The revised Sanctioning Russia Act targets the five largest purchasers of Russian crude oil and the five biggest importers of Russian natural gas. China, India, Slovakia, Hungary and Azerbaijan are identified among the leading crude buyers, while China, France, Japan, Hungary and Belgium feature among the principal gas importers.
The bill would authorise President Donald Trump to impose tariffs of up to 100% on imports from countries that continue to provide significant revenue to Moscow through energy purchases. It would also permit penalties against nations accused of helping Russia evade existing oil sanctions.
The proposal is not yet law. It must pass both chambers of Congress and receive presidential approval before its provisions can take effect. Its sponsors are pressing for swift consideration, but its wide-ranging trade powers have already caused unease among lawmakers.
The legislation marks a softer version of an earlier plan that proposed blanket tariffs of 500% on countries buying Russian oil, gas, uranium and other products. Senators reduced the maximum penalty to broaden political support and address concerns that the original measure could severely disrupt global trade.
India remains exposed because Russia has become one of its most important crude suppliers since the outbreak of the Ukraine war. Russian oil accounted for about 35% of the country’s crude imports during 2025, compared with a marginal share before the conflict.
Lower-priced Russian barrels have helped refiners control input costs, maintain fuel supplies and protect margins during periods of volatility in West Asia. Refiners have also processed Russian crude into fuels for domestic consumption and overseas markets.
A 100% tariff would sharply raise the cost of Indian goods entering the US and could make many export categories commercially uncompetitive. Engineering products, textiles, garments, gems and jewellery, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, seafood and machinery could face pressure if the maximum rate were imposed broadly.
The US is one of India’s largest export destinations. Bilateral goods trade supports manufacturers, technology firms, logistics companies and thousands of smaller suppliers. Any steep tariff increase could disrupt orders, encourage American buyers to seek alternative suppliers and weaken investment sentiment.
The measure would give the US president considerable discretion over when tariffs should be introduced, reduced, waived or withdrawn. Supporters argue that such flexibility is required to pressure Moscow while avoiding unnecessary damage to allies and strategic partners.
Critics contend that the bill could provide the White House with expansive trade authority without sufficient congressional oversight. They also warn that tariffs could increase prices for American consumers and businesses that rely on imported goods.
The updated proposal includes limited exemptions for some countries that import smaller quantities of Russian gas and demonstrate meaningful efforts to reduce their dependence. That provision could protect certain European and Asian economies, although the criteria for relief remain open to interpretation.
New Delhi has consistently maintained that its oil purchases are guided by energy security, affordability and market conditions. With the country dependent on imports for more than four-fifths of its crude requirements, abrupt changes in sourcing can expose consumers and refiners to higher costs.
India has simultaneously expanded energy ties with the US, purchasing crude oil, liquefied natural gas and other products. American crude represented about 6.6% of its imports in 2025, while refiners have explored additional supplies from the US, West Asia, Africa and Latin America.
However, replacing Russian volumes quickly would be difficult. Refinery configurations, shipping distances, contractual commitments, freight rates and differences in crude quality influence purchasing decisions. Some Russian grades also remain attractive because they are offered at discounts to international benchmarks.
The legislation reflects mounting frustration in Washington over Moscow’s ability to sustain oil revenues despite years of sanctions. Its supporters say secondary pressure on major buyers is necessary because direct restrictions have not forced Russia to end the war.
Beyond tariffs, the bill proposes sanctions targeting senior Russian officials, financial institutions, energy projects and vessels linked to the so-called shadow fleet. These tankers are accused of moving Russian oil through opaque ownership structures, irregular insurance arrangements and frequent changes of registration.
