G/AG/W/245  
 
6 May 2024  
(24-3593) Page: 1/15 
Committee on Agriculture  Original: English  
 
INDIA'S MEASURES TO PROVIDE MARKET PRICE SUPPORT TO SUGARCANE  
COMMUNICATION FROM AUSTRALIA  AND THE UNITED STATES  
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 18.7 OF THE AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE  
1  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  
1.1.  We continue to have a significant interest in ensuring a transparent and predictable global 
trading system, underpinned by a shared understanding of Members' obligations under WTO  rules. 
Under Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture  (AoA), we seek further clarification from India 
on its domestic sugarcane and sugar policies. Historically, as the world's second -largest sugar 
producer and third -largest exporter1, dynamics in India's sugar market have significant implications 
for both prices and trade in the global market.  
1.2.  Each sugar season, the Gov ernment of India sets the Fair and Remunerative Price  (FRP) for 
sugarcane. The FRP is an administered price that  effectively  acts as a floor price for sugar  mills to pay 
farmers  for sugarcane.  In addition,  farmers are paid premiums for increased production  efficiency, 
and farmers in some states are eligible for additional payments by sugar  mills under  specific  
State -level support , known as State -Advised Prices (SAPs).  This paper implements the approach to 
calculating India 's market price support and Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) for sugarcane 
as discussed by the WTO Panel in its Report on the India – Sugar and Sugarcane  dispute.2 
1.3.  The WTO Panel in the India – Sugar and Sugarcane  dispute found on 14  December  2021 tha t 
India's sugar support regime was inconsistent with its WTO obligations and confirmed India 's 
subsidies were vastly in excess of levels permitted under WTO rules. The Panel 's report also provided 
a refined method for calculating India 's level of support f or sugar by accounting for state -level 
subsidy schemes as well as the varying levels of efficiency (of extracting sugar from sugarcane) 
across India 's sugarcane -growing states.  
1.4.  India appealed the findings of the Panel on 24  December  2021, which has prevent ed the Panel 
Report from being adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. While the status of the Panel 
Report is not final, the methods outlined in the report provide the most up -to-date guidance from a 
WTO panel on calculating market price support for s ugar. 
1.5.  India has not included sugarcane, or its derived products, in any of its domestic support 
notifications since 1995 -96. Therefore, there is no information  provided to the WTO from the 
Government of India to compare with the findings of this paper.  
1.6.  Using the latest publicly available information, this paper compiles data on India's market price 
support for sugarcane over the period 2018 -19 to 202 1-22. When read alongside the Panel Report 's 
finding for India 's market price support for sugarcane over the period 2014 -15 to 2018 -19, we are 
able to generate a picture covering eight years.3 
1.7.  Market price support has been calculated in accordance with the domestic support provisions 
of Annex  3 of the AoA. Under Article  6, paragraph 4 of the AoA, India is limite d to providing a 
 
1 USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (November 2023), Sugar: World Markets and Trade: 
https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/sugar.pdf . 
2 Panel Report, India –Sugar and Sugarcane , WT/DS579/R , WT/DS580/R , WT/DS581/R  and 
WT/DS581/R/ Add.1 , circulated to WTO Members 14 December 2021, appealed 24 December 2021.  
3 Panel Report, India – Sugar and Sugarcane , para. 7.110 . G/AG/W/245  
 
- 2 - 
 
  product -specific AMS  for sugarcane no greater than  10% of  the total value of production of 
sugarcane. This follows from the fact that India has no Total AMS (or reduction commitments) in 
Part IV of its Schedule (XII).  
1.8.  Based on the evidence outlined in this paper, it appears that over the four-year4 period  
from 2018-19 to 2021 -22, India has  provided  sugarcane  AMS vastly  in excess  of the limits  set out in 
Article  6, paragraph  4 of the AoA (10%  of the total value  of production  of sugarcane):  
Market Price Support and Value of Production  
  2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 
% of value of production  92.49%  91.74% 100.63 % 99.10%  
Market Price Support - Billions, Indian Rupee (INR)  1,125.1  1,073.0 1,217.5  1,348.7  
Market Price Support - Billions, United States Dollar (USD)5 15.9 14.6 16.5 17.6 
 
2  INTRODUCTION  AND SCOPE  OF ANALYSIS  
2.1.  Under  Article  18.7 of the AoA, we are sharing  this analysis  with India and with other 
WTO Members to seek further clarification surrounding India's domestic sugarcane and sugar 
policies, including any potential domestic support implications under the AoA.  
2.2.  Using Government of India and other public sources, this paper compiles information on Ind ia's 
Current Total AMS for sugarcane over the period 2018 -19 to 202 1-22. This extends the calculation 
of India 's market price support for sugarcane in the Panel Report by an additional t hree years and 
presents a new estimate for 2018 -19 using updated produ ction data.6 This analysis alongside 
Australia 's original notification7 does not imply  that no sugarcane  support  was provided 
before  2011-12. 
2.3.  India has not included sugarcane or sugarcane products in any of its domestic support 
notifications since marketing year 1995 -96 (G/AG/N/IND /1). This paper relies on publicly available 
information from the Government of India and AGST Supporting Tables submitted by India during 
the Uruguay Round ( G/AG/AGST/IND ). The methodology, calculations and findings of t his analysis 
are outlined in the remainder of this paper.  
3  BACKGROUND  ON INDIA'S  SUGARCANE  AND SUGAR  SECTOR  
3.1.  As outlined in paragraph 1.1, as the world's second -largest sugar producer and third -largest 
sugar exporter8, dynamics in India's sugar market have significant implications for both prices and 
trade in  the global  market.   
3.2.  The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs, on the advice of the Government of India's 
Department of Food & Public Distribution, has historically set a minimum price under the Su garcane 
(Control) Order (1966). The Sugarcane (Control) Order (1996) cites Section 3 of the Essential 
 
