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
On 18 May 2018, India requested consultations with the United States concerning certain measures imposed by the United States to allegedly adjust imports of steel and aluminium into the United States.
India claimed that the measures appear to be inconsistent with:
- Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7, 9.1, 11.1(a), 11.1(b), 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards; and
- Articles I:1, II:1(a), II:1(b), X:3(a), XI:1, XIX:1(a) and XIX:2 of the GATT 1994.
On 31 May 2018, China and the Russian Federation requested to join the consultations. On 1 June 2018, the European Union and Thailand requested to join the consultations. On 4 June 2018, Hong Kong, China requested to join the consultations.
On 28 May 2018, the United States requested the Chair of the DSB to circulate to Members a communication where it indicated that the United States accepted India's request to enter into consultations, without prejudice to the US view that the measures imposed by the United States concern issues of national security not susceptible to review or capable of resolution by WTO dispute settlement and that the consultations provisions in the Agreement on Safeguards are not applicable. The United States also referred to India's notification of 18 May 2018 that it intended to suspend concessions and other obligations, pursuant to Article 8.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards.
Panel and Appellate Body proceedings
On 8 November 2018, India requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 21 November 2018, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
At its meeting on 4 December 2018, the DSB established a panel. Bahrain, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Egypt, the European Union, Guatemala, Hong Kong, China, Iceland, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Qatar, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela reserved their third-party rights.
On 7 January 2019, India requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 25 January 2019, the Director-General composed the panel.
On 4 September 2019, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that the panel expected to issue its final report to the parties no earlier than autumn 2020. The Chair also informed the DSB that the report would be available to the public once it was circulated to the Members in all three official languages, and that the date of circulation depends on completion of translation. On 4 February 2021, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that due to delays caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic, the panel expected to issue its final report to the parties no earlier than the second half of 2021. On 9 December 2021, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that due to the complexity of the dispute and the delays caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic, the panel expected to issue its final report to the parties no earlier than the first half of 2022. On 30 June 2022, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that due to the complexity of the dispute, the panel expected to issue its final report to the parties no earlier than the last quarter of 2022. On 24 January 2023, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that the panel was in ongoing consultations with the parties regarding this dispute and did not expect to issue its final report to the parties before the third quarter of 2023.
Mutually Agreed Solution
On 13 July 2023, India and the United States notified the DSB, pursuant to Article 3.6 of the DSU, that they had reached a mutually agreed solution to the matter raised in this dispute. The parties indicated that they were providing a copy of their communication directly to the panel.
On 8 August 2023, the panel circulated its report to the Members. In accordance with Article 12.7 of the DSU, the panel report was confined to a brief description of the case and to reporting that a solution has been reached.
Follow this dispute
Problems viewing this page? If so, please contact [email protected] giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.