DS430: India — Measures Concerning the Importation of Certain Agricultural Products

At the meeting, the United States said that India had not removed or altered the measures at issue in the dispute within the agreed reasonable period of time which expired on 19 June 2016. The US added that India had not claimed that the measures had been modified. In the absence of any agreement on compensation, the US requested the DSB’s authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations with respect to India totalling approximately $450 million in 2016. The US said it would update this figure annually.

India objected to the figure proposed by the US. India also said that it believed it had brought the measures at issue into conformity with the DSB ruling and that the US request to suspend concessions had no legal basis. India said a final notification on a new measure, which takes into account the panel and Appellate Body findings in this dispute, came into effect on 8 July 2016. India is also of the view that the proper course of action is for a compliance panel to be established to look into the matter, noting that this has been the consistent practice of WTO members in signing “sequencing agreements” indicating how dispute settlement would proceed.

The US responded by pointing to a WTO rule which provides that the DSB, upon request, shall grant authorization to suspend concessions within 30 days of the expiry of the compliance period unless the DSB decides by consensus to reject the request. By submitting its request to suspend concessions to India, the US said it was preserving its rights to this recourse in the WTO rules. The US also said that sequencing agreements are not required under the rules. It added, however, that it remained ready to discuss a variety of pending issues in this dispute with India, including procedural approaches that could achieve efficient and effective resolution of this dispute, while protecting US rights.  India expressed its readiness to consult further with the US.

  Other members commented on the issue of sequencing. The European Union said disagreements over compliance must be resolved through the establishment of a compliance panel. The EU also reserved its third party rights to participate in further proceedings. Canada said that requests to suspend concessions must be considered by the DSB before referring to arbitration. Japan agreed that where there is disagreement over compliance, parties must commit to compliance panel proceedings first. In its view, sequencing agreements were useful in providing a practical way forward by securing legal certainty. 

The DSB took note of the statements and referred the issue to arbitration in line with WTO rules.