4 Each marketing year for sugarcane in India is October to September.  Refer footnote to table 2.1 on 
page 20, "Price Policy for Sugarcane 202 1-22 sugar season ", Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, 
Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare , 
December 2020 . 
https://cacp.da.gov.in/ViewReports.aspx?Input=2&PageId=41&KeyId=794 . 
5 USD/INR exchange rates converted using calendar month averages from IMF International Financial 
Statistics.   
6 Revisions for Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Telangana from 
"Five Year Series data from 2017 -18 to 2021 -22", Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of 
Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare . 
http://desagri.gov.in/wp -content/uploads/2023/05/Five -Year-Oilseeds -and-Commercial -Crops -ending -
2021-22.xlsx , Revisions for Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Telangana 
from "Five Year Serie s data from 2016 -17 to 2020 -21", Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of 
Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare . 
http://desagri.gov.in/wp -content/uploads/2023/04/5 -Year-Oilseeds -and-Commercial -Crops -2016-17-to-
2020-21.xlsx . 
7 G/AG/W/189 , India's measures to provide market price support to sugarcane, Communication from 
Australia pursuant to article 18.7 of the Agreement  on Agriculture , November 2018 . 
8 USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (November 2023), Sugar: World Markets and Trade: 
https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/sugar.pdf . G/AG/W/245  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Commodities Act as its legislative basis. In its Report, the Panel in India- Sugar and Sugarcane  found 
that the Essential Commodities Act empowers the Cen tral Government to issue orders "for the 
control of the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce, in certain 
commodities". Section 3, titled "Powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc., of essential 
commodities", grants the power to the Central Government to regulate, inter alia, the production 
and sale of sugar and sugarcane.9 
3.3.  In October  2009,  the Order  was amended  to replace  the concept of a Statutory Minimum Price 
with a "Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP)" for the 2009 -10 and subsequent sugar seasons.  
3.4.  Clause 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order (1966) (the Order) refers to a minimum price of 
sugarcane payable by a producer of suga r. Specifically, Clause 3(1) states:  
The Central Government may, after consultation with such authorities, bodies or 
associations  as it may deem  fit, by notification  in the Official  Gazette,  from time to time, 
fix the minimum price of sugarcane to be paid by producers of sugar or their 
agents for the sugarcane purchased by them … (emphasis added).  
3.5.  In addition, the Explanation in the Order states that different prices may be fixed for different 
areas, qualities or varieties of sugarcane. However, these prices  cannot be less than the FRP set by 
the Government of India. Explanation (2) of Clause 3 states:  
No person shall sell or agree to sell sugarcane to a producer of sugar or his agent, and 
no such producer or agent shall purchase or agree to purchase sugarcan e, at a price 
lower than that fixed under sub -clause (1) . 
3.6.  The Sugarcane  (Control)  Order  (1966)  extends  to the whole  of India and does not include  any 
quantit ative restrictions  on the amount  of sugarcane  eligible  to access  the programme.  The 
Government of  India announces  the FRP in the months  leading  up to the commencement  of the Indian  
sugarcane season. This provides sugarcane producers and sugar millers with time to make 
commercial decisions regarding the production and milling of sugarcane.  
3.7.  The FRP acts as a floor price for sugarcane farmers, even when sugar prices fall to levels that 
would generate sugarcane prices below the FRP. Several of India 's States also set State -Advised 
Prices  (SAP). Sugar producers in these States where a  SAP is applied are required to pay whichever 
is the higher price as between the FRP and SAP. As seen in India's AGST document,  the price set 
by government  is the applied  administered  price (AAP)  in the market price support calculation.  
3.8.  In addition,  as the  low price of  sugar has affected profitability  of sugar mills,  the Government 
of India has taken  various  measures  to subsidise  the payment  of arrears  to sugarcane  producers  for 
previous sugar seasons. For the purpose of this paper, the analysis excludes the Government of 
India's financial assistance for arrears payments. Figure 1 below illustrates the flow of payments 
under the Government of India's sugarcane support policies.  
 
9 Appendix to Panel Report, India – Sugar and Sugarcane  WT/DS579/R/Suppl.1 , para. 2.5. In para. 6.62 
of the Panel Report the Panel explained it included findings in an Appendix  to provide a clearer and more 
readable report and noted the legal status of the Appendix as an integral part of the Panel Report.  G/AG/W/245  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Figure  1: Government  of India  sugarcane  support  policies  
 
4  EXPLANATION  OF APPARENT  FINDINGS  
4.1  AGREEMENT  ON AGRICULTURE  (AoA) – AMS LIMITS  
4.1.  Article 7, paragraph 2(b) of the  AoA states that "[w]here no Total AMS commitment exists in 
Part IV of a Member's Schedule, the Member shall not provide support to agricultural producers in 
excess of  the relevant de minimis  level set out in  paragraph  4 of Article 6". India has no Total 
AMS commitment (or reduction commitments) in Part IV of its Schedule (XII).  
4.2.  Annex 3 of the AoA identifies support that "shall" be included in a Me mber's AMS calculation. 
It states, "an Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) shall be calculated on a product -specific 
basis for each basic agricultural product receiving market price support, non -exempt direct 
payments,  or any other  subsidy  not exempted  from the  reduction  commitment  ('other  non-exempt 
policies ')". In addition,  Annex  3, paragraph  7 of the AoA states,  "[m]easures  directed  at agricultural 
processors shall be included to the extent that such measures benefit the producers of the basic 
agricultural products."  
4.3.  Therefore,  India's  market price support  for sugarcane  through  the mandating  of the FRP and 
SAPs is a form of non-exempt domestic support, given that sugar mills are required to pay cane 
farmers the AAP, and this market price support  must be included in India's sugarcane AMS (see 
Figure 1).  
4.4.  A developing country Member can exclude from Current Total AMS any product -specific AMS 
that does not exceed  10% of the product's  total value  of production.  This is known  as the de minimis 
exemption. If India provides product -specific AMS support for sugarcane in excess of 10% of the 
annual total value of production of sugarcane, Article 6, paragraph 4 of the AoA does not allow the 
exemption of that sugarcane AMS from the Current Total AMS.  
4.2  PRINCIPLES  FOR CALCULATING  MARKET PRICE SUPPORT  
4.5.  The definition  of market  price support  is referenced  in Annex  3, paragraph  8 of the AoA: 
[M]arket price support shall be calculated using the gap between a fixed external 
reference price and the applied administered price multiplied by the quantity of 
production eligible to receive the applied administered price.  
G/AG/W/245  
 
