|
||
|
TWN Info
Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Aug20/03) Geneva, 30 Jul (Kanaga Raja) – The WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) on Wednesday agreed to establish dispute panels, at the request of Japan and Chinese Taipei, to examine India’s tariff treatment of certain goods in the information and communications technology (ICT) sector. These were second-time requests and panels establishment were automatic. The EU, Chinese Taipei, the United States, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Norway, Singapore, Thailand, Russia, Brazil, Korea, China, Canada and Indonesia reserved their third party rights to the dispute raised by Japan against India. The EU, Japan, the United States, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Norway, Singapore, Thailand, Russia, Brazil, Korea, China, Canada and Indonesia reserved their third party rights to the dispute raised by Chinese Taipei against India. At an earlier meeting on 29 June, the DSB had agreed to establish a dispute panel, at the request of the European Union, to also examine customs duties imposed by India on imports of certain ICT goods. (See SUNS #9150 dated 1 July 2020). US CONTINUES TO BLOCK AB APPOINTMENTS Under a separate agenda item, the US again blocked a joint proposal by 121 WTO members calling for the start of the selection process to fill six vacancies on the seven-member Appellate Body (AB). The US again said that it was not in a position to agree to the joint proposal introduced by Mexico on behalf of 121 WTO Members that called for the simultaneous launch of the selection process to fill the six vacancies as soon as possible. Repeating the same arguments that it had made at previous DSB meetings, the US said, “we are not in a position to support the proposed decision. The systemic concerns that the United States has identified remain unaddressed.” JAPAN-INDIA DISPUTE OVER ICT GOODS In its dispute raised against India (WT/DS584/9), Japan said the Government of Japan and the Government of India held consultations on 23 May 2019, with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory solution, but the consultations failed to settle the dispute. Japan said the products (highlighted in its request) fall within the scope of the relevant tariff lines for which India has set the bound rate of 0%. However, India applies duties in excess of the bound rate on these products, it added. The products identified by Japan include telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks; base stations; machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and routing apparatus; and parts of telephone sets and other apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, images or other data including populated, loaded or stuffed printed circuit boards, and parts of telephone sets and other apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, images or other data other than populated, loaded or stuffed printed circuit boards. According to Japan, each of the foregoing measures is inconsistent with India’s obligations under the following provisions: i. Article II:1(a) of the GATT 1994 because India has failed to accord to Japan’s commerce treatment no less favourable than that provided for in the appropriate Part of India’s Schedule; ii. Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 because India has failed to exempt the products of the territory of Japan, on their importation into India’s territory, from ordinary customs duties in excess of those set forth and provided in India’s Schedule; and iii. Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 because India has failed to exempt such products from all other duties or charges of any kind, imposed on or in connection with the importation, in excess of those imposed on the date of the GATT 1994 or those directly and mandatorily required to be imposed thereafter by legislation in force in the territory of India on that date. As a result, India’s foregoing measures also appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to Japan directly or indirectly within the meaning of Article XXIII:1 of the GATT 1994, said Japan. According to a Geneva trade official, at the DSB meeting, Japan requested that India agree to the establishment of a single panel to examine its complaint as well as those of the European Union and Chinese Taipei as they all relate to the same matter. Expressing deep disappointment over Japan’s panel request, India said Japan’s complaint was essentially seeking to get India to take on commitments under ITA-II (expanded Information Technology Agreement) which it never agreed to, as well as to take advantage of an error made by India when transposing its tariff lines to the updated Harmonized System of tariffs. According to a Geneva trade official, India also said that it could not agree to the establishment of a single panel to examine the complaints of Japan, Chinese Taipei and the EU as there were vast differences in the three complaints. For example, Japan has highlighted 39 distinct measures in its panel request while the EU and Chinese Taipei have cited six measures in their complaints. CHINESE TAIPEI-INDIA DISPUTE OVER ICT GOODS In its dispute raised against India (WT/DS588/7), Chinese Taipei said the consultations with India took place on 21 November 2019 with a view to reaching a satisfactory settlement of the matter, but the consultations failed to settle the dispute. According to Chinese Taipei, the measures at issue are the duties applied by India on imports of certain ICT products in excess of the bindings set forth in its Schedule of Concessions and Commitments annexed to the GATT 1994. The ICT products concerned fall within the scope of the bindings included in India’s WTO Schedule with respect to the following tariff lines (based on the HS 2007): 8517.12; 8517.61; 8517.62; 8517.70.01/02/03; and 8518.30.01. In its WTO Schedule, India has bound the ad valorem duty rate for the above tariff lines at 0%. Yet the duty rate applied by India on imports of ICT products falling within the scope of those bindings is up to 20%, depending on the tariff line, and is, therefore, in excess of the bound rate, Chinese Taipei claimed. According to Chinese Taipei, the measures at issue are inconsistent with India’s obligations under the covered agreements and, in particular, with Article II:1 (a) and (b) of the GATT 1994, because, through those measures, India accords to the commerce of Chinese Taipei of certain ICT goods treatment less favorable than that provided for in its WTO Schedule and does not exempt those goods from ordinary customs duties or other import duties in excess of those set forth and provided in its Schedule, respectively. These measures adversely affect exports of goods from Chinese Taipei to India, and they nullify or impair the benefits accruing to Chinese Taipei directly or indirectly under the covered agreements, it said. OTHER ACTIONS The DSB agreed to establish a panel, at the request of Korea, to examine measures imposed by Japan relating to the export of products and technology to Korea. This was a second-time request and panel establishment was automatic. The United States, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Chinese Taipei, Norway, Singapore, Ukraine, the EU, India, China, Brazil, Canada and Russia reserved their third party rights to the dispute. The DSB also agreed to establish a panel, at the request of Indonesia, to examine certain measures imposed by the EU on imports of palm oil and oil palm crop-based bio-fuels. This was a second-time request and panel establishment was automatic. The United States, Malaysia, Norway, Turkey, Singapore, Thailand, Russia, Japan, Korea, India, Honduras, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Colombia, China, Canada, Brazil and Argentina reserved their third party rights to the dispute. Meanwhile, a request for panel establishment by Turkey to examine safeguard measures imposed by the EU on certain steel products was blocked by the EU at the DSB meeting. This was a first-time request and panel establishment will be automatic when the request comes up again before the DSB. A US request for WTO authorization to suspend concessions against China over its alleged failure to comply with a WTO ruling in the dispute “China – Domestic Support for Agricultural Producers” (DS511) was objected to by China, and the matter has been automatically referred to arbitration. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has appealed the panel report in a dispute over Saudi Arabian measures concerning the protection of intellectual property rights (DS567).
|
||
