G/AG/W/174  
 
9 May 2018  
(18-2841) Page: 1/12 
Committee on Agriculture  Original: English  
 
CERTAIN MEASURES OF INDIA PROVIDING MARK ET PRICE SUPPORT  
TO RICE AND WHEAT  
COMMUNICATION FROM T HE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 18.7 OF THE AGREEMEN T ON AGRICULTURE  
1  INDIA 'S PROVISION OF SUBST ANTIAL MARKET PRICE SUPPORT FOR WHEAT AN D 
RICE  
1.1.  Using publicly -available sources, the United States has compiled data and information on 
India's market price support (MPS) for wheat and rice.  Further to Article 18.7 of the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), the United States is providing this informati on to other 
Members in the interest of promoting transparency surrounding India 's MPS policies.  This 
document is for the purpose of discussion by World Trade Organization (WTO) Members.  Some 
aspects were necessarily based on partial information.   
1.2.  This docu ment addresses marketing years 2010/11 through 2013/141 – the marketing years 
covered by India 's domestic support notification G/AG/ N/IND/11 (2011/12, 2012/13, 
and 2013/14) and the last of the years covered by India 's domestic support notification 
G/AG/N/I ND/10.  Findings and calculations are presented in Part I of the present document.  
Explanation of the relevant methodology and findings, as well as preliminary discussion of their 
significance, can be found in Part II.  
1.3.  This document is limited to the specif ic issues of India 's MPS for wheat and rice.  The 
document does not attempt to identify the full value of India 's Current Total Aggregate 
Measurement of Support (AMS) or even the full amount of product -specific domestic support 
provided for wheat and rice.  The limited scope of this document should in no way be taken to 
suggest that no additional product -specific support was provided for wheat and rice in the relevant 
years, that MPS or other types of product -specific domestic support was not provided for oth er 
commodities, or that India did not provide non -de-minimis  non-product specific domestic support 
in the years in question.  
2  FINDINGS  
2.1.  India appears to be providing significant market price support, both in terms of absolute 
value and as a percentage of th e value of production, for wheat and rice.  The table below shows 
apparent MPS as an estimated percentage of the value of production for wheat and rice.  
Apparent MPS as a percentage of the value of production for r ice and wheat 
Commodity  MY 2010/11  MY 2011/ 12 MY 2012/13  MY 2013/14  
Rice 74.0%  80.1%  84.2%  76.9%  
Wheat  60.1%  60.9%  68.5%  65.3%  
 
                                                
1 G/AG/N/IND/10, submitted to the WTO on 10 September 2014, covered the period 
marketing  year (MY) 2004/05 through MY  2010/11. G/AG/N/IND/11, submitted to the WTO on 13 July 20 17, 
covered MY  2011/12 through MY  2013/14.  Until a few days before U.S. submission of this communication 
pursuant to Article 18.7, G/AG/N/IND/10  and G/AG/N/IND/1 1 were the most recent domestic support 
notifications submitted by India to the WTO.  G/AG/W/174  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3  CALCULATION OF ESTIM ATES FOR INDIA'S MPS  FOR WHEAT AND RICE ( MARKETING 
YEARS 2010/11 -2013/14)  
3.1.  The following tables show the calculation of estimates for India's MPS for  wheat and rice for 
marketing years 2010/11 -2013/142, both as a value in Indian Rupees and as a percentage of the 
value of production of these crops in India. Notes and sources are the same for all tables, except 
as noted.3 
 
 
 
                                                
2 The marketing year for rice runs from October through the following September. The marketing year 
for wheat runs from April through the following March.  
3 National -level minimum support prices for rice and wheat can be found at 
https://eands.dacnet.nic.in/msp/MSP_09 -11-2011.pdf  (accessed 27 April 2018), and 
http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/PDF/MSP01062016.pdf  (accessed 27 April 20 18). In these government listings, 
MSPs are listed in Rs per quintal, resulting in a need to multiply values by 10 to ascertain an MSP in Rs per 
metric ton ne. For External Reference Price data, see India Notification, G/AG/AGST/IND (undated) at 12 -13. 
For state-level production data, see "Agricultural Statistics at a Glance ", obtained from India Directorate of 
Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, for years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 
and 2016, at Tables 4.6(b) for rice, 4.7(b) for wheat, available at  http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/  (accessed 
5 March 2018).  For national -level production data, see "Agricultural Statistics at a Glance " 2016 Table 4.1(b). 
Wheat MSP and production information is for wheat harvested and markete d in MYs 2010/11 -2013/14 
(April -March), but which may have been planted in the prior crop year.   
  G/AG/W/174  
 
