wto and india`s trade disputes
DESCRIPTION
Wto and India`s Trade DisputesTRANSCRIPT
WTO AND INDIA’S TRADE DIPUTES
PRESENTED BY:-
krishan kumar yadavSachin bhambhoriya
Sandeep jaiswal
WTO Membership Status
Why disputes are arises?
• A dispute arises when one country adopts a trade policy measure or takes some action that one or more fellow-WTO members considers to be breaking the WTO agreements, or to be a failure to live up to obligations. A third group of countries can declare that they have an interest in the case and enjoy some rights.
How are disputes settled?
• Settling disputes is the responsibility of the Dispute Settlement Body (the General Council in another guise), which CONSISTS of all WTO members. The Dispute Settlement Body has the sole authority to establish “panels” of experts to consider the case, and to accept or reject the panels’ findings or the results of an appeal. It monitors the implementation of the rulings and recommendations, and has the power to authorize retaliation when a country does not comply with a ruling.
AS COMPLAINANT-21 CASESAS RESPONDENT-22 CASESAS THIRD PARTY-101 CASES
AS COMPLAINANT
DISPUTE DS32-United States:Measures Affecting Imports of Women’s and Girls’ Wool Coats.
Short title: US — Wool Coats
Complainant: India
Respondent: United States
Third Parties: Canada; Costa Rica; European Communities; Norway; Pakistan; Turkey
Agreements cited:(as cited in request for consultations)
Textiles and Clothing: Art. 2, 6, 8
Request for Consultationsreceived: 14 March 1996
Summary of the disputeThe summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010
Consultations
Complaint by India.
In a communication dated 14 March 1996, India requested the establishment of a panel, claiming that the transitional safeguard measures on these textile products by the United States were inconsistent with ATC Articles 2, 6 and 8.
Panel and Appellate Body proceedings
A panel was established in the DSB meeting on 17 April 1996.
Withdrawal/termination
On 25 April 1996, India requested “termination of further action in pursuance of the decision taken by the DSB on 17 April 1996 to establish a panel” in light of the US removal of the safeguard measures on these products, which came into effect from 24 April 1996.
DISPUTE DS140:-European Communities — Anti-Dumping Investigations Regarding Unbleached Cotton Fabrics from India.Short title:
Complainant: India
Respondent: European Communities
Third Parties:
Agreements cited:(as cited in request for consultations)
Anti-dumping (Article VI of GATT 1994): Art. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 15
GATT 1994: Art. I, VI
Request for Consultationsreceived: 3 August 1998
Summary of the dispute The summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010
ConsultationsComplaint by India.
On 3 August 1998, India requested consultations with the EC in respect of alleged repeated recourse by the EC to anti-dumping investigations on unbleached cotton fabrics (UCF), from India. India considered, in the light of the information which had become available before and after the adoption of Regulation 773/98, that:• the determination of standing, the initiation, the selection of the sample, the determination of dumping and the injury are inconsistent with the EC’s WTO obligations;
• the establishment by the EC of the facts was not proper and that the EC’s evaluation of facts was not unbiased and objective; and
• the EC has not taken into account the special situation of India as a developing country.
DISPUTE DS168:-South Africa — Anti-Dumping Duties on Certain Pharmaceutical Products from India.
Short title:
Complainant: India
Respondent: South Africa
Third Parties:
Agreements cited:(as cited in request for consultations)
Anti-dumping (Article VI of GATT 1994): Art. 2, 3, 6, 12, 15Services (GATS): Art. I, VI
Request for Consultationsreceived: 1 April 1999
Summary of the dispute
The summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010
ConsultationsComplaint by India.
On 1 April 1999, India requested consultations with South Africa in respect of a recommendation for the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties by the South African Board on Tariffs and Trade (BTT), contained in its Report No. 3799, dated 3 October 1997, on the import of certain pharmaceutical products from India. India contended that:• the definition and calculation by the BTT of normal value is inconsistent with South Africa’s WTO obligations, because erroneous methodology was used for determining the normal value and the resulting margin of dumping;
• the determination of injury was not based on positive evidence and did not include an evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, which led to an erroneous determination of material injury suffered by the petitioner;
• the South African authorities’ establishment of the facts was not proper and that their evaluation was not unbiased or objective; and
• the South African authorities have not taken into account India’s special situation as a developing country.
