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.
back to top
back to top
back to top
Summary of the dispute to date
The summary below was up-to-date at
Complaint by Bangladesh.
This is the first dispute involving an LDC Member as a principal party to a dispute. On 28 January 2004, Bangladesh requested consultations with India concerning a certain anti-dumping measure imposed by India on imports of lead acid batteries from Bangladesh. Bangladesh is particularly concerned about the following aspects of the investigation by the Indian authority leading to the imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duties:
- Initiation of the investigation, notwithstanding the unsubstantiated
claim of the applicants that the application was “by or on behalf
of the domestic industry”; and failure to immediately terminate
the investigation, notwithstanding the negligible volume of imports
- determination of margin (determination of normal value; apparent
adoption of constructed value; determination of export price; and
comparison between normal value and export price);
- determination of injury and causation (examination of import volume,
the effect on prices, and the impact on domestic producers of like
products; inclusion of imports from Bangladesh in the assessment of
the effects of imports; evaluation and examination of relevant
factors; and examination of the causal link between the imports and
the alleged injury);
- treatment of evidence (failure to consider information submitted by
the interested parties from Bangladesh; treatment of information
submitted by the applicants as confidential; failure to disclose to
the interested parties the “essential facts under consideration
which form the basis for the decision to apply definitive
measures” and other relevant information)
- failure to provide the parties and give public notice of “all relevant information on the matters of fact and law and reasons which have led to the imposition of final measures”.
Bangladesh considers that the foregoing Indian measure is inconsistent with: Article VI of GATT 1994, including Articles VI:1, VI:2 and VI:6(a); Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 5.4, 5.8, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.8 (including para. 3 of Annex II), 6.9 and 12.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Furthermore, Bangladesh considers that, as a result of the imposition of the anti-dumping duties, India may be acting inconsistently with its obligations under Articles I:1 and II:1 of GATT 1994. Bangladesh also considers that the benefits accruing to it directly or indirectly under the WTO Agreement are being nullified or impaired pursuant to Articles XXIII:1(a) and XXIII:1(b), respectively, of GATT 1994.
On 11 February 2004, the European Communities requested to join the consultations.
Mutually agreed solution
On 20 February 2006, the parties informed the DSB of a mutually satisfactory solution to the matter raised by Bangladesh. The measure which was addressed in the request for consultations has been terminated by India’s Customs Notification No. 01/2005 dated 4 January 2005.
Follow this dispute
Problems viewing this page? If so, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.