- 5 - 
 
  4.6.  Therefore, "market price support" requ ires a comparison between the "applied administered 
price" (AAP) and the "fixed external reference price". An administered price is a price fixed by a 
government  to determine  domestic  market  prices.  The "fixed  external  reference  price"  is defined  in 
Annex 3, paragraph  9 of the AoA, which states that this price "shall be based on  the years 1986 to 
1988". The difference between the AAP and fixed external reference price is then multiplied by the 
"quantity of production eligible to receive the applied administ ered price."  
4.7.  The calculation provided in Annex 3, paragraph 8 of the AoA for market price support can be 
re-produced in the following equation:  
(Applied Administered Price – Fixed External Reference Price) * Quantity  of Production 
Eligible = Value of Marke t Price Support  
4.8.  As previously outlined in G/AG/W/174 , the Appellate Body in Korea –Various Measures on Beef  
reached the same understanding of the meaning of "market price support" under Annex 3, paragraph 
8 of the AoA. Specifically, the Appellate Body confirmed the Panel's interpretation that "productio n 
eligible to receive  the applied  administered  price"  has "a different meaning  in ordinary  usage from  
production actually  purchased."10 The Appellate Body  further defined "eligible"  as that which is "fit 
or entitled to be chosen."11 It also noted, "[p]rodu ction actually purchased may often be less than 
eligible production".12 
4.9.  Thus,  "eligible  production"  within  the meaning  of Annex  3, paragraph  8 of the AoA, is production  
that is fit or entitled to receive the applied administered price.  
4.3  INDIA'S  SUGARCANE  MARKET PRICE  SUPPORT  
4.3.1   Fair and Remunerative Price  (FRP)  
4.10.  In India, the Central Government sets the FRP  under  the Essential Commodities Act  (1955) 
and the Sugarcane  (Control)  Order  (1966).  
4.11.  The FRP is set based on recommendations from the Commission for Agricultural Costs and 
Prices and in consultation with both the states and industry. To improve production efficiency via 
higher  sugar recoveries,  the FRP is payable  based  on a basic recovery  level,  which  had been 9.5% 
for each sugar season up to 2017-18,13 and was increased to 10% from 2018 -19 onwards.14 For 
every 0.1 percentage point above the basic recovery level, farmers are eligible for an additional 
premium payment. From 2018 -19 onwards,15 for every 0.1 percentage point below the recovery 
level, farmers receive a lower premium, down to a floor recovery rate of 9.5% below which there 
are no further reductions.  
 
10 Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef , para. 120. 
11 Ibid. 
12 Ibid. 
13 The sugar  recovery  level is the percentage  of sugar  produced  relative  to the amount  of sugarcane 
crushed.  
14 Media  Release  – Cabinet approves determination of Fair and Remunerative Price payable by Sugar Mills 
for 2018 -19 sugar season  – 18 July 2018,  India's Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs, Press Information 
Bureau, Government of India  
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1539077  
15 Media Release – Cabinet approves Determination of "Fair and Remunerative Price " of sugarcane 
payab le by sugar mills for 2019 -20 sugar season  – 24 July 2019, India's Cabinet Committee on Economic 
Affairs, Press Information Bureau, Government of India 
https://pib.gov.in/newsite/Print Release.aspx?relid=192184 ,  
Media Release - Cabinet approves Fair and Remunerative Price of  sugarcane payable by sugar mills for 
the sugar  season 2020 -21 – 19 August 2020, India's Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and P ublic Distribution, 
Press Information Bureau, Government of India https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=1646951 , 
and  
Media Release – Govern ment approves determination of Fair and Remunerative Price of sugarcane 
payable by sugar mills for the sugar season 2021 -22 – 25 August 2021, India 's Ministry of Consumer Affairs, 
Good and Public Distribution, Press Information Bureau, Government of India  
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetail.aspx?PRID=1748836 . G/AG/W/245  
 
- 6 - 
 
  4.12.  We note that the recovery rates16 across India 's major sugarcane -producing states 
from 2018-19 to 2020 -21 were:  
Recovery rates in indivi dual States (%)  
State  2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 
Andhra Pradesh  9.33 9.41 9.38 9.38 
Bihar 10.35  11.13  10.63  11.39  
Gujarat  10.65  10.75  10.23  10.60  
Haryana  10.31  10.55  10.24  9.85 
Karnataka  10.25  10.16  10.95  10.91  
Maharashtra  10.07  11.54  11.28  11.20  
Punjab  10.10  9.76 9.33 9.71 
Tamil Nadu  8.90 8.58 9.01 9.26 
Telangana  10.21  10.27  10.54  10.78  
Uttar Pradesh  10.91  11.74  11.71  11.46  
Uttarakhand  10.91  11.21  10.95  10.38  
 
4.13.  We adopt the approach taken by the Panel17 and use as a proxy the recovery rate of 10% as 
set out in the FRP for each sugar season from 2018 -19 to 202 1-22 to represent the recovery rate in 
the States for which recovery rates have not been publicly reported.  
4.14.  Accordingly, consistent with the approac h taken by the Panel, we find the following AAPs 
based on the average FRPs for each sugar season from 2018 -19 to 202 1-22: 
2018 -19 AAP based on the average FRP  
State  Base FRP 
(INR/  
100 kg) State 
recovery 
rate (%) FRP basic 
recovery 
rate 
(%) Excess  Premium 
rate (INR/  
100 kg) Actual 
premium 
paid 
(INR/  
100 kg) AAP  
(INR/  
tonne)  
Andhra Pradesh  261.25  9.33 9.50 -0.17 2.75 0.00 2,612.50  
Bihar 275.00  10.35  10.00  0.35 2.75 9.63 2,846.25  
Gujarat  275.00  10.65  10.00  0.65 2.75 17.88  2,928.75  
Haryana  275.00  10.31  10.00  0.31 2.75 8.53 2,835.25  
Karnataka  275.00  10.25  10.00  0.25 2.75 6.88 2,818.75  
Maharashtra  275.00  10.07  10.00  0.07 2.75 1.93 2,769.25  
Punjab  275.00  10.10  10.00  0.10 2.75 2.75 2,777.50  
Tamil Nadu  261.25  8.90 9.50 -0.60 2.75 0.00 2,612.50  
Telangana  275.00  10.21  10.00  0.21 2.75 5.78 2,807.75  
Uttar Pradesh  275.00  10.91  10.00  0.91 2.75 25.03  3,000.25  
Uttarakhand  275.00  10.91  10.00  0.91 2.75 25.03  3,000.25  
Other States  275.00  10.00  10.00  0.00 2.75 0.00 2,750.00  
2019 -20 AAP based on the average FRP  
State  Base FRP 
(INR/  
100 kg) State 
recovery 
rate (%) FRP basic 
recovery 
rate (%) Excess  Premium 
rate 
(INR/  
100 kg) Actual 
premium 
paid (INR/  
100 kg) AAP 
(INR/  
tonne)  
Andhra 
Pradesh  261.25  9.41 9.50 -0.09 2.75 0.00 2,612.50  
Bihar 275.00  11.13  10.00  1.13 2.75 31.08  3,060.75  
Gujarat  275.00  10.75  10.00  0.75 2.75 20.63  2,956.25  
Haryana  275.00  10.55  10.00  0.55 2.75 15.13  2,901.25  
Karnataka  275.00  10.16  10.00  0.16 2.75 4.40 2,794.00  
Maharashtra  275.00  11.54  10.00  1.54 2.75 42.35  3,173.50  
Punjab  261.25  9.76 9.50 0.26 2.75 7.15 2,684.00  
Tamil Nadu  261.25  8.58 9.50 -0.92 2.75 0.00 2,612.50  
Telangana  275.00  10.27  10.00  0.27 2.75 7.42 2,824.25  
Uttar Pradesh  275.00  11.74  10.00  1.74 2.75 47.85  3,228.50  
 