- 3 - Table 1 - Market Price Support for Rice and Wheat, MY 2010/11  
 Description  of Basic  
Products  Applied  Administered  
Price  External  Reference  
Price  Eligible  
Production  Total  Market  Price  
Support  VoP MPS/VOP  
  (Rs./MT)  (Rs./MT)  (Million  MT) (Million  Rs.) 
(AAP-ERP)* EP (Million  Rs.)  
1a Rice‐Common1 (Paddy):  Total    1,121,561  1,516,140  74.0%  
 MSP and Additional  Bonus2  
 1. Chattisgarh  10,500.00  2,346.67  9.24 75,325    
 2. Karnataka  11,000.00  2,346.67  6.28 54,360    
 3. Kerala  14,000.00  2,346.67  0.78 9,137    
 4. Madhya  Pradesh  10,500.00  2,346.67  2.66 21,673    
 5. Tamil  Nadu 10,500.00  2,346.67  8.69 70,841    
 All Other  States  (No bonus)  10,000.00  2,346.67  116.32  890,226    
2 Wheat:  Total    618,688  1,029,780  60.1%  
 MSP and Additional  Bonus2  
 1. Rajasthan3
 12,000.00  3,540.00  7.51 63,535    
 2. Madhya  Pradesh  12,000.00  3,540.00  8.41 71,149    
 All Other  States  (No bonus)  11,000.00  3,540.00  64.88  484,005    
 
Note:  
1 a) India announces a separate minimum support price (MSP) for common paddy rice and Grade A paddy rice. The common variety of ri ce accounts for the major share 
of production and government procurement. India has not made available sufficient data to separate out eligible production (EP) f or each variety, and 
the United  States has accordingly treated all Indian rice produced in MY  2010/11 -2013/14 as common paddy rice for purposes of U.S. calculations. Because India has 
only a single external reference price (ER P) for rice, U.S. treatment of all MY  2010/11 -2013/14 as common paddy rice results in understatement of India 's actual MPS 
for rice.  
 b) India announces an MSP for unmilled  paddy rice. India's notified ERP is on a milled rice basis and EP data are also on a milled rice basis. EP reported for mille d rice is 
multiplied by 1.5 to convert to an equivalent volume of paddy rice, as one unit of milled rice is equivalent to approxim ately 66 % of the volume of unmilled rice. 
ERP is converted to an equivalent price for paddy rice using the same conversion rate.  
2 Various states give an additional bonus over and above the announced wheat and rice MSP ("bonus").4  
3 State bonus data for Rajasthan for MY  2010/11 obtained from: "Rs. 100 per quintal wheat bonus for Rajasthan farmers ", The Hindu , 31 March 2012, available at  
http://www.thehindu.com/todays -paper/tp -national/tp -newdelhi/rs100 -per-quintal -wheat -bonus -for-rajasthan -farme rs/article3264479.ece  (accessed 5 March  2018).  
 
                                                
4 Unless otherwise indicated, st ate bonuses were obtained from:  
http://cacp.dacnet.nic.in/ViewReports.aspx? Input=2&PageId=40&KeyId=477  and 
http://cacp.dacnet.nic.in/ViewReports.aspx?Input=2&PageId=39&KeyId=534  (accessed 5 March 2018).   
  G/AG/W/174  
 
- 4 - Table  2 - Market  Price  Support  for Rice and Wheat , MY 2011/12  
 Description  of Basic  Products  Applied  Administered  
Price  External  Reference  
Price  Eligible  
Production  Total  Market  Price  Support  VoP MPS/VOP  
  (Rs./MT)  (Rs./MT)  (Million  MT) (Million  Rs.) 
(AAP-ERP)*EP  (Million  Rs.)  
1a Rice‐Common1 
(Paddy):  Total    1,365,406  1,705,600  80.1%  
 MSP and Additional  Bonus2
 
 1. Chattisgarh  11,300.00  2,346.67  9.04 80,961    
 2. Karnataka  13,300.00  2,346.67  5.93 64,981    
 3. Kerala  15,000.00  2,346.67  0.85 10,800    
 4. Madhya  Pradesh  11,300.00  2,346.67  3.34 29,913    
 5. Tamil  Nadu 11,300.00  2,346.67  11.19  100,170    
 All Other  States  (No bonus)  10,800.00  2,346.67  127.59  1,078,581    
2 Wheat:  Total    731,486  1,202,110  60.9%  
 MSP and Additional  Bonus2  
 1. Madhya  Pradesh  12,700.00  3,540.00  7.63 69,864    
 2. Uttar Pradesh  12,200.00  3,540.00  30 259,800    
 All Other  States  (No bonus)  11,700.00  3,540.00  49.24  401,822    
 
