China has issued 19 million tons of export quotas for refined oil products in the first batch of allowances for 2026, underscoring Beijing’s continued use of administrative controls to balance domestic fuel supply with its role as a major exporter in regional and global energy markets.

According to three trade sources familiar with the allocations, who spoke to Reuters, the quotas cover gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, with volumes largely unchanged from the first batch released for 2025. In addition, authorities granted 8 million tons of export quotas for low-sulphur marine fuel, a product that has become increasingly important as global shipping complies with stricter environmental standards.

China, the world’s second-largest oil consumer and one of the biggest refining hubs globally, manages refined fuel exports through a quota system aimed at preventing domestic shortages, stabilizing prices, and ensuring refineries align output with local demand conditions. The steady size of the first 2026 tranche suggests policymakers are maintaining a cautious stance, avoiding aggressive increases in exports while leaving room to adjust later in the year depending on economic conditions and fuel demand.

State-owned oil giants once again dominated the allocation. Sinopec and China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), the country’s two largest refiners, were awarded a combined 13.76 million tons of export allowances for gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, accounting for more than 70% of the total volume. Their dominant share reflects Beijing’s preference for relying on state firms to execute energy policy objectives, particularly during periods of economic uncertainty.

Major private refiner Zhejiang Petrochemical received 1.56 million tons in this first batch, maintaining its position as the leading non-state beneficiary of export quotas. While private refiners have expanded rapidly over the past decade and now account for a significant share of China’s refining capacity, their access to export quotas remains tightly controlled, with state companies retaining the lion’s share.

A similar pattern emerged in the allocation of low-sulphur marine fuel quotas. Of the 8 million tons issued, almost 85% went to Sinopec and CNPC, reinforcing their central role in supplying bunker fuel to international shipping markets. China has become a key supplier of compliant marine fuel in Asia, particularly after the International Maritime Organization’s 2020 sulphur cap reshaped global bunker demand.

The steady quotas come against a backdrop of softer refined fuel exports this year. In the first 11 months of 2025, China exported 52.65 million tons of refined oil products, including gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel, and marine bunker fuel, down 3.2% from the same period a year earlier. Traders attribute the decline to weaker refining margins, uneven overseas demand, and Beijing’s preference for keeping more fuel at home amid sluggish but still uncertain domestic consumption trends.

Market participants say the early issuance of the first 2026 batch provides refiners with planning visibility while signaling that authorities are unlikely to significantly loosen export controls in the near term. Subsequent quota rounds later in 2026 will likely depend on factors such as domestic fuel demand, refinery utilization rates, oil prices, and broader economic conditions.

With global fuel markets still shaped by geopolitical tensions, energy transition policies, and uneven post-pandemic demand recovery, China’s quota decisions remain a closely watched barometer of how aggressively it intends to compete in refined product exports next year.

A sharp diplomatic row has erupted between Washington and European capitals after the United States imposed visa bans on five prominent European figures linked to efforts to regulate American technology companies, prompting accusations of “coercion and intimidation” from leaders including French President Emmanuel Macron.

The bans, announced on Tuesday, target Thierry Breton, the former EU commissioner who played a central role in designing the bloc’s Digital Services Act (DSA), alongside four anti-disinformation campaigners based in Germany and the UK. Those affected include Imran Ahmed, chief executive of the US-based Center for Countering Digital Hate; Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon of the German non-profit HateAid; and Clare Melford, co-founder of the Global Disinformation Index.

Washington framed the move as a defense of free speech and U.S. interests. Writing on X, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused European “ideologues” of leading organized campaigns to pressure American platforms into suppressing viewpoints they oppose.

“The Trump administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship,” Rubio said, casting the DSA as a threat to freedom of expression and U.S. tech firms.

The response across Europe was swift and unusually unified. France, Germany, Spain, and the UK joined senior EU officials in condemning the bans, while Brussels warned it could “respond swiftly and decisively” if necessary. The episode has added fuel to an already strained relationship between Donald Trump’s administration and the European Union, with artificial intelligence and digital regulation emerging as a new frontline in broader cultural, political, and economic tensions.

Macron denounced the visa bans in forceful terms, calling them an attempt to undermine Europe’s digital sovereignty. In a statement posted on X, he said the measures amounted to “intimidation and coercion” and stressed that EU digital rules were adopted through a democratic process involving both the European Parliament and member states.

“The rules governing the European Union’s digital space are not meant to be determined outside Europe,” he wrote.

Macron later confirmed he had spoken with Breton, thanking him for his work and vowing that Europe would not retreat.

“We will protect Europe’s independence and the freedom of Europeans,” he said.

France’s foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, echoed that stance, arguing that Europeans could not accept external powers dictating the rules of their digital space. Similar language came from Berlin and Madrid. Germany’s justice ministry described the bans as unacceptable and expressed solidarity with the German campaigners, noting that HateAid supports victims of unlawful online hate speech. German foreign minister Johann Wadephul said the DSA was democratically adopted for use within the EU and had no extraterritorial effect.

The DSA, passed in 2022, requires large digital platforms to demonstrate how they are addressing systemic online risks, including illegal content, hate speech, and the manipulation of elections through disinformation. EU officials argue the law is about enforcing existing legal standards in the digital sphere, not censoring speech. Washington, however, sees it as an attempt to impose European norms on U.S.-based companies and users.

Breton, a former French finance minister who served as EU commissioner for the internal market from 2019 to 2024, responded sharply to the U.S. action.

“Is McCarthy’s witch-hunt back?” he asked, pointing out that the DSA was approved by 90% of the European Parliament and unanimously by all 27 member states. “To our American friends: censorship isn’t where you think it is,” he said.

EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also weighed in, emphasizing that freedom of speech underpins European democracy and vowing to protect it. A commission spokesperson reinforced that message, warning that the EU would defend its regulatory autonomy against what it described as unjustified measures.

The dispute comes against the backdrop of increasing enforcement of the DSA. Earlier this month, Elon Musk’s X platform was fined €120 million for multiple violations, largely linked to transparency failures, including misleading users over verification checks and restricting researchers’ access to data. The penalty has become a rallying point for U.S. critics of the EU’s regulatory approach, who argue it is designed to weaken American tech giants under the guise of regulation.

In Washington, officials have insisted the EU’s actions amount to undue restrictions on expression, while European leaders counter that safeguarding democratic discourse requires clear rules for powerful platforms. Stéphane Séjourné, who succeeded Breton as commissioner for the internal market, publicly backed his predecessor, saying no sanction would silence the sovereignty of European peoples.

The row has also drawn in politicians and civil society figures. Dennis Radtke, a German MEP from the ruling CDU, questioned why free speech arguments appear to be deployed selectively. Raphaël Glucksmann, a French socialist MEP, accused Washington of confronting democracies while accommodating authoritarian regimes, telling Rubio that Europe must stand up for its laws and interests.

Beyond the immediate dispute, analysts see the episode as emblematic of a deeper shift in transatlantic relations. Michel Duclos, a former senior French diplomat, compared the treatment of Breton with Washington’s engagement with figures linked to Russia, warning that Europe risks being recast as an adversary rather than an ally in U.S. strategic thinking.

The visa bans also revive memories of earlier confrontations. In August, Washington sanctioned a French judge at the International Criminal Court over investigations involving Israeli leaders and U.S. officials, a move that had already unsettled European governments.

As AI and online platforms grow ever more central to economic influence and political discourse, the clash between Europe’s regulatory ambitions and Washington’s defense of U.S. tech interests looks set to intensify, with broader consequences for the future of transatlantic cooperation.

India has unveiled a series of reforms aimed at simplifying and accelerating its import quality control procedures, including reduced paperwork, shorter approval timelines, fewer physical inspections, and greater reliance on technology-driven systems like digital certifications and risk-based sampling.

The announcement, made on Wednesday by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, directly addresses longstanding U.S. complaints about “burdensome” requirements that have acted as non-tariff barriers, complicating bilateral trade flows and delaying shipments of goods ranging from electronics and medical devices to steel and toys. The reforms target standards enforced by key agencies such as the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), which have been criticized for mandatory factory audits, extensive documentation demands, and processing delays often extending months.

Under the new framework, importers meeting compliance thresholds will benefit from streamlined registrations, self-certification options, and automated approvals via digital portals, potentially cutting compliance costs by 20-30% and halving processing times, according to initial ministry estimates.

Implementation will roll out in phases starting January 2026, prioritizing high-volume categories to minimize disruptions.

“The reforms aim to accelerate processes, reduce turnaround times, and leverage technology-driven systems to make quality assurance faster, more transparent, and more accessible for enterprises, institutions, and citizens,” said Jaxay Shah, chairman of the Quality Council of India (QCI), in the ministry’s statement.

Shah emphasized that the changes will enhance India’s “Ease of Doing Business” ranking while maintaining product safety and quality standards. U.S. officials and industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), have long flagged these rules as impediments, arguing they disproportionately burden American exporters despite being applied universally.

The issue has been a recurring theme in bilateral dialogues, with Washington viewing regulatory simplification as a key confidence-building measure for deeper economic engagement. The announcement comes amid intensifying efforts to finalize a bilateral trade agreement (BTA) between the world’s largest democracy and its biggest economy.

India seeks relief from punitive 50% tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump on select exports, enacted as retaliation for New Delhi’s continued imports of discounted Russian crude oil amid the ongoing Ukraine conflict.

The tariffs, effective August 27, 2025, build on an initial 25% “reciprocal” duty announced in July, escalating to 50% specifically targeting India’s Russian oil trade, which has exceeded 2 million barrels per day in 2025—making Russia India’s top supplier and helping Moscow circumvent Western sanctions.

Affected Indian exports include textiles, gems and jewelry, agricultural products (e.g., shrimp, rice), pharmaceuticals, and precious metals like gold—impacting roughly $8-10 billion in annual shipments and potentially shaving 0.5 percentage points off India’s GDP growth, per estimates from firms like Barclays.

Indian negotiators, led by Commerce Secretary Sunil Barthwal, have pushed for phased tariff reductions in exchange for market access commitments, regulatory alignment, and possibly capping Russian oil imports.

U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai welcomed the quality-control reforms in a brief statement, calling them “a constructive step toward reducing trade frictions and facilitating smoother trade flows.”

Analysts view the reforms as pragmatic concessions from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, balancing domestic industry protection with export ambitions amid a record $824.9 billion in total exports for FY2024-2025 (services at $387.5 billion, merchandise at $437.4 billion).

“This is clearly timed to build goodwill ahead of a potential BTA breakthrough,” said Biswajit Dhar, former professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University and trade policy expert.

Despite tariff headwinds, India’s exports have shown resilience, defying initial forecasts of a 10-15% drop and strengthening New Delhi’s negotiating position.

Markets reacted positively to the reforms: The Nifty 50 index closed 0.4% higher, with export-oriented sectors like IT (up 0.6%), pharmaceuticals (0.7%), and textiles (1.2%) leading gains, reflecting optimism for eased U.S. trade barriers.

As talks continue, potentially culminating in a mini-deal early 2026, these regulatory tweaks signal India’s willingness to meet halfway in a relationship increasingly vital for supply chain diversification, technology cooperation, and countering Chinese economic influence, without fully conceding on sensitive issues like Russian energy ties.