In a written reply to the Lok Sabha, Minister of State for Commerce and Industry Jitin Prasada said the Department of Commerce engages the services of the Centre for Trade and Investment Law (CTIL), the Centre for WTO Studies (CWS), and empanelled law firms for representing and assisting in the defence of India’s interests in WTO disputes.
As per available records, an amount of about Rs 2.43 crore has been incurred towards services of empanelled law firms in relation to these nine disputes, he said.
He added that since proceedings are ongoing, any further expenditure is contingent upon the progress and requirements of the respective disputes.
“There are currently nine disputes pending against India under the WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, commonly referred to as the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding,” Prasada said.
According to the details provided by the minister in his reply, the complainants of these disputes are Japan (two cases), Brazil, Australia, Guatemala, European Union (EU), Chinese Taipe, and China (two complaints).
THE DISPUTES
1. Certain measures by India on imports of iron and steel products.Japan has filed its complaint against these measures in May 2019. The dispute concerns Japan’s challenge to India’s safeguard measures on certain iron and steel products.
India has maintained that the measures were WTO-consistent and continued to apply them until they expired in the ordinary course.
New Delhi has appealed the WTO’s dispute panel report, and the appeal remains pending due to the non-functioning of the WTO Appellate Body.
2. India’s measures on sugar and sugarcane.
Brazil, Australia, and Guatemala are the complainants in this.
These disputes are related to India’s domestic support to sugarcane producers and alleged export subsidies for sugar.
These countries alleged that the measures are inconsistent with provisions of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture as well as Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM).
India contested these claims before the WTO panel and maintained that its sugar support policies and export-related schemes are in accordance with its WTO commitments and rights under these agreements.
“These measures have continued for the benefit of sugarcane producers. India has appealed the panel report, and the appeals remain pending,” Prasada said.
3. Tariff treatment on certain goods in the information and communications technology sectors:
The EU, Japan, and Chinese Taipei are complainants in this dispute.
These disputes concern the tariff treatment accorded by India to certain Information and Communications Technology (ICT) products.
“The complainants alleged that India has applied customs duties, in excess of the bound rates recorded in India’s WTO schedule, thereby according less favourable treatment to these ICT goods in violation of GATT 1994,” he said.
India has defended these measures before the WTO’s dispute panel, contending that they are consistent with its rights and obligations under the global trade rules.
The measures continue to remain in force in furtherance of their policy objectives.
India has filed appeals against two panel reports involving the European Union and Japan, while the adoption of the report concerning Chinese Taipei has been mutually deferred to allow negotiations on a mutually agreed solution (MAS), he said.
4. India’s measures concerning trade in the automotive and renewable energy technology sectors:
China has challenged certain Production Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes relating to advanced chemistry cell battery storage, automobiles and auto components, electric passenger cars, and high efficiency solar photovoltaic modules, as well as India’s tariff measures on certain technology products.
Beijing has alleged that the measures are inconsistent with the WTO’s ASCM, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), and the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs Agreement).
The minister said India has defended the measures, contending that they are consistent with its rights and obligations under the WTO agreements.
The measures continue to remain in force and the panel proceedings are ongoing.
China has also filed a case against India’s measures in solar cell, solar module, and information technology sectors.
In this case, a dispute panel has yet to be constituted by the WTO. PTI