WT/DS430/20  
 
3 March  2017 
(17-1284) Page: 1/2 
  Original: English  
 
INDIA – MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION  
OF CERTAIN AGRICULTU RAL PRODUCTS  
COMMUNICATION FROM INDIA  
The following communication, dated 2  March  2017, from the delegation of India to the Chairperson 
of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated at the requ est of that delegation.  
 
_______________  
 
 
On 19 June 2015, the Dispute Settlement Body ( "DSB") adopted its recommendations and rulings 
in India – Measures Concerning the Importation of Certain Agricultural Products (WT/DS430). 
At the following DSB meeting , India informed the DSB of its intention to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB with respect to this matter.  
On 8 December 2015, India and the United States informed the DSB that they had agreed on a 
reasonable period of time up  to 19 Jun e 2016 for India to implement the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB.  In this respect, India notified a draft amendment notification to  the 
SPS Committee on 20 April 20161 allowing a 60 -day time period for interested parties to provide 
comments to the same. Further, India vide corrigendum dated 22 June 2016, amended item 8 of 
the aforesaid draft amendment notification, to appropriately reflect the relevant international 
standard.2 
India received comments on its draft amendment notification from only one  WTO Member, namely, 
the United States. These comments were taken into consideration by India while issuing the final 
notification, S.O. 2337(E), which superseded the previous notification S.O. 1663(E).3 Thereafter, 
India notified the DSB on 18 July 2016 t hat it had adopted measures necessary to comply with the 
recommendations of the DSB.4 
 
Notification S.O. 2337(E) complies with the recommendations of the DSB in this dispute as it:  
i)   allows imports of poultry and poultry products into India in accordance w ith the 
relevant international standard, i.e. the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code 
("Terrestrial Code");   
ii)    recognizes the concept of disease -free areas and areas of low pest or disease 
prevalence; and  
iii)    provides for the process to be followed for rec ognition of such disease -free areas 
and areas of low pest or disease prevalence, zones/compartments in conformity with 
the Terrestrial Code  and the SPS Agreement.  
Further, India has also issued the relevant guidelines referred to in notification S.O. 2337( E) as 
well as the questionnaire for recognizing a part of a country, zone/compartment in accordance 
                                                
1 Notification of draft S.O. 2337(E) to the SPS Committee, G/SPS/N /IND/143 circulated on 
20 April 2016.  
2 Notification of corrigendum to the SP S Committee, G/SPS/N/IND/1 43/Corr.1 circulated on 
22 June 2016.  
3 See http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2016/170589.pdf  
4 Communication from India, WT/DS430/18 circulated on 19 July 20 16.  WT/DS430/20  
 
- 2 - 
 
  with the relevant international standard, i.e. the OIE Terrestrial Code for the purpose of trade in 
poultry and poultry products.  
 
After the publication of  S.O. 2337(E), India and the United States entered into bilateral discussions 
to address further concerns of the  United States, if any.  Pursuant to such bilateral discussions, 
India amended notification S.O. 2337(E) vide notification S.O. 2998(E) dated 19 September 2016, 
clarifying the concerns of the United States.5 The amendment notification has also been notified to 
the SPS Committee on 21 September  20166. 
 
Further to this, India continued its efforts to bilaterally resolve the concerns of the United Sta tes. 
In the meantime, on the request made by the United Stat es under Article 5.8 of the 
SPS Agreement7, India provided the relevant information to the United States.  Subsequently, it 
was found that in paragraph 1(d) of the notification S.O. 2337 (E), whil e defining "pest- or 
disease -free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence " the clause "areas of low pest or 
disease prevalence " is inadvertently missing. Though this inadvertent omission does not have any 
implications in the present dispute, S.O. 2337(E) has been amended vide notification S.O. 510(E) 
dated 17 February 2017 to provide clarity to the Members. S.O. 510 (E) was also notified8 to the 
SPS Committee.  
 
Notification S.O. 2337(E) dated 8 July 2016, amendment not ification S.O. 2998(E) dated 
19 September 2016 and S.O 510(E) dated 17 February 2017, the guidelines, and the 
questionnaire, together form the "revised Avian Influenza measures". The notifications have been 
issued in exercise of the power conferred by sub -section (1) of Section 3 and Section 3A of the 
Livestock Act, 1898 (9 of 1898) and came into effect on the date of publication in the Official 
Gazette.   
 
In view of the above, India strongly considers that it has complied with the recommendations of 
the DSB  by bringing its measures i nto conformity with its WTO obligations. In India 's opinion, it 
had complied with the recommendations of the DSB by promulgating S.O. 2337(E); the Guidelines 
and the Questionnaire. However, in good faith, and to clarify its measure, India has amended 
S.O. 2337(E) vide S.O. 2998(E) and S.O. 510(E). Thus, India has made all efforts to bilaterally 
resolve this dispute. However, in spite of the same, the United States  is yet to withdraw the 
Article  22.6 Arbitration request and to enter into a sequencing agreeme nt which is a standard 
practice among WTO members.  A sequencing agreement is entered into in order to ensure that, in 
the event of disagreement between the parties with respect to compliance with the DSB's rulings 
and recommendations, recourse under Articl e 21.5 of the DSU should be pursued as the first 
option.  
 
In India's opinion, if there is a disagreement between the parties with respect to "the consistency 
with a covered agreement of measures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings", 
the pr oper course of action is first to have recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU. In fact, this has 
also been the position of the United States in other disputes.9 
 
In view of the fact that India has brought itself into conformity with the recommendations of the  
DSB, India would urge the United States to terminate the Article 22.6 proceedings in this dispute.  
 
__________  
                                                
5 See http://egazette.nic.in/WrireReadData/2016/170589.pdf  
6 G/SPS/N/IND/160  
7 The Unites States made a request pursuant to Article 5.8 of the SPS Agr eement vide its letter dated 
21 December 2016. In response, India provided the relevant information to the United States vide email dated 
31 January 2017.  
8 G/SPS/N/IND/143/Add.1  
9 US - Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products , 
Recourse  to Article  21.5 of the DSU by the United States, WT/DS381/32 circulated on 12 April 2016, page 3.