WT/DS518/ 1 
G/L/1172  
G/SG/D49/1  
 
9 January 2017  
(17-0127) Page: 1/4 
  Original: English  
 
 INDIA - CERTAIN MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS  
REQUEST FOR CONSULTA TIONS BY JAPAN  
The following communication, dated 20 December 2016 , from the delegation of Japan  to the 
delegation of India and to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in 
accordance with Article  4.4 of the DSU.  
 
_______________  
 
My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the Government of India 
("India") pursuant to Articles  1 and  4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Gov erning the 
Settlement of Disputes  ("DSU"), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
1994 (the "GATT 1994 ") and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards , with respect to certain 
measures imposed by India on imports of iron and steel pro ducts into Ind ia as further described 
below.  
1. Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products And the Investigation 
That Led to t he Imposition of Those Measures  
On 7 September  2015, the Directorate General of Safeguards  published "Notice of Initiati on 
of a Safeguard Investigation " F.No.D-22011/26/2015/Pt -I/ in the Gazette of India whereby it 
initiated an investigation with a view to the application of safeguard measures on imports of "hot-
rolled flat products of non -alloy and other alloy steel in coi ls of a width of 600 mm or more " falling 
under tariff heading 7208 or tariff item 7225 30 90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 
1975 (51 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as the "the products concerned ") into India. 
On 14 September 2015 , the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) published 
Notification No. 2/2015 -Customs (SG) in the Gazette of India whereby a provisional safeguard 
measure was imposed on imports into India of the product s concerned, in the form of a duty  of 
twenty per cent  ad valorem . This measure entered into force on the same day . The Notification 
provides for a duration of the measure of two hundred days.  
On 29 March 2016, the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) published Notification 
No. 1/2016 -Customs (SG) (her einafter referred to as "the initial notification imposing the definitive 
safeguard measures ") in the Gazette of India whereby definitive safeguard measures were 
imposed on the products concerned, in th e form of the following duties:  
- twenty per cent ad val orem minus anti -dumping duty payable, if any, when  imported 
during the period from 14th September, 2015 to 13th September, 2016 (both  days 
inclusive);  
- eighteen per cent ad valorem  minus anti -dumping duty payable, if any, when  
imported  during the period fro m 14th September, 2016 to 13th March, 2017 (both  
days inclusive);  
- fifteen per cent ad valorem  minus anti -dumping duty payable, if any, when imported 
during the period from 14th March, 2017 to 13th September, 2017 (both days 
inclusive); and  WT/DS518/1 • G/L/1172 • G/SG/D49/1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  - ten per cent ad valorem  minus anti -dumping duty payable, if any, when imported 
during the period from 14th September, 2017 to 13th March, 2018 (both days 
inclusive).  
The initial notification imposing the definitive safeguard measures states that the safeguard 
duty shall n ot be imposed on the products concerned which are imported at or above the Minimum 
Import Price listed in Notification No.  38/2015 -2020 of Ministry of Commerce & Industry 
(Department of Commerce) (Directorate General of F oreign Trade), dated 5  February  2016. 
On 5 August 2016, the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) published Notification  
No. 2/2016 -Customs (SG) in the Gazette of India which amends paragraph 2 of the initial 
notification imposing the definitive safeguard measures. It provides that th e safeguard duty shall 
not be imposed on the products concerned which are imported at or above  certain price listed in 
the notification.  
The Government of Japan  ("Japan ") is deeply concerned about the safeguard measures 
imposed by India and the underlying  investigation that led to the  imposition  of those measures. 
Specifically , those measures appear to be  in violation of India’s obligations under the GATT 1994 
and the Agreement on Safeguards, in particular, but not limited to:   
(1)  Articles 3.1, 4.2(c) and 11 .1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards and with Article XIX:1(a) 
of the GATT 1994 , because India  failed to  make  reasoned and adequate findings and 
conclusions in its determination  with respect to the alleged unforeseen developments , and 
how those alleged unf oreseen developments resulted in increased imports of the products  
concerned causing or threatening serious injury to domestic producers;  
(2)  Articles 3.1, 4.2(c) and 11.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards and with Article XIX:1(a) 
of the GATT 1994 , because I ndia failed to make  reasoned and adequate findings and 
conclusions in its determination  as to the alleged effect of the obligations incurred under 
the GATT 1994, and how that effect has resulted in increased imports of the products  
concerned causing or thr eatening serious injury to domestic producers;   
(3)  Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.2(a), 4.2(c) and 11.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards and 
Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 , because India  failed to make  reasoned and adequate 
findings and conclusions in its determin ation with respect to the alleged increase in imports 
of the products concerned , in absolute terms or relative to domestic production ; 
(4)  Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 4.1(c), 4.2(a), 4.2(b) , 4.2(c)  and 11.1(a)  of the 
Agreement on Safeguards and Article  XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 , because India  failed to 
make reasoned and adequate findings and conclusions in its determination  of the domestic 
industry;  
(5)  Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 4. 2(a), 4.2(b) , 4.2(c)  and 11.1(a)  of the Agreement on 
Safeguards and  Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 , because India  failed to make reasoned 
and adequate findings and conclusions in its determination  as to the existence of an 