16 Annex Table 2. 6 "Price Policy for Sugarcane 202 4-25 sugar season ", Commission for Agricultural 
Costs and Prices, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and 
Farmers Welfare, November 2023  
https://cacp .da.gov.in/ViewQuestionare.aspx?Input=2&DocId=1&PageId=41&KeyId=826  
17 Appendix to Panel Report, India – Sugar and Sugarcane , para. 3 .15. G/AG/W/245  
 
- 7 - 
 
  State  Base FRP 
(INR/  
100 kg) State 
recovery 
rate (%) FRP basic 
recovery 
rate (%) Excess  Premium 
rate 
(INR/  
100 kg) Actual 
premium 
paid (INR/  
100 kg) AAP 
(INR/  
tonne)  
Uttarakhand  275.00  11.21  10.00  1.21 2.75 33.28  3,082.75  
Other States  275.00  10.00  10.00  0.00 2.75 0.00 2,750.00  
2020 -21 AAP based on the average FRP  
State  Base FRP 
(INR/  
100 kg) State 
recovery 
rate 
(%) FRP basic 
recovery rate  
(%) Excess  Premium 
rate (INR/  
100 kg) Actual 
premium paid 
(INR/  
100kg)  AAP  
(INR/  
tonne)  
Andhra 
Pradesh  270.75  9.38 9.50 -0.12 2.85 0.00 2,707.50  
Bihar 285.00  10.63  10.00  0.63 2.85 17.96  3,029.55  
Gujarat  285.00  10.23  10.00  0.23 2.85 6.56 2,915.55  
Haryana  285.00  10.24  10.00  0.24 2.85 6.84 2,918.40  
Karnataka  285.00  10.95  10.00  0.95 2.85 27.08  3,120.75  
Maharashtra  285.00  11.28  10.00  1.28 2.85 36.48  3,214.80  
Punjab  270.75  9.33 9.50 -0.17 2.85 0.00 2,707.50  
Tamil Nadu  270.75  9.01 9.50 -0.49 2.85 0.00 2,707.50  
Telangana  285.00  10.54  10.00  0.54 2.85 15.39  3,003.90  
Uttar 
Pradesh  285.00  11.71  10.00  1.71 2.85 48.74  3,337.35  
Uttarakhand  285.00  10.95  10.00  0.95 2.85 27.08  3,120.75  
Other States  285.00  10.00  10.00  0.00 2.85 0.00 2,850.00  
2021 -22 AAP based on the average FRP  
State  Base FRP 
(INR/  
100 kg) State 
recovery 
rate (%) FRP basic 
recovery rate  
(%) Excess  Premium 
rate (INR/  
100 kg) Actual 
premium paid 
(INR/  
100 kg) AAP  
(INR/  
tonne)  
Andhra 
Pradesh  275.50  9.38 9.50 -0.12 2.90 0.00 2,755.00  
Bihar 290.00  11.39  10.00  1.39 2.90 40.31  3,303.10  
Gujarat  290.00  10.60  10.00  0.60 2.90 17.40  3,074.00  
Haryana  275.50  9.85 9.50 0.35 2.90 10.15  2,856.50  
Karnataka  290.00  10.91  10.00  0.91 2.90 26.39  3,163.90  
Maharashtra  290.00  11.20  10.00  1.20 2.90 34.80  3,248.00  
Punjab  275.50  9.71 9.50 0.21 2.90 6.09 2,815.90  
Tamil Nadu  275.50  9.26 9.50 -0.24 2.90 0.00 2,755.00  
Telangana  290.00  10.78  10.00  0.78 2.90 22.62  3,126.20  
Uttar 
Pradesh  290.00  11.46  10.00  1.46 2.90 42.34  3,323.40  
Uttarakhand  290.00  10.38  10.00  0.38 2.90 11.02  3,010.20  
Other States  290.00  10.00  10.00  0.00 2.90 0.00 2,900.00  
4.3.2   State -Advised Prices (SAPs)  
4.15.  As identified by the Panel18, from 20 18-19 five of India 's States maintain SAPs – Bihar, 
Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarkhand. These five States maintain SAPs that distinguish 
between different varieties of sugarcane, based on maturity period and quality.  
4.16.  Tamil Nadu previously implemented a SAP, however  in October 2018 the Tamil Nadu 
Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase Price) Act  was adopted, replacing the SAP with a system of 
"revenue sharing based sugarcane price ". 
4.17.  On the State of Bihar 's SAP, the Panel determined that:  
The State of Bihar enacted the Bih ar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) 
Act in  1981 ("Bihar Sugarcane Act").  The Bihar Sugarcane Act contains detailed 
provisions regulating the supply and purchase of sugarcane by sugar producers. 
Section  42(2) of the Bihar Sugarcane Act stipulat es that the State of Bihar may 
 
18 Appendix to Panel Report, India – Sugar and Sugarcane , para.  2.10. G/AG/W/245  
 
- 8 - 
 
  determine the minimum price to be paid by factories  to sugarcane producers and that 
such price shall not be less than the price set under the Sugarcane Control Order.  The 
Act further states that "[t]he owner of the [sugar fac tory] shall make payment of the 
price of cane supplied to it immediately after the supply and on failing to do shall be 
liable to pay interest at the rate prescribed."  Chapter VI of the Act also provides for 
penalties, including imprisonment, for violation s of the provisions of the Act.19 
4.18.  We note that the SAP20 in Bihar for each sugar season from 2018 -19 to 202 1-22 was: 
Bihar SAP (INR per 100 kg)  
Varieties  2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 
Un-recommended/lower varieties  265 265 272 285 
Central/general/normal varieties  290 290 295 315 
Early/premium varieties  310 310 315 335 
4.19.  On the State of Haryana 's SAP, the Panel determined that:  
Until 1966, the State of Haryana was part of the State of Punjab. Pursuant to the Punjab 
Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and Supply) Haryana Amendment Act,  2004 
("Haryana Amendment Act"), Haryana continues to apply the Punjab Sugarcane 
(Regulation of Purchase and Supply) Act of 1953 ("Punjab Sugarcane Act").  Specifically, 
we understand that the Haryan a Amendment Act makes the entirety of the Punjab 
Sugarcane Act applicable in the State of Haryana, except for Section  14, which it 
replaces, and a particular clause in Section 20.  Hereafter, we use the term "Haryana 
Sugarcane Act" to refer to the Act that currently applies in Haryana (i.e. the Punjab 
Sugarcane Act as modified by the Haryana Amendment Act).  
Under Section 14 of the Haryana Sugarcane Act, the State Government may, among 
other things, issue orders regulating the purchase, supply and price of su garcane in an 
assigned area.  Section 20 of the Haryana Sugarcane Act authorizes the State 
Government to "make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act", including "the 
method by which the minimum price of cane is to be fixed under this Act" and "the 
payment of the price for cane".  The Haryana Sugarcane Act also stipulates that "[a]s 
soon as the cane is supplied to a factory, the occupier of such factory shall be liable to 
pay the price of cane so supplied"  and any violation of the Act (or any rule issu ed 
thereunder) is an offence punishable by imprisonment, a fine, or both.  
In accordance with Section 20 of the Haryana Sugarcane Act, the Haryana Government 
enacted the Haryana Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and Supply) Rules, 1992 
("Haryana Sugarcane R ules"). Section 12 of the Haryana Sugarcane Rules indicates that 
"[a]n occupier of a factory or agent or purchasing agent of a factory or any person 
employed by him shall not purchase cane for a factory or pay for it at a price below the 
minimum price." 21 
4.20.  We note that the SAP22 in Haryana for each sugar season from 2018 -19 to 202 1-22 was: 
 