Table  3 - Market Price Support for Rice and Wheat, MY  2012/13  
 Description  of Basic  
Products  Applied  Administered  
Price  External  Reference  
Price  Eligible  
Production  Total  Market  Price  
Support  VoP MPS/VOP  
  (Rs./MT)  (Rs./MT)  (Million  MT) (Million  Rs.) 
(AAP-ERP)*EP  (Million  Rs.)  
1a Rice‐Common1 
(Paddy):  Total    1,652,817  1,962,290  84.2%  
 MSP and Additional  Bonus2  
 1. Chattisgarh  15,200.00  2,346.67  9.91 127,418    
 2. Karnataka  15,000.00  2,346.67  5.05 63,849    
 3. Kerala  17,000.00  2,346.67  0.76 11,172    
 4. Madhya  Pradesh  13,500.00  2,346.67  4.16 46,426    
 5. Tamil  Nadu 13,000.00  2,346.67  6.07 64,717    
 All Other  States  (No bonus)  12,500.00  2,346.67  131.90  1,339,235    
2 Wheat:  Total    904,191  1,320,420  68.5%  
 MSP and Additional  Bonus2  
 1. Madhya  Pradesh  13,850.00  3,540.00  11.54  118,962    
 2. Rajasthan  13,850.00  3,540.00  9.32 96,089    
 All Other  States  (No bonus)  12,850.00  3,540.00  74.02  689,140    
  
  G/AG/W/174  
 
- 5 - Table  4 - Market Price Support for Rice and Wheat,  MY 2013/14  
 Description  of Basic  
Products  Applied Administered 
Price  External  Reference 
Price  Eligible 
Production  Total Market Price  
Support  VoP MPS/VOP  
  (Rs./MT)  (Rs./MT)  (Million  MT) (Million  Rs.) 
(AAP-ERP)*EP  (Million  Rs.)  
1a Rice‐Common1 
(Paddy):  Total    1,780,185  2,314,210  77% 
MSP and Additional  Bonus2
 
 1. Chattisgarh  16,100.00  2,346.67  10.08  138,634    
 2. Karnataka  16,000.00  2,346.67  5.36 73,114    
 3. Kerala  18,000.00  2,346.67  0.77 11,975    
 4. Madhya  Pradesh  14,600.00  2,346.67  4.26 52,199    
 5.Tamil  Nadu   13,600.00  2,346.67  8.03 90,308    
 All Other  States  (No bonus)  13,100.00  2,346.67  131.49  1,413,956    
2 Wheat:  Total    964,973  1,477,950  65.3%  
MSP and Additional  Bonus2 
 
 1. Madhya  Pradesh  15,000.00  3,540.00  13.13  150,509    
 2. Rajasthan  15,000.00  3,540.00  9.28 106,297    
 All Other  States  (No bonus)  13,500.00  3,540.00  71.10  708,167    
 
 G/AG/W/174  
 
- 6 - 
 
  4  EXPLANATION OF APPAR ENT FINDINGS  
4.1  INDIAN EXPORTS AND DOMESTIC SUPPORT  
4.1.  In each of the years 2011 through 2014, India was the world 's second or third largest 
agricultural producer5. Also a major agricultural exporter, India 's agricultural exports 
increa sed 22% between 2011 and 2014, reaching USD37 billion6 and transforming India from the 
world 's tenth largest agricultural exporter into the world 's seventh largest.7 India is a particularly 
significant player in the international market for rice.  Since 2012, in each year for which statistics 
are available, India exported more rice than any other country, a nnually accounting for over 
one-third of world wide exports8. These exports amount to over 20%  of India 's domestic 
production.9  
4.2.  In addition to being a major agricultural producer, India is also a major provider of 
agricultural domestic support.  While India provides a variety of domestic support to its  producers, 
input subsidies and minimum support prices (MSPs) appear to be the primary support 
mechanisms.  This support appears to have contributed to expanding production and government 
stocks, coinciding with increased exports.   
4.2  RELATIONSHIP OF MPS TO CU RRENT TOTAL AMS  
4.3.  Article 7, paragraph 2 of the AoA states that "[w]here no Total AMS c ommitment 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 pa ragraph  4 of Article  6". India has no Total 
AMS commitment in Part IV of its Schedule (XII).  
4.4.  Annex 3 of the AoA identifies support that "shall" be included in a Member 's AMS calculation.  
It states that "an Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) s hall be ca lculated 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 ")"10. Thus, the AoA states that "market price support " in favor of basic 
agricultural products is a form of non -exempt domestic support and must be included in a 
Member 's AMS calculation.  
4.5.  Article 6, paragraph  4 of the AoA  provides an exemption from inclusion in Total AMS of 
product -specific domestic support of less than 5 % of the total value of production of a basic 
agricultural product during a relevant year, or 10 % for a developing country.  Accordingly, if India 
provides  product -specific domestic support, including MPS, for a specific basic agricultural product 
in excess of 10% of the value of production for that crop during a given year, India will be in 
breach of its AMS commitments under the AoA.  
4.3  PRINCIPLES FOR CALCULA TING MPS  
4.6.  Annex 3, paragraph 1 of the AoA provides that AMS "shall be calculated on a product -specific 
basis for each basic agricultural product receiving market price support, non -exempt direct 
                                                