DISPUTE DS229:-Brazil — Anti-Dumping Duties on Jute Bags from India.
Short title:
Complainant: India
Respondent: Brazil
Third Parties:
Agreements cited:(as cited in request for consultations)
Anti-dumping (Article VI of GATT 1994): Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 17.6(i), 18.3,18.4GATT 1994: Art. VI, XAgreement Establishing the World Trade Organization: Art. XVI
Request for Consultationsreceived: 9 April 2001
Summary of the dispute
The summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010
Consultations
Complaint by India.
On 9 April 2001, India requested consultations with Brazil concerning:• the determination by the Brazilian government
to continue to impose anti-dumping duties on jute bags and bags made of jute yarn from India, based on an allegedly forged document regarding dumping margin attributed to a non-existing Indian company;
• its refusal to reconsider the decision to continue anti-dumping duties on Indian jute products despite the fact that the non-existence of that company was brought to the notice of the authorities;
• non-consideration of the fresh evidence regarding cost of production, domestic sales prices, export prices, etc., of Indian jute manufacturers, and refusal to initiate review of the decision to impose anti-dumping duties;
• the general practice of Brazil regarding review and imposition of anti-dumping duties; and
• Brazilian anti-dumping laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, Article 58 of Degree No. 1.602 of 1995.
DISPUTE DS233:-Argentina — Measures Affecting the Import of Pharmaceutical Products.
Short title:
Complainant: India
Respondent: Argentina
Third Parties:
Agreements cited:(as cited in request for consultations)
GATT 1994: Art. I, IIITechnical Barriers to Trade (TBT): Art. 2, 5, 12
Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization: Art. XVI
Request for Consultationsreceived: 25 May 2001
Summary of the dispute The summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010
Consultations
Complaint by India.
On 25 May 2001, India requested consultations with Argentina concerning Argentina’s Law No. 24.766 and Decree No. 150/92. According to India, these measures constitute unnecessary obstacles to international trade and prevent Indian medicines, drugs and other pharmaceuticals from entering into the Argentinean market, thus discriminating against Indian drugs vis-à-vis like products of other countries and of Argentina.
According to India, the above measures require that before entering the Argentinean market, all drugs and other pharmaceuticals must be registered with the National Administration of Drugs, Foodstuffs and Medical Technology, Ministry of Health of Argentina. The above Decree contains two annexes listing countries.• In respect of Annex I countries,
pharmaceutical products are required to be manufactured in facilities approved by the relevant governmental bodies of these countries or by the Argentinean Ministry of Health and meet the National Health Authority’s manufacturing and quality control requirements.
AS RESPONDENTDISPUTE DS79
India — Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical ProductsShort title: India — Patents (EC)
Complainant: European Communities
Respondent: India
Third Parties: United States
Agreements cited:(as cited in request for consultations)
Intellectual Property (TRIPS): Art.27, 65, 70, 70.8, 70.9
Request for Consultationsreceived: 28 April 1997
Panel Reportcirculated: 24 August 1998
Summary of the disputeThe summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010
Consultations
Complaint by the European Communities.
On 28 April 1997, the EC requested consultations with India in respect of the alleged absence in India of patent protection for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products, and the absence of formal systems that permit the filing of patent applications of and provide exclusive marketing rights for such products. On 9 September 1997, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 25 September 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
Panel and Appellate Body proceedings
Further to a second request to establish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 16 October 1997. The US reserved its third-party rights. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 24 August 1998.
Implementation of adopted reports
India indicated at the DSB meeting of 21 October 1998, that it needed a reasonable period of time to comply with the DSB recommendations and that it intended to have bilateral consultations with the EC to agree on a mutually acceptable period of time.
DISPUTE DS90:-India — Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products.