19 Appendix to Panel Report, India – Sugar and Sugarcane , para.2.11.  
20 Refer page 5, Riga Sugar Company Limited, Annual Report 2019 -20. 
https://www.rigasugar.com/ANNUAL%20REPORT%202020.pdf , Kumar, Madan (19 December 2021) "Bihar 
hikes sugar cane purchase price ", The Times of India, accessed 15 February 2023 
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/bihar -hikes-sugar -cane-purchase -
price/articleshow/88363609.cms , and Waghmode, Vivek (20 December 2021) "Bihar CM Nitish Kumar 
announces hike in sugarcane prices ", ChiniMandi.com, accessed 27 March 2023 . 
https://www.chinimandi.com/bihar -cm-nitish -kumar -announces -hike-in-sugarcane -prices/  
21 Appendix to Panel Report, India – Sugar and Sugarcane , paras. 2.13 -15. 
22 Annex Table 2.5, "Price Policy for Sugarcane 202 4-25 sugar season ", Commission for Agricultural 
Costs and Prices, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and 
Farmers Welfare, November 2023 . 
https://cacp.da.gov.in/ViewQuestio nare.aspx?Input=2&DocId=1&PageId=41&KeyId=826  
Annex Table 2.7, "Price Policy for Sugarcane 2022 -23 sugar season ", Commission for Agricultural Costs 
and Prices, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers 
Welfare, December 202 1. G/AG/W/245  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Haryana SAP (INR per 100 kg)  
Varieties  2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 
Normal/late varieties  335 335 345 355 
Mid varieties  335 335 345 355 
Early varieties  340 340 350 362 
4.21.  On the State of Punjab 's SAP, the Panel determined that:  
As mentioned  above, Section 20 of the Punjab Sugarcane Act provides that "[t]he 
Government may make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act", including "the 
method by which the minimum price of cane is to be fixed under this Act", and "the 
payment of the price f or cane."  Under Section 9(1) of the Punjab Sugarcane Act, "[a]ny 
person contravening any of the provisions of [this] Act or any rule made there under, 
for which no penalty is otherwise provided shall be punishable with [a] fine, which may 
extend to two tho usand rupees."   
In accordance with Section 20 of the Punjab Sugarcane Act, the State Government of 
Punjab adopted the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and Supply) Rules, 1958 
("Punjab Sugarcane Rules").  Section 12 of the Punjab Sugarcane Rules is t itled 
"Minimum Price" and states, inter alia that "[a]n Occupier or agent or purchasing agent 
or any person employed by him shall not purchase cane for a factory … at a price below 
the minimum price, if any fixed by law."23  
4.22.  We note that the SAP24 in Punja b for each sugar season from 2018 -19 to 202 1-22 was: 
Punjab SAP (INR per 100 kg)  
Varieties  2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 
Normal/late/lower varieties  295 295 295 345 
Mid/medium varieties  300 300 300 350 
Early/advance varieties  310 310 310 360 
4.23.  On the State of Uttar Pradesh 's SAP, the Panel determined that:  
Section 16(1) of The Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 
1953 ("Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane Act") states that "[t]he State Government may, for 
maintaining supplies, by order, regulate - (a) the distribution, sale or purchase of any 
cane … in any reserved area or assigned area; and (b) purchase of cane in any area 
other than a reserved or assigned area."  Section 17(1) provides that "[t]he occupier of 
a factory shall make such provision for speedy payment of the price  of cane purchased 
by him as may be prescribed".  Under Section 17(2), "the occupier of a factory shall be 
liable to pay immediately the price of the cane so supplied".  Failure to comply with the 
obligations under the Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane Act is punishable by a fine, 
imprisonment, or both.  The Supreme Court of India has interpreted the Uttar Pradesh 
Sugarcane Act as granting the State Government "the regulatory power … to fix the 
price of th e sugarcane".25 
 
https://cacp.da.gov.in/ViewReports.aspx?Input=2&PageId=41&KeyId=808  
Annex Tabl e 2.3, "Price Policy for Sugarcane 2021 -22 sugar season ", Commission for Agricultural Costs 
and Prices, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers 
Welfare, December 2020 . 
https://cacp.da.gov.in/ViewReports.aspx?Input=2&PageId=41&KeyId=794  
23 Appendix to Panel Report, India – Sugar and Sugarcane , paras. 2.17 -18. 
24 Ibid. 
25 Appendix to Panel Report, India – Sugar and Sugarcane , para. 2.24.  G/AG/W/245  
 
- 10 - 
 
  4.24.  We note that the SAP26 in Uttar Pradesh for each sugar season from 2018 -19 to 202 1-22 was: 
Uttar Pradesh SAP (INR per 100 kg)  
Varieties  2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 
Rejected/normal varieties  310 310 310 335 
Normal/mid varieties  315 315 315 340 
Early varieties  325 325 325 350 
 
4.25.  On the State of Uttarakhand 's SAP, the Panel determined that:  
We understand that the State of Uttarakhand was previously part of the State of Uttar 
Pradesh. The Uttarakhand Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and Supply) 
(Amendment) Act, 2013 ( "Uttarakhand Amendment Act "), indicates that the Uttar 
Pradesh Sugarcane Act, as amended, applies in Uttarakhand.  Since Sections  16 and 17 
of the Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane Act were not amended by the Uttarakhand Amendment 
Act, we understand that these provisions are also applicable in Uttarakhand.27  
4.26.  We note that the SAP28 in Uttarakhand for each sugar season from 2018 -19 to 2021 -22 was:  
Uttarakhand SAP (INR per 100 kg)  
Varieties  2018 -19 2019 -20 2020-21 2021 -22 
Rejected/late varieties  310 295 310 29529 
General/normal varieties  317 317 317 345 
Early varieties  327 327 327 355 
 
