ON THIS PAGE:   Key facts   Summary of the dispute to date

home > trade topics > dispute settlement > the disputes >

DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: DISPUTE DS168

South Africa — Anti-Dumping Duties on Certain Pharmaceutical Products from India

This summary has been prepared by the Secretariat under its own responsibility. The summary is for general information only and is not intended to affect the rights and obligations of Members.

See also:
> The basics: how disputes are settled in WTO
> Computer based training on dispute settlement
> Text of the Dispute Settlement Understanding

Key facts  back to top

Summary of the dispute to date  back to top

Summary up-to-date at

Consultations requested — no panel established nor settlement notified

Complaint 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 alleged that South Africa initiated anti-dumping proceedings against the importation of ampicillin and amoxycillin of 250mg capsules from India. The BTT allegedly made a preliminary determination on 26 March 1997 that ampicillin and amoxycillin of 250mg and 500mg capsules, exported by M/S Randaxy Laboratories Ltd of India, were being dumped into the South African Customs Union (SACU). This was allegedly followed by a recommendation to impose final duties on these products by the BTT, which was reported on 10 September 1997. 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.

India alleged violations of Articles 2, 3, 6(a) to (c) individually and in conjunction with 12, 12 and 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and Articles I and VI of GATT 1994.

> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact webmaster@wto.org giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.