5 "Production -Value of Agricultural Produ ction, " FAOSTAT, available at, http://www.fao.org/ (accessed 
20 April2018). Values reported in current US$ . 
6 India Ministry of Commerce data, accessed through IHS Global Trade Atlas (GTA).  
7 See WTO International Trade Statistics  2011 at page 67 to and WTO International Trade 
Statistics  2014 at page 67, available at, https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2011_e/its2011_e.pdf . 
8 Indian and global export data obtained from IHS GTA using Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 
code 1006.  
9 The United States calculates India 's exports of rice as a percentage of domestic production by dividing 
India's exports of rice at HTS code 1006, as report ed by GTA, by the total value of production of rice, as 
reported at current prices in India 's National Accounts Statistics 2017 and converted into U.S. Dollars  (USD) 
using the 2017 annual exchange rate of 65.0659 Rs. to 1 USD sourced from the U.S. Federal Reserve. India 's 
exports of rice, as a percentage of domestic production, equalled 20.12 %, 22.05 %, and 23.07% 
in 2012,  2013, and 2014, respectively.  
10 See AoA, Annex 3, paragraph 1 (emphasis added).   G/AG/W/174  
 
- 7 - 
 
  payments, or any other subsidy not exempt from the reduction c ommitments ".11 Annex  3 further 
provides a specific calculation methodology for determining the value of "market price support. " 
4.7.  Pursuant to Annex 3, paragraph 8 of the AoA:  
[M]arket price support shall be calculated using the gap between a fixed external r eference 
price and the applied administered price multiplied by the quantity of production eligible to 
receive the applied administered price.  
4.8.  Thus, "market price support " requires a comparison between the "applied administered 
price" (AAP) and the "fixed external reference price ". An AAP would be a price that is dispensed or 
provided by a governmental scheme.12 The "fixed external reference price " is defined in Annex  3, 
paragraph  9, which states that this price "shall be based on the years 1986 to 1988 ".13 The 
difference between the AAP and fixed external reference price is then multiplied by the "quantity of 
production eligible to receive the applied administered price. "14  
4.9.  The calculation methodology provided in Annex  3, paragraph  8, for market price support  is 
reflected in the following equation:  
(Applied Administered Price – Fixed External Reference Price) * Quantity of Production Eligible = 
Value of Market Price Support  
 
The Appellate Body in Korea – Beef reached the same understanding of the meaning of 
"market  price support " under Annex 3, paragraph 8.15 
 
4.10.   The MPS calculation methodology contained in Annex 3, paragraph 8, of the AoA directs that 
the established price gap be multiplied "by the quantity of production eligible to receive the applied 
administered price. "16 The ordinary meaning of the terms indicates that "eligible production " is all 
of the production entitled or permitted to receive the administered price.  It is the amount of 
agricultural production that has the rightful claim to receiv e the AAP, whether or not that amount 
of production actually received the specified AAP.17 
4.11.   The Appellate Body in Korea – Beef considered the meaning of the phrase "quantity of 
production eligible to receive the applied administered price " and reached a simi lar 
understanding.18 The Appellate Body stated that "production eligible to receive the applied 
administered price " has "a different meaning in ordinary usage from 'production actually 
purchased. '"19 The Appellate Body further defined "eligible " as that whic h is "fit or entitled to be 
chosen. "20 It noted that "[p]roduction actually purchased may often be less than eligible 
production. "21 Thus, "eligible production " within the meaning of Annex 3, paragraph 8 of the AoA is 
                                                