4.3.3   Applied Administered  Price (AAP)  
4.27.  As outlined in paragraph 3. 7 and 4.6, the AAP is a price fixed by policymakers in order to 
determine domestic market prices. As outlined by the Panel,30 India's FRP and SAPs constitute AAPs 
within the meaning of paragraph  8 of Annex 3 as they constitute prices that are independent of  
market forces, and are set and maintained by administrative action of the Indian Central and State 
Governments.  
4.28.  For the five States which maintain SAPs that distinguish between different varieties of 
sugarcane, we adopt the approach taken by the Panel31 and use the SAP set for the middle category 
of sugarcane varieties. We calculate the following AAP based on the SAPs for each sugar season 
from 2018 -19 to 202 1-22: 
AAP based on the SAPs (INR/tonne)  
State  2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 
Bihar 2,900.00  2,900.00  2,950.00  3,150.00  
Haryana  3,350.00  3,350.00  3,450.00  3,550.00  
Punjab  3,000.00  3,000.00  3,000.00  3,500.00  
Uttar Pradesh  3,150.00  3,150.00  3,150.00  3,400.00  
Uttarakhand  3,170.00  3,170.00  3,170.00  3,450.00  
 
26 Ibid. 
27 Appendix to Panel Report, India – Sugar and Sugarcane , para. 2.26.  
28 Ibid. 
29 The 2021 -22 SAP for Uttarakhand 's "Late Varieties " was sourced from Annex Table 2.7, "Price Policy 
for Sugarcane 2022 -23 sugar season ", Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, Department of 
Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, December 2021 . 
https://cacp.da.gov.in/ViewReports.aspx?Input=2&PageId=41&KeyId=808  
Note that the "Price Policy for Sugarcane 2024 -25 sugar season " and "Price Policy for Sugarcane 
2023-24 sugar season " reports both omit the 2021 -22 SAP for Uttarakhand 's "Late Varieties ".  
30 Appendix to Panel Report, India – Sugar and Sugarcane , para. 2.3 . 
31 Appendix to Panel Report, India – Sugar and Sugarcane , para.  3.20. G/AG/W/245  
 
- 11 - 
 
  4.29.  For all major sugarcane producing States as well as all other States, we apply the 
methodology set out above and consistent with the Panel Report.32 In States where a SAP is applied, 
sugar producers are required to pay the greater of the FRP or SAP. For all other States , the average 
FRP constitutes the relevant AAP. It is the case that the SAPs are greater in all States that administer 
a SAP, across all sugar seasons between 2018 -19 and 202 1-22, with the exception of Bihar 
in 2019-20, 2020 -21 and 2021 -22 and Uttar Pradesh in 2019 -20 and 2020 -21: 
AAP (INR/tonne)  
State  2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 
Andhra Pradesh  2,612.50  2,612.50  2,707.50  2,755.00  
Bihar 2,900.00  3,060.75  3,029.55  3,303.10  
Gujarat  2,928.75  2,956.25  2,915.55  3,074.00  
Haryana  3,350.00  3,350.00  3,450.00  3,550.00  
Karnataka  2,818.75  2,794.00  3,120.75  3,163.90  
Maharashtra  2,769.25  3,173.50  3,214.80  3,248.00  
Punjab  3,000.00  3,000.00  3,000.00  3,500.00  
Tamil Nadu  2,612.50  2,612.50  2,707.50  2,755.00  
Telangana  2,807.75  2,824.25  3,003.90  3,126.20  
Uttar Pradesh  3,150.00  3,228.50  3,337.35  3,400.00  
Uttarakhand  3,170.00  3,170.00  3,170.00  3,450.00  
Other States  2,750.00  2,750.00  2,850.00  2,900.00  
4.3.4   Fixed External  Reference  Price (FERP)  
4.30.  As stated  in the AoA (Annex  3, paragraph  9): 
the fixed external reference price shall be based on the years 1986 to  1988 and 
shall generally be the average f.o.b. [free on board] unit value for the basic 
agricultural product concerned in  a net exporting  country  and the average  c.i.f. 
[cost, insurance  and freight]  unit value  for the basic agricultural product concerned 
in a net importing country in the base period. The fixed reference price may be 
adjusted for quality differences as necessary.  
4.31.  The sugarcane fixed external reference price (FERP) is incl uded in India's AGST supporting 
tables submitted  during  the Uruguay  Round .33 Based  on the average  of the 1986-1989 sugarcane  
seasons, India's FERP included in supporting table is 156.16 Indian Rupees per tonne and calculated 
based on a recovery rate of 8.5%.  
4.32.  Recovery rates in India today are higher than 8.5%. We adopt the approach taken by the 
Panel34, and in accordance with paragraph 9 of Annex 3, adjust the FERP for "quality differences" in 
order to reflect the different recovery rates in different Sta tes today. This is done by replacing the 
recovery rate of 8.5% (used in India's Supporting Tables) with updated average recovery rates for 
the States that are major producers (refer paragraph 4.12), and adjusting the FERP accordingly 
from 2018-19 to 202 1-22. Consistent with the approach taken by the Panel, we multiply the average 
Computed International Price of Sugar indicated in India 's Supporting Table  A (i.e. INR  1836.38) by 
the average recovery rate in those States, as follows:  
 
32 Appendix to Panel Report, India – Sugar and Sugarcane , para. 3 .24. 
33 Supporting  Tables  Relating  to Commitments  on Agricultural  Products  in Part IV of the Schedules 
(G/AG/AGST/IND  – Supporting Table A, pg.28) . 
34 Appendix to Panel Report, India – Sugar and Sugarcane , para. 4.4 -4.7. G/AG/W/245  
 
