Page 61 - Annual Report 2019

with respect to certain safeguard measures by India on In May 2014, the DSB established the panel and
Imports of Iron and Steel Products. After consultations constituted the same in September 2014. The Panel
in February 2017, Japan requested for panel issued its report in February 2016, to which India
composition. appealed in Appellate body.
On 3rd April 2017, the panel was established and Key notings of Appellate Body in its report dated 16th
composed in June 2017. In November 2018 the Panel September 2016 are as follows:
circulated its report. Key notings by Panel are:
• India's DCR measures were inconsistent with
• India acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of WTO non-discrimination obligations under Art. III:4
the GATT 1994, and Art. 2.1.

• India acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and • The Appellate Body rejected India's claim that the
4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article Panel acted inconsistently with DSU Art. 11 in
XIX:1 of the GATT 1994, assessing India's arguments regarding the scope of
Art. III:8(a).
• Japan did not demonstrate that India failed to
meet the requirement of “a major proportion” of the • The Appellate Body agreed with the Panel's
total domestic production of the product concerned finding that India had not demonstrated that its
under Article 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards measures were justified under Art. XX(d).
when it defined the domestic industry.
• The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding
• India acted inconsistently with Articles 4.1(a) and that the terms ‘products in general or local short
4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards,
supply’ do not cover products at risk of becoming in
short supply, and found that in any event, India had
• India acted inconsistently with Articles 4.1(b), not demonstrated existence of an imminent risk of a
4.2(b) and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards, short supply and that the DCR measures were not
because its finding of a threat of serious injury was not justified under this provision.
adequately addressed or analyzed in the Final
Findings.
After the adoption of the Appellate Body Report on 14
October 2016, India issued communication to the DSB
• India acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and dated 8th November 2016, and subsequently at the
4.2(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards. Further India meeting of the DSB held on 23 November 2016, India
acted inconsistently with Article 12.2, 12.3 and 12.4 of announced its intention to implement the DSB's
the Agreement on Safeguard.
recommendations and rulings in this dispute and
stated that it would need a reasonable period of time to
In December 2018, India notified its intention to do so.
appeal the Panel report in Appellate body. Currently,
the Appellate Body is in the process of scheduling
hearing in this matter. In December 2017, India informed the DSB that it had
ceased to impose any measures found inconsistent
with the DSB's findings and recommendations.
2. DS541: India - Export Related Measures.
Thereafter the United States requested the
In March 2018, the United States requested authorization of the DSB to suspend concessions or
consultations with India concerning certain alleged other obligations pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU
export subsidy measures inconsistent with the SCM on the grounds that India had failed to comply with the
Agreement. The consultations were held on 11th April DSB's recommendations and rulings within the
2018. However, as no mutual agreement was arrived reasonable period of time.
at, the US requested for the establishment of a panel.
In December 2018, the Chair of the panel informed the To this India informed the DSB that it disagreed with
DSB that the beginning of the panel's work had been the United States that India had failed to comply with
delayed as a result of a lack of available resources in the DSB's recommendations and rulings within a
the Secretariat and that the panel expected to issue its reasonable period of time. In its communication, India
final report to the parties, not before the second indicated that the United States had failed to enter
quarter of 2019. into negotiations with India to agree on a mutually
acceptable compensation and therefore, in India's
3. DS456: India — Certain Measures Relating to view, the United States' request did not satisfy the
Solar Cells and Solar Modules conditions of Article 22.2 of the DSU. The matter was
referred to arbitration pursuant to Article 22.6 of the
DSU.
In February 2013, the United States requested
consultations with India concerning Certain Measures
of India relating to Domestic Content Requirements In January 2018, India requested the establishment of
(“DCR”) under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar a compliance panel. Currently, the request is under
Mission (“NSM”) for solar cells and solar modules. process.

53 | Annual Report 2018-19 | DGTR