11 See AoA, Annex 3, paragraph 1.  
12 Of relevance, "admini ster" is defined as to "execute or dispense" , or to "furnish, supply, give 
(orig.  something beneficial to) ". Shorter  Oxford  English  Dictionary , "administer " p. 28 (ed. 1993).  
13 See AoA, Annex 3, paragraph 9. See also AoA , Annex 3, paragraph 7 (stating that the "AMS shall be 
calculated as close as practicable to the point of first sale of the basic agricultural product concerned"). India 
notified its External Reference Prices (ERPs) for wheat and rice to the WTO in documen t G/AG/AGST/IND 
(undated). They are 3540 rupees/ MT for wheat and 3520 rupees/ MT for milled rice. Because India maintains 
an AAP for paddy rice as opposed to milled rice, despite having notified an external reference price for milled 
rice, this document con verts India 's ERP to a paddy basis using a conversion factor of 1.5, consistent with 
industry practice. This results in an ERP for paddy rice of 2346.67 rupees/ MT. India uses the same conversion 
factor of 1.5. See G/AG/N/IND/10 p. 8 and G/AG/N/IND/11 p. 6.  
14 AoA, Annex 3, paragraph 8.  
15 See e.g., Appellate Body Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled, and Frozen 
Beef, WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R , adopted 10 January 2001 ( Korea – Beef (AB)), para. 116.  
16 See AoA, Annex 3, paragraph 8.  
17 See also Shorter Oxford English Dictionary , "entitled ", p. 830 (ed. 1993) ("Now (chiefly of 
circumstances, qualities, etc.) confer on (a person or thing) a rightful claim to something or a right to do." 
(emphasis original)); Shorter Oxford English Dictionary , "fit" , p. 960 (ed. 1993) ("Be suited to or appropriate 
for;" "Meet the requirements of").  
18 See Korea – Beef (AB), para. 120.  
19 See Korea – Beef (AB), para. 120 (emphasis in original).  
20 See Korea – Beef (AB), para. 120.  
21 See Korea – Beef (AB), para. 120.  G/AG/W/174  
 
- 8 - 
 
  production, which is fit or entitled to receive the applied administered price, whether or not the 
production was actually purchased.22 
4.4  India 's MPS Regime for Wheat and Rice  
4.12.   India's Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) devises "price policy and 
relative price structure " for approxi mately two dozen agricultural commodities.23 The Agricultural 
Prices Commission (APC), the predecessor to the CACP, was originally established in 1965 by the 
Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOA) to "advise on the price policy of agricultural 
commodities…w ith a view to evolving a balanced and integrated price structure…. "24 The mandate 
of CACP and the products for which it sets MSP levels are determined through a "terms of 
reference " document established through ministerial resolution.25 The resolution governing the 
current operation of the CAPC states:  
…Terms of Reference of the Commission would be as under:  
To advise on the price policy of paddy/rice, wheat, jo war, bajra, maize, ragi, 
barely  {sic}, gram, turn, moong, urad, sugarcane, gr oundnut, soyabean, sunflower 
seed, rapeseed, mustard, cotton, jute, tobacco, sesamum, nigerseed, lentil (masur), 
safflower, copra and such other commodities as the Government may decide from 
time to time, with a view to evolving a balanced and integrated p rice structure in the 
perspective of the overall needs of the economy and with due regard to the interests 
of the producer and the consumer.26 
4.13.   CACP submits price policy reports to India 's Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA), 
which then announces fi nal decisions on the levels of MSPs in periodic press releases.27 These 
CCEA press releases are issued three times a year by crop type: Kharif (June), Rabi and Toria 
crops (October/November).  The Food Corporation of India (FCI), the Cotton Corporation of 
India (CCI), the Jute Corporation of India (JCI), and the National Agricultural Cooperative 
Federation of  India (NAFED), as well as analogous state agencies, play a role in procuring the 
relevant agricultural products.28 
4.14.   India does not cap the quantity of whe at and rice that the gover nment may procure under 
its MPS  program mes. Accordingly, under the terms of the AoA, all Indian production of these 
                                                
22 See Korea – Beef (AB), para. 120; see also Panel Report, Korea  – Measures  Affecting Imports of 
Fresh, Chilled, and Frozen Beef, WT/DS161/R, WT/DS169/R , adopted 10 January 2001, as modified by 
Appellate Body Report WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS16 9/AB./R , (Korea  – Beef (Panel)), para. 827 (noting that 
"eligible production for the purposes of calculating the market price support component of current support 
should comprise the total marketable production of all producers which is eligible to benefit  from the market 
price support, even though the proportion of production which is actually purchased by a governmental agency 
may be relatively small or even nil "). 
23 See "Organization ", Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, available at, 
http://cacp.dacnet.nic.in/content.aspx?pid=32  (accessed 5 March 2018) and "The Terms of Reference of the 
Commission vide Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Agriculture and Cooperation) 's Resolution 
No. 49011/6/2009 -EA", available at, The Terms of Reference of the Commission vide Ministry of Agriculture 
(Department of Agriculture and Cooperation) 's Resolution No. 49011/6/2009 -EA dated 30.7.2009 (accessed 
March 8, 2018). CACP s tates that it sets prices  for 23  agricultural commodities on its web site. However, the 
manner in which products are counted can affect the total count of products subject to the MPS regime.  
24 See Department of Food and Agriculture, Ministry of Food and Agriculture Resolution No.  6-2/65, 
8 January 1965, available at, 
http://cacp.dacnet.nic.in/ViewQuestionare.aspx?Input=2&DocId=1&PageId=34&KeyId=247  (accessed 
8 March  2018).  
25 See Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation, Resolution F 
No. A 49011/6/2009 -EA, 30 July 2009, available at, 
http://cac p.dacnet.nic.in/ViewQuestionare.aspx?Input=2&DocId=1&PageId=34&KeyId=247  (accessed 
8 March  2018).  
26 See "Resolution" , Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation F 
No. A 49011/6/2009 -EA, 30 July 2009, p. 1, available at, 
http://cacp.dacnet.nic.in/ViewQuestionare.aspx?Input=2&DocId=1&PageId=34&KeyId=247  (accessed 
8 March  2018).  
27 See "Organization" , Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, available at, 
http://cacp.dacnet.nic.in/content.aspx?pid=32  (accessed 5 March 2018).  
28 See "Organization ", Commission for Agricultural Costs and  Prices, available at, 
http://cacp.dacnet.nic.in/content.aspx?pid=32  (accessed 5 March 2018).  G/AG/W/174  
 