Short title: India — Quantitative Restrictions
Complainant: United States
Respondent: India
Third Parties:
Agreements cited:(as cited in request for consultations)
Agriculture: Art. 4.2
GATT 1994: Art. XI:1, XIII,XVIII:11
Import Licensing: Art. 3
Request for Consultationsreceived: 15 July 1997
Panel Report circulated: 6 April 1999
Appellate Body Reportcirculated: 23 August 1999
Mutually Agreed Solutionnotified: 14 January 1999
Summary of the disputeThe summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010
ConsultationsComplaint by the United States.
On 15 July 1997, the US requested consultations with India in respect of quantitative restrictions maintained by India on importation of a large number of agricultural, textile and industrial products. The US contended that these quantitative restrictions, including the more than 2,700 agricultural and industrial product tariff lines notified to the WTO, are inconsistent with India’s obligations under Articles XI:1 and XVIII:11 of GATT 1994, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, and Article 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.
Panel and Appellate Body proceedingsFurther to a second request to establish a panel, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 18 November 1997. On 10 February 1998, the US requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 20 February 1998, the Panel was composed. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 6 April 1999. The panel found that the measures at issue were inconsistent with India’s obligations under Articles XI and XVIII11 of GATT 1994, and to the extent that the measures apply to products subject to the Agreement on Agriculture, are inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The panel also found the measures to be nullifying or impairing benefits accruing to the United States under GATT 1994, and the Agreement on Agriculture.
Implementation of adopted reportsAt the DSB meeting of 14 October 1999, India stated its intention to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, at the same time drawing attention to the Panel’s suggestion that the reasonable period of time for implementation in this case could be longer than 15 months in view of the practice of the IMF, the BOP Committee and GATT and WTO panels of granting longer phase-out periods for the elimination of BOP restrictions, and in view of India’s status as a developing country Member.
DISPUTE DS146:-India :Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector.
Short title: India — Autos
Complainant: European Communities
Respondent: India
Third Parties: Japan; Korea.
Agreements cited:(as cited in request for consultations)
GATT 1994: Art. III, XI
Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs): Art. 2
Request for Consultations received: 6 October 1998
Panel Report circulated: 21 December 2001
Appellate Body Reportcirculated: 19 March 2002
Summary of the dispute The summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010
ConsultationsComplaint by the European Communities.
On 6 October 1998, the EC requested consultations with India concerning certain measures affecting the automotive sector being applied by India. The EC stated that the measures include the documents entitled “Export and Import Policy, 1997-2002”, “ITC (HS Classification) Export and Import Policy 1997-2002” (“Classification”), and “Public Notice No. 60 (PN/97-02) of 12 December 1997, Export and Import Policy April 1997-March 2002”, and any other legislative or administrative provision implemented or consolidated by these policies, as well as MoUs signed by the Indian Government with certain manufacturers of automobiles.
Panel and Appellate Body proceedingsFurther to a second request to establish a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 27 July 2000. The EC, Japan and Korea reserved their third-party rights.
Implementation of adopted reportsOn 2 May 2002, India informed the DSB that it would need a reasonable period of time to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB and that it was ready to enter into discussions with the EC and the US in this regard.
DISPUTE DS360:-India : Additional and Extra-Additional Duties on Imports from the United States.
Short title: India — Additional Import Duties
Complainant: United States
Respondent: India
Third Parties: Australia; Chile; European Communities; Japan; Viet Nam
Agreements cited:(as cited in request for consultations)
GATT 1994: Art. II:1, III:2, III:4
Request for Consultationsreceived: 6 March 2007
Panel Reportcirculated: 9 June 2008
Appellate Body Reportcirculated: 30 October 2008
Summary of the dispute The summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010
ConsultationsComplaint by the United States.
On 6 March 2007, the United States requested consultations with India with respect to “additional duties” or “extra additional duties” that India applies to imports from the United States, which include (but are not limited to) wines and distilled products (HS2204, 2205, 2206 and 2208.
Panel and Appellate Body proceedingsAt its meeting on 20 June 2007, the DSB established a panel. Australia, Chile, the European Communities, Japan and Viet Nam reserved their third-party rights. On 3 July 2007, the panel was composed. On 17 December 2007, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that due to the complexity of the dispute, and the administrative and procedural matters involved, the Panel is not able to complete its work in six months. The Panel expects to issue its final report to the parties in the course of March 2008.
Thank you