- 12 - 
 
  FERP  
 
2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 
State  Comp. int. 
price of 
sugar  
(INR/  
tonne)  Rec. 
Rate 
(%) FERP 
(INR/  
tonne)  Rec. 
Rate 
(%) FERP 
(INR/  
tonne)  Rec. 
Rate 
(%) FERP 
(INR/  
tonne)  Rec. 
Rate 
(%) FERP 
(INR/  
tonne)  
Andhra 
Pradesh  1836.38  9.33 171.33  9.41 172.80  9.38 172.25  9.38 172.25  
Bihar 1836.38  10.35  190.07  11.13  204.39  10.63  195.21  11.39  209.16  
Gujarat  1836.38  10.65  195.57  10.75  197.41  10.23  187.86  10.60  194.66  
Haryana  1836.38  10.31  189.33  10.55  193.74  10.24  188.05  9.85 180.88  
Karnataka  1836.38  10.25  188.23  10.16  186.58  10.95  201.08  10.91  200.35  
Maharashtra  1836.38  10.07  184.92  11.54  211.92  11.28  207.14  11.20  205.67  
Punjab  1836.38  10.10  185.47  9.76 179.23  9.33 171.33  9.71 178.31  
Tamil Nadu  1836.38  8.90 163.44  8.58 157.56  9.01 165.46  9.26 170.05  
Telangana  1836.38  10.21  187.49  10.27  188.60  10.54  193.55  10.78  197.96  
Uttar 
Pradesh  1836.38  10.91  200.35  11.74  215.59  11.71  215.04  11.46  210.45  
Uttarakhand  1836.38  10.91  200.35  11.21  205.86  10.95  201.08  10.38  190.62  
Other States  1836.38  10.00  183.64  10.00  183.64  10.00  183.64  10.00  183.64  
4.3.5   Quantity of Eligible Production (QEP)  
4.33.  As outlined above, according to Annex 3, paragraph 8 of the AoA , the gap between the AAP 
and FERP must be multiplied by the '…quantity of production eligible to receive the administered 
price'. 
4.34.  The Panel in its Report found that there is no limitation on the quantity of sugarcane that is 
eligible to be purchased at th e AAP in India.35 In addition,  in the Korea  – Various Measures on Beef 
dispute,  the Appellate  Body defined  eligible  production  as that which  is "fit or entitled  to be chosen."36 
The Appellate  Body also shared  the Panel's  conclusion  that "the actual quantity of purchases is not 
relevant in the calculation of market price support "37. 
4.35.  Therefore, eligible production should include all sugarcane eligible to receive the AAP, 
regardless  of whether  or not the sugarcane  was actually  delivered  to sugar mills  for crushing under 
the Sugarcane (Control) Order. Based on this information, the analysis has included total Indian 
sugarcane production. As an administered price, the FRP has an impact on commercial operations 
of both sugar millers and sugarcane farmers an d disrupts the price signals and market forces of 
supply and demand. Media reporting highlights the distortive effect s of AAPs and government 
incentives, with reports that there is an "increasing shift to safer crops like paddy and sugarcane in 
anticipatio n of further hike in minimum support prices (MSP) and other government doles".38 
4.36.  India's  AGST  Supporting  Tables  (G/AG/AGST/IND ) and 1995-96 domestic  support  notification 
(G/AG/N/IND/1 ) appear to refer to eligible production figures of sugarcane for sugar production 
only. These figures exclude the proportion of sugarcane that flows to khandsari, gur and other 
feed/seed  products.39 Based  on the findings  of Korea -Various Measur es on Beef, it appears  as though  
the incorrect  figures for  eligible  production  have been used in both the AGST  Supporting  Tables  and 
the 1995-96 domestic support  notification.  While  this discrepancy  is not a factor  over the period  
from 2011-12 to 2016-17, due to the absence of any reporting of market price support 
since 1995-96, it is an issue worth highlighting.  
 
35 Appendix to Panel Report, India – Sugar and Sugarcane , para. 5 .5. 
36 Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef , para. 120.  
37 Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef , paras. 119 and 122 . 
38 Press Trust of India (18 October 2018) "Farmers shifting to safer paddy from riskier crops to boost 
income ", Business Standard, accessed 15 February 2023 . 
https://www.business -standard.com/article/economy -policy/farmers -shifting -to-safer-paddy -cane-from-
riskier -crops -to-boost -income -118101800703_1.html .  
39 In 1995 -96, sugar production was 62% of total sugarcane production (see source: Indira Gandhi 
Institute  of Development  Research,  November  2013.  
http://www.igidr.ac.in/pdf/publication/WP -2013-024.pdf  G/AG/W/245  
 
- 13 - 
 
  4.37.  Consistent with the approach taken by the Panel40, we use the total quantity of sugarcane 
production in relevant States for each sugar se ason from 2018 -19 to 202 1-22 published by the 
Directorate of Economics and Statistics41 as the QEP:  
QEP (thousands of tonnes)  
State  2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 
Andhra Pradesh  8,094.6  6,724.0  4,138.6  3,645.4  
Bihar 20,116.3  13,578.8  12,109.8  12,025.6  
Gujarat  11,326.4  11,570.0  16,954.7  17,459.1  
Haryana  8,505.0  7,730.4  8,531.7  8,822.6  
Karnataka  42,408.0  38,181.0  42,528.0  61,152.0  
Maharashtra  89,768.2  69,311.9  105,137.6  116,076.4  
Punjab  7,773.7  7,302.0  7,487.0  7,130.9  
Tamil Nadu  17,140.2  14,119.1  13,284.6  16,166.4  
Telangana  3,183.6 2,012.9 1,751 .0 2,864.6  
Uttar Pradesh  179,714.8  179,539.1  178,339.3  179,167.1  
Uttarakhand  6,329.3  6,937.7  3,680.0  3,520.0  
Other States  11,056.1  13,493.4  11,456.4  11,394.8  
4.4  MARKET PRICE SUPPORT  
4.38.  Having estimated the individual components of the methodology set out in paragraph  8 of 
Annex  3 of the Agreement on Agriculture, we proceed to apply that methodology to calculate the 
amount of market price support provided to sugarcane producers in  different States and seasons. 
We also sum up these State totals to determine the total market price support provided to all 
sugarcane producers in India during each season.  
4.39.  For the reasons set out in this Appendix, we conclude that India provided market price support 
to sugarcane producers, during each sugar season from 2018 -19 to 202 1-22, as follows:  
Market price support (2018 -19 sugar season)  
State  FERP  
(INR per tonne)  AAP 
(INR  per tonne)  QEP 
(thousand  tonnes)  Market Price Support  
(millions INR)  
Andhra Pradesh  171.33  2,612.50  8,094.6  19,760.30  
Bihar 190.07  2,900.00  20,116.3  54,513.83  
Gujarat  195.57  2,928.75  11,326.4  30,956.98  
Haryana  189.33  3,350.00  8,505.0  26,881.54  
Karnataka  188.23  2,818.75  42,408.0  111,555.14  
Maharashtra  184.92  2,769.25  89,768.2  231,990.24  
Punjab  185.47  3,000.00  7,773.7  21,879.17  
Tamil Nadu  163.44  2,612.50  17,140.2  41,977.49  
Telangana  187.49  2,807.75  3,184  8,341.85  
Uttar Pradesh  200.35  3,150.00  179,714.8  530,095.83  
Uttarakhand  200.35  3,170.00  6,329.3  18,795.88  
Other States  183.64  2,750.00  11,056.1  28,374.06  
Total – All India     405,416.2  1,125,122.30  
 