- 9 - 
 
  commodities constitutes eligible production for purposes of ascertaining the level of India 's MPS for 
wheat and ri ce.29 
4.15.   In addition to the minimum support price announced by India 's central government, certain 
Indian states have, in certain years, instituted higher support prices within their states.  These 
states pay the increased price on quantities tendered to state agencies as part of the MPS regime.  
These higher prices accordingly apply to all production of wheat and rice occurring within the state.  
4.5  Differences w ith India 's calculations  
4.16.   India's notifications for the years at issue appear to dramatically under -report  the value of 
India's MPS for wheat and rice.  For example, India 's notification for MY  2013/14 showed a value of 
support converted from U.S. dollars of Rs.  120,015.67  million for rice and negative 
Rs. 49,477.51  million for wheat.30 By comparison, the United  States estimates that MPS was 
Rs. 1,780,185  million for MY  2013/14 for rice and Rs. 964,973 million for MY 2013/14 for wheat.  
The differences between India 's reported figures and the apparent actual figures for other years 
are of similar magnitude.  They c an be seen in the chart at the end of section E.  
4.5.1   Currency  
4.17.   India's AGST document provides India 's domestic support commitments in Indian rupees.  
However, all of India 's DS:1 notifications have been denominated in U.S. dollars.  India has not 
explained the basis for using U.S. dollars beyond stating it has remained consistent in its 
notifications.  To be consistent with India 's scheduled commitments, the United States has 
calculated India 's MPS using information published by the GOI in Indian rupees.   
4.5.2   Eligibl e Production  
4.18.   India's domestic support notifications G/AG/N/IND/10 and G/AG/N/IND/11 appear to reflect 
only volumes actually purchased pursuant to the MPS program me. India's AGST document and 
first DS:1 notification, for MY  1995/96, relied on total producti on as India 's eligible production for 
similar market price support program mes.31 
4.19.   While India has acknowledged this change in methodology, it has not provided a specific 
explanation for this change, as seen in India 's response in the CoA to AG -IMS ID  63058.  In other 
responses to questions in the CoA, such as AG -IMS ID  63058 and AG-IMS ID  67028, India has 
stated that the reason for its use of the procured quantity as eligible production is that the only 
farmers to benefit from the MSP are those whose product i s procured by a government agency.  
4.20.   The United States was unable to identify any change in India 's MPS program me between 
1995/96 and 1996/97 that would explain the change in notification methodology.  To the contrary, 
records indicate that during MY  1996/97,  the Indian Ministry of Agriculture 's Commission for 
Agricultural Cost and Prices was recommending that procurement agencies continue to improve on 
their readiness to meet their obligation to "buy all quantities of the produce offered by the farmers 
at tha t [MSP or applied administered] price ".32 
                                                
