마련
다. 부실한 TBT？SPS 행정체계에 대한 대응
3. 한？인도 CEPA 추가 협상과 MRA에 대한 시사점

참고문헌

부록

Executive Summary