alleged serious injury  and/or threat of serious injury to the domestic industry;  
(6)  Articles 2.1, 3 .1, 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 4.2(a), 4.2(b) , 4.2(c)  and 11.1(a)  of the Agreement on 
Safeguards and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 , because India  failed to make reasoned 
and adequate findings and conclusions in its determination as to the causal link between 
the alleged increase in imports and the alleged serious injury  and/or threat of serious 
injury  to the domestic industry ; 
(7)  Articles 3.1, 4.2(c), 5.1, 7.1 and 11.1(a)  of the Agre ement on Safeguards and 
Article  XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 , because India imposes the  safeguard measures beyond 
the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment ; 
(8)  Article 3.1 and Article 4.2(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards, because India failed to 
present, in its published report, its findings and rea soned conclusions reached on all 
pertinent issues of fact and law and a detailed analysis of the case under investigation as 
well as a demonstration of the relevance of the factors examined;  WT/DS518/1 • G/L/1172 • G/SG/D49/1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  (9) Article 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because India failed to provide reasonable 
public notice to all interested parties and appropriate means in which interested parties 
could present evidence and their views, including the opportunity to respond to the 
presentations of other parties and to submit their views;  
(10) A rticles 12.4 of the Agreement on Safeguards , because India failed to  make a notification 
to the Committee on Safeguards before taking a provisional safeguard measure and failed 
to initiate consultations immediately after the measure was taken ; 
(11) Articles 12.1 and 12.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards , because India failed  to 
immediately notify the Committee on Safeguards upon taking actions  identified in 
Article  12.1 and to provide all pertinent information;   
(12) Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safe guards , because India failed to provide adequate 
opportunity for prior consultations with Members having a substantial export interest of 
the products concerned ; 
(13) Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 , because t hrough the safeguard measures, India imposes 
other duties or charges contrary to the second sentence of that provision; and 
(14) Article I:1  of the GATT 1994 because the measures  are not applied to the products   
concerned originating in certain countries,  and this constitutes an advantage that has no t 
been accorded immediately and  unconditionally to the like products originating in other 
WTO Members . 
(15) Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, because the measures impose a restriction on the 
importation of the products concerned  through the minimum import pri ce requirements by 
virtue of  paragraph 2  of  Notification  No. 2/2016 -Customs (SG) . 
2. The Minimum Import Price System on Iro n and Steel Products  
On 5 February 2016, the Ministry of Commerce & Industry (Department of Commerce) 
published Notification No. 38/2 015-2020 in the Gazette of India whereby, pursuant to the Foreign 
Trade (D&R) Act 1992 and the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020, it imposed a Minimum Import 
Price on iron and steel products. Those products cannot be imported unless their import prices are 
at or above the minimum import prices listed in Notification No. 38/2015 -2020. The Minimum 
Import Price was applied against iron and steel products falling within 173 Harmonized System 
(HS) Codes under Chapter 72 of Indian Trade Classification (ITC), 2012 – Schedule -1(Import 
Policy) during six months.  
By Notification No. 20/2015 -2020 of the Ministry of Commerce & Industry (Department of 
Commerce), dated 4 August 2016, the Minimum Import Price was extended for two additional 
months ending on 4 October 2016. T he said notification also amended the scope of application, 
limiting the application to iron and steel products falling within 66 HS Codes under Chapter 72 of 
ITC, 2012 – Schedule -1 (Import Policy). The Minimum Import Pri ce was further extended until 
4 December 2016 by Notification No. 30/2015 -2020 of the Ministry of Commerce & Industry 
(Department of Commerce) dated 4 October 2016.  
By Notification No. 31/2015 -2020 of the Ministry of Commerce & Industry (Department of 
Commerce), dated 3 December 2016, the Minimum Import Price was extended for two additional 
months until 4 February 2017. The said notification also amended the scope of application, limiting 
the application to iron and steel products falling within 19 HS Codes under Chapter 72 of ITC, 2012 
– Schedule -1 (Import Policy).  
Japan  is deeply concerned about the Minimum Import Price system.  The legal instruments 
through which India operates the M inimum Import Price system on imports of iron and steel 
products include the following:  
- the Foreign Trade  (D&R) Act 1992;  
- the Foreign Trade Policy 2015 -2020;  WT/DS518/1 • G/L/1172 • G/SG/D49/1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  - the Customs Act 1962;  
- Notification No. 38/2015 -2020 of 5 February 2016;  
- Notification No. 20/2015 -2020 of 4 August 2016;  
- Notification No. 30/2015 -2020 of 4 October 2016;   
- Notification No. 31/2 015-2020 of 3 December 2016; and  
- any amendments, extensions, renewal measures, continuation measures, supplements, 
replacement measures, related measures and implementing measures taken by India in relation to 
the Minimum Import Price system on iron and steel products  based on laws or regulations 
including but not limited to those listed above.  
Specifically , Japan considers that through this Minimum Import Price system on iron and steel 
products, India appears to prohibit or restrict the importation of ir on and steel products, thereby 
acting inconsistently with  Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.  
*** 
 Japan reserves the right to raise additional factual claims and legal matters during t he course 
of the consultations.  
 We look forward to receiving your reply to this request for consultations and to agreeing upon a 
mutually acceptable date for the consultations.  
 
__________