29 The Indian Government appears to maintain a policy of purchasing all tendered wheat and rice 
despite the existence of certain guidelines that might otherwise impose certain limitations on purchases. For 
instance, while the GOI has published certain quality standards, it does not appear that these quality standards 
are adhered to. India 's own Comptro ller and Auditor General found that the FCI had not established any 
mechanism to ensure that rice conformed to the prescribed food safety standards at the procurement stage. 
See Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, "Report of the Com ptroller and Auditor General 
of India on Procurement and Millin g of Paddy for the Central Pool ", Report No.  31 of 2015, available at, 
http://www.cag.gov.in/sites/default/files/audit_report_files/Union_Performance_Procurement_Milling_of_Paddy
_Central_Pool_31_2015.pdf , pages 43 -44 (accessed 9 March 2018).  
30 India notified MY 2013/14 values of -$817.81 million fo r wheat and $1,983.73 million for rice. 
The United States converts India 's notified MPS values for MY 2013/14 in million USD to million Rs. using 
India's notified exchange rate for 2013 -14 of 60.50 Rs. to 1 USD.  
31 See India Notification, G/AG/N/IND/1 (1998).  
32 See CACP, "Reports of the Commission on Agricultural Costs an d Prices for Crops Sown in 
1995-96 Season and 1996 -97 Season," 1997, page 332, available at 
http://cacp.dacnet.nic.in/ViewReports.aspx?Input=2&PageId=63&KeyId=334  (accessed 5 March 2018).  G/AG/W/174  
 
- 10 - 
 
  4.21.   More importantly, India 's reporting of only procured quantities is directly contrary to the 
MPS calculation me thodology provided in AoA Annex  3, paragraph  8, which provides for the 
calculation to be based on all pro duction eligible for the price, whether or not actually procured by 
a Member 's government at that price.  Accordingly, the United States has estimated MPS here 
based on all eligible production, as opposed to just that portion of production actually procured  by 
government entities in India.  
4.5.3   Inclusion of State Level Bonuses in Applied Administered Price  
4.22.   India's MPS notifications G/AG/N/IND/10 and G/AG/N/IND/11, including for wheat and rice, 
only reflect the national minimum support prices and do not include a ll state bonuses or other 
incentives that further increase the MSP provided to farmers.  The AAPs notified by India in 
G/AG/N/IND/10 and G/AG/N/IND/11 appear to match only with the minimum support price 
announced by the central government.  Accordingly, Indi a does not appear to be reflecting state 
bonuses in its notification of MPS.  For rice and wheat, additional state -funded "incentive bonuses " 
have been provided in addition to the federal -level "minimum support prices " in certain Indian 
states.33 Wheat and rice procured by the government in specified states was purchased from 
producers at the announced minimum support price plus the announced state bonus, which 
appears to effectively increase the floor price in those states.34  
4.5.4   Value of Production  
4.23.   India has not notified total value of production (VoP) for any commodity in its domestic 
support notifications for the years that the United States has examined in this document.  The 
VoP data used in the calculations and tables in this document is sourced from India 's National 
Accounts Statistics.35 India did provide unsourced Value of Production data in response to a 
question posed to it in the WTO Committee on Agriculture (CoA).  These figures differ from those 
drawn from India 's National Accounts Statistics.  In addi tion to showing its notified MPS as a 
percentage of the Value of Production identified from India 's National Accounts Statistics, the table 
below also shows MPS as a percentage of the Values of Production offered by India without 
sourcing in response to th e CoA  questions.36 
                                                
33 See GOI Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare: http://eand s.dacnet.nic.in/msp/MSP_09 -11-
2011.pdf  (accessed 5 March 2018).  
34 According to a Government of India Report ("Price Policy for Rabi C rops: The Marketing 
Season  2013-14"), state -level support can be quite significant and can lead to state take -over of certa in 
commodity markets. CACP, "Price Policy for Rabi Crops: The Marketing Season 2013 -14", pp. 21 -22. 
http://cacp.dacnet.nic.in/ViewQuestionare.aspx?Input=2&Do cId=1&PageId=40&KeyId=471  (accessed 
5 March  2018). One example highlighted by the report notes that, with respect to wheat, the introduction by 
Madhya Pradesh of a state bonus (of Indian Rupees 100/100kg) in addition to the MSP in 2007/08 resulted in a 
dramatic increase in state government procurement levels. State procurement increased from 0.8 % of wheat 
produced in 2006/07 to 85 % in 2011/12. On a national level, wheat procurement as a percentage of 
production increased from approximately 12 % to 30% during  the same period. The result of the state bonus, 
according to the report, was a crowding out of the private sector and the government becoming "virtually a 
monopsonist" in the wheat market, which is "not healthy for long term efficiency in procurement oper ations as 
well as for farmers."  
35 For MY 2010/2011, see India National Accounts Statistics 2014 "Statement 55: V alue of Output from 
Agriculture ", at 162 -163, available at, 
http://mospi.nic.in/sites/default/files/reports_and_publication/cso_national_accounts/national_account_statisti
cs/2014/S55.pdf  (accessed 5 March 2018). For MY 2011/12 -13/14, see Ind ia National Accounts Statistics  2015 
at Statement 8.1.2, available at, 
http://www.mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/reports_and_publication/cso_national_accounts/national_account_
statistics/2015/combined%208.1.2%202011 -14.pdf  (accessed 5 March 2018).  
36 AG IMS ID 75019 and AG I MS ID 85043.  
 G/AG/W/174  
 