 
40 Appendix to Panel Report, India – Sugar and Sugarcane , para. 5 .5. 
41 "Five Year Series data from 201 7-18 to 202 1-22", Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 
Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare:  
http://desagri.gov.in/wp -content/uploads/2023/05/Five -Year-Oilseeds -and-Commercial -Crops -ending -
2021-22.xlsx . G/AG/W/245  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Market price support (2019 -20 sugar season)  
State  FERP  
(INR  per tonne)  AAP 
(INR  per tonne)  QEP 
(thousand tonnes)  Market Price 
Support  
(millions INR)  
Andhra Pradesh  172.80  2,612.50  6,724.0  16,404.51  
Bihar 204.39  3,060.75  13,578.8  38,786.03  
Gujarat  197.41  2,956.25  11,570.0  31,919.70  
Haryana  193.74  3,350.00  7,730.4  24,399.12  
Karnataka  186.58  2,794.00  38,181.0  99,554.05  
Maharashtra  211.92  3,173.50  69,311.9  205,272.78  
Punjab  179.23  3,000.00  7,302.0  20,597.32  
Tamil Nadu  157.56  2,612.50  14,119.1  34,661.49  
Telangana  188.60  2,824.25  2,013  5,305.22  
Uttar Pradesh  215.59  3,228.50  179,539.1  540,934.98  
Uttarakhand  205.86  3,170.00  6,937.7  20,564.39  
Other States  183.64  2,750.00  13,493.4  34,629.07  
Total – All India      370,500.3  1,073,028.66  
 
Market price support (2020 -21 sugar season)  
State  FERP  
(INR per tonne)  AAP 
(INR per tonne)  QEP 
(thousand tonnes)  Market Price Support  
(millions INR)  
Andhra Pradesh  172.25  2,707.50  4,138.6  10,492.48  
Bihar 195.21  3,029.55  12,109.8  34,323.33  
Gujarat  187.86  2,915.55  16,954.7  46,247.19  
Haryana  188.05  3,450.00  8,531.7  27,830.09  
Karnataka  201.08  3,120.75  42,528.0  124,167.57  
Maharashtra  207.14  3,214.80  105,137.6  316,217.77  
Punjab  171.33  3,000.00  7,487.0  21,178.22  
Tamil Nadu  165.46  2,707.50  13,284.6  33,770.09  
Telangana  193.55  3,003.90  1,751  4,920.86  
Uttar Pradesh  215.04  3,337.35  178,339.3  556,830.44  
Uttarakhand  201.08  3,170.00  3,680.0  10,925.61  
Other States  183.64  2,850.00  11,456.4  30,546.80  
Total – All India      405,398.7  1,217,450.45  
 
Market price support (2021 -22 sugar season)  
State  FERP  
(INR per tonne)  AAP 
(INR per tonne)  QEP 
(thousand tonnes)  Market Price Support  
(millions INR)  
Andhra Pradesh  172.25  2,755.00  3,645.4  9,415.17  
Bihar 209.16  3,303.10  12,025.6  37,206.38  
Gujarat  194.66  3,074.00  17,459.1  50,270.78  
Haryana  180.88  3,550.00  8,822.6  29,724.27  
Karnataka  200.35  3,163.90  61,152.0  181,227.07  
Maharashtra  205.67  3,248.00  116,076.4  353,142.18  
Punjab  178.31  3,500.00  7,130.9  23,686.55  
Tamil Nadu  170.05  2,755.00  16,166.4  41,789.43  
Telangana  197.96  3,126.20  2,865  8,388.14  
Uttar Pradesh  210.45  3,400.00  179,167.1  571,462.58  
Uttarakhand  190.62  3,450.00  3,520.0  11,473.03  
Other States  183.64  2,900.00  11,394.8  30,952.51  
Total – All India      439,424.9  1,348,738.10  
4.5  DIFFERENCES  WITH  INDIA 'S CALCULATIONS  
4.40.  India has not notified the value of its market price support for sugarcane since marketing 
year 1995-96 (G/AG/N/IND/1 ). Therefore, direct comparison between India 's domestic support 
notifications and the  analysis  in this paper  is not possible.  In India's 1995-96 domestic  support  
notification,  total market price support  for sugarcane  was USD 184 million,  with eligible  production  
based  on sugarcane  for sugar  production only. G/AG/W/245  
 
- 15 - 
 
  4.6  EXCHANGE  RATE  DIFFERENTIAL  
4.41.  As identified  in G/AG/W/174 , India's AGST  Supporting  Tables  (G/AG/AGST/IND ) are published 
in INR. However,  India's domestic  support  notifications  are denominated  in USD. To be  consistent  
with India's scheduled  commitments  under  the AoA, and given  the FRP is set in INR, this paper has 
calculated India 's market price support based on INR.  
5  CONCLUSION  
5.1.  We conclude by presenting the calculated market price support as a percentage of the value of 
production across India42 over the period 2018 -19 to 202 1-22: 
Market Price Support and Value of Production  
Marketing Year  Market Price Support  
(millions INR)  Value of Production  
(millions INR)  MPS/VoP  
2018-19 1,125,122  1,216,426  92.49%  
2019-20 1,073,029  1,169,617  91.74%  
2020-21 1,217,450  1,209,878  100.63%  
2021-22 1,348,738  1,360,993  99.10%  
5.2.  These estimates indicated that over  the three-year period covered by this notification,  India has 
provided  sugarcane  AMS vastly  in excess  of the limits set out in Article 6, paragraph  4 of the AoA 
(10%  of the total value of production of sugarcane).  
5.3.  As referred to in paragraph 2.3, India has not provided any domestic support notifications for 
sugarcane since 1995 -96. Therefore, direct comparison against India's domestic support 
notifications is not possible.  
5.4.  We continue to be  ready to engage in discussions with India and other Members regarding the 
significance of India's market price support and resulting AMS for sugarcane, as well as the other 
trade distorting measures to facilitate sugar exports as detailed in the Panel Rep ort, and their impact 
on global sugar markets.  
 
 
__________  
 
42 Value of Production for sugarcane is based on current prices , "Statement 8.1.2 - Crop-wise value of 
output " Chapter 8  National Accounts Statistics 2022 -23, Government of India  - total value of production of 
sugarcane in India is divided between sub -entries 4.1 (sugarcane) and 4.2 (gur).