- 11 - 
 
  4.5.5   Overall Results  
4.24.   The chart below compares India 's reported MPS for rice and wheat with what appears to be 
its actual MPS for rice and wheat:  
India’s Notified MPS Relative to United States’ Calculations of India’s MPS37 
 MY 2010/11  MY 2011/1 2 MY 2012/13  MY 2013/14  
Rice 
India’s Notified MPS by Value  
(U.S. dollars, millions  
Indian Rupees, millions ) USD 2,282.17  
Rs. 103,976  USD 2,647.39  
Rs. 126,863  USD 2,796.70  
Rs. 152,141  USD 1,983.73  
Rs. 120,016  
India’s Notified MPS as % of VoP  stated by 
India in Answer to CoA Question38 7.22%  7.44%  7.68%  5.45%  
U.S. Calculated MPS by Value  
(Indian Rupees, millions)  Rs. 1,121,561  Rs. 1,365,406  Rs. 1,652,817  Rs. 1,780,185  
U.S. Calculated MPS as % of VoP39 74.0%  80.1%  84.2%  76.9%  
Wheat  
India’s Notified MPS by Value  
(U.S. dollars, millions  
Indian Rupees, millions ) USD (161.98)  
Rs. (7,380)  USD 117.76  
Rs. 5,643  USD (604.23)  
RS. (32,870)  USD (817.81)  
Rs. (49,478)  
India’s Notified MPS as % of VoP stated by 
India in Answer to CoA Question40  (0.73%)  0.48%  (2.50%)  (3.53%)  
U.S. Calculated MPS by Value  
(Indian Rupees, millions)  Rs. 618,688  Rs. 731,486  Rs. 904,191  Rs. 964,973  
U.S. Calculated MPS as % of VoP41 60.1%  60.9%  68.5%  65.3%  
 
                                                
37 Monetary values indicated in million Rs. India 's Notified MPS values for MY 2010/11 obtained from 
G/AG/N/IND/10 ( 10 September 2014). India 's Notified MPS values for MY 2011/12 -13/14 obtained from 
G/AG/N/IND/11 ( 13 July 2017). Parentheses in dicate negative values. The United States converts its 
calculations of India 's Notified MPS values in million USD to million Rs. using India 's notified exchange rates for 
MY 2010 -11 (45.56 Rs. to 1 USD), 2011 -12 (47.92 Rs. to 1 USD), 2012 -13 (54.4 Rs. to 1  USD), and 2013 -14 
(60.5 Rs. to 1 USD).  
38 As noted above, India has not notified VoP for any commodity in its domestic support notifications. 
Calculations in this row use unsourced VoP data provided in response to a question posed to it in the 
WTO Committe e on Agriculture (CoA). Use of VoP data sourced from India's National Accounts Statistics 
produces similar results. For each relevant year, India's notified MPS as a percentage of the VoP figure from 
the National Accounts Statistics is: 6.86% (2010/11); 7. 44% (2011/12); 7.75% (2012/13); 5.19% (2013/14).  
39 VoP from India's National Accounts Statistics. Figures for U.S. calculated MPS as a percentage of the 
VoP identified by India in response to a CoA question are similar: 77.9% (2010/11); 80.04% (2011/12); 
83.38% (2012/13); 80.79% (2013/14).  
40 Calculations in this row use unsourced VoP data provided in response to a question posed to it in the 
WTO Committee on Agriculture (CoA). Use of VoP  data sourced from India's National Accounts Statistics 
produces similar results. For each relevant year, India's notified MPS as a percentage of the VoP figure from 
the National Accounts Statistics is: -0.72% (2010/11); 0.47% (201 1/12); -2.49% (2012/13);  
-3.35%  (2013/14).  
41 VoP from India's National Accounts Statistics. Figures for U.S. calculated MPS as a percentage of the 
VoP identified by India in response to a CoA question are similar: 61.54% (2010/11); 61.96% (2011/12); 
68.66% (2012/13); 68.9% (2013/ 14).  G/AG/W/174  
 
- 12 - 
 
  5  CONCLUSION  
5.1.  It appears that India provides market price support  for wheat and rice vastly in excess of 
what it has reported to the WTO.  India’s apparent MPS for wheat appears to have been over 60 % 
of the value of production in each of the last four years for which India has notified data.  Its 
apparent MPS for rice app ears to have been over 70 % of the value of production in each of the 
years.  
5.2.  The United States looks forward to future discussion of the significance of India’s MPS for 
wheat and rice for both India’s market and for world markets – both with India and with other 
Members.  
 
 
__________