G/AG/W/188  
 
9 November 2018  
(18-7070) Page: 1/9 
Committee on Agriculture  Original: English  
 
CERTAIN MEASURES OF INDIA PROVIDING MARK ET PRICE SUPPORT TO COTTON  
COMMUNICATION FROM T HE UNITED STATES  
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 18.7 OF THE AGREEMEN T ON AGRICULTURE  
1  INDIA'S PROVISION OF  SUBSTANTIAL MARKET PRICE SUPPORT FOR CO TTON  
1.1.  Using publicly -available sources, the United States has compiled data and information on 
India's market price support (MPS) for cotton. Further to Article 18.7 of the WTO Agreement on 
Agriculture (AoA), the United States is providing this information to other Members in the intere st 
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 document addresses marketing years (M Y) 2010/11 through 2016/171 – the marketing 
years covered by India's domestic support notifications G/AG/N/IND/13 (2016/17), G/AG/N/IND/12 
(2014/15, 2015/16), G/AG/N/IND/11 (2013/14, 2012/13, and 2011/12) and the last of the years 
covered by India's domestic support notification G/AG/N/IND/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 specific issues of India's MPS for cotton. 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 cotton. The 
limited scope of this document does not suggest that no additional product -specific support was 
provided for cotton in the relevant years, that MPS or other types of product -specific domestic 
support was not provided for other com modities, or that India did not provide non -de-minimis  non-
product specific domestic support during the covered years.  
2  FINDINGS  
2.1.  India appears to be providing significant MPS both in terms of absolute value and as a 
percentage of the value of production (V oP), for cotton. Table 1 shows apparent MPS as an estimated 
percentage of the VoP for cotton.  
Table 1 - Apparent MPS as a percentage of the value of production for cotton  
Commodity  MY 
2010/11  MY 
2011/12  MY 
2012/13  MY 
2013/14  MY 
2014/15  MY 
2015/16  MY 
2016/1 7 
Cotton  53.7%  55.9%  78.9%  70.9%  81.4%  80.9%  67.9%  
                                                
1 G/AG/N/IND/10, submitted to the WTO on 9 September 2014, covered the period MY 2004/05 through 
MY 2010/11. G/AG/N/IND/11, submitted to the WTO on 12 July 20 17, covered MY  2011/12 through 
MY 2013/14.  G/AG/N/IND/12, submitted to the WTO on 23 April 2018, cov ered MY 2014/15 through MY 
2015/16. G/AG/N/IND/13, submitted to the WTO on 19  July 2018, covered MY 2016/17 and is the most recent 
domestic support notification submitted by India to the WTO. G/AG/N/IND/13, dated 19 July 2018, covered 
MY 2016/17 and is the  most recent domestic support notification submitted by India to the WTO. 
G/AG/N/IND/13/Corr.1, submitted to the WTO on 30 July 2018, corrects an incorrectly titled column in 
G/AG/N/IND/13.   
  G/AG/W/188  
 
- 2 - 3  CALCULATION OF ESTIM ATES FOR INDIA'S MPS  FOR COTTON  (MARKETING YEARS 20 10/11 -2016/17) 
3.1.  Table 2 shows the calculation of estimates for India's MPS for cotton  for MY 2010/11 -2016/172, both as a value in Indian Ru pees and as a percentage of 
the VoP. Notes and sources are the same for all tables, except as noted.3 
Table 2 - Market Price Support for Cotton MY 2010/2011  – MY 2016/17  
Marketing Year 
(MY)  Applied  
Administered Price  
(Rs./MT)  External  Reference 
Price  
(Rs./MT)  Eligible Production  
(Million MT)  Total  Market  Price  Support  
(Million  Rs.)(AAP-ERP)*EP  VOP 
(Million  Rs.) MPS/VOP  
2010/11  27,500.00  5,893.57  16.50  356,485  664,210  53.7%  
2011/12  30,500.00  5,893.57  17.60  433,047  774,260  55.9%  
2012/13  37,500.00  5,893.57  17.11  540,754  685,150  78.9%  
2013/14  38,500.00  5,893.57  17.95  585,283  825,350  70.9%  
2014/15  39,000.00  5,893.57  17.40  576,100  707,480  81.4%  
2015/16  39,500.00  5,893.57  15.00  504,150  623,280  80.9%  
2016/17  40,100.00  5,893.57  16.29  557,223  820,280  67.9%  
                                                
2 The marketing year for cotton runs from October through the following September.  
3 National -level minimum support prices  (MSP)  for cotton can be found at: http://www.cicr.org.in/pdf/MSP_Order_2010 -11.pdf ; http://www.cicr.org.in/pdf/msp -order2011 -
12.pdf ; http://www.cicr.org.in/pdf/MSP_Order_2012_13.pdf ; http://txcindia.gov.in/html/MSP%20Order%202013 -14.pdf ; http://www.cicr.org.in/pdf/MSP_2014_15.pdf ; 
http://www.c icr.org.in/pdf/MSP_2015_16.pdf ; and http://www.cicr.org.in/pdf/MSP_2016_17.Pdf  (accessed 23 October 2018). The United States uses the published MSP for 
"Medium Long Staple " cotton specific to the v ariety "F-414/H -777/J -34 Hybrid " for all MPS calculations. India used this MSP in all MYs under consideration during whi ch it notified 
MPS for cotton. Use of this "Medium Long Staple " MSP may undervalue total MPS because long and extra -long staple cottons,  for which relatively higher value MSP are published , 
appear to constitute more than 50% of India 's total production. The  United States notes that India 's apparent AMS would exceed de minimis , based solely on MPS,  even if the 
lowest  value  published MSP, i.e. short staple cotton, were used in all calculations. In these government listings, MSPs are listed in Rs per quintal, resulting in  a need to multiply 
values by ten  to ascertain an MSP in Rs per metric tonne. For External Reference Price data, see India Notification, G/AG/AGST/IND (undated) at 12 -13, available at 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/schedule_e/ind.pdf . The notified External Reference Price in G/AGST/I ND has been converted from a lint cotton price to a seed 
cotton pr ice basis  by dividing by 2.941 and based upon ginning rate for seed to lint of 34 %, a conservative rate within the range published by the India Ministry of Textiles, 
available at http://www.txcindia.gov.in/html/TMC_MMIII_MMIV_Final_Report_.pdf  (page 77).  Also see Conversion section of this document  (page 8 ). The same conversion factor 
was also used for national -level production data for seed cotton, see "Third Advance Esti mates of Production of Commercial Crops for 2017 -18", obtained from the Directorate of 
Economics & Statistics, Department of Agriculture, and Cooperation,  available at http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/Advance_Estimate/3rd_Adv_Estimates2017 -18_Eng.pdf ,which reports 
the quantity of lint cotton in volume of lakh bales of 170  kg. Eligible production has been converted from a lint cotton volume basis to a seed cotton volume basis by multiplying 
by 2.941. India has not notified VoP for any commodity in its domestic support notifications. VoP for "kapas ", i.e. seed cotton, is sourced from India's National Account s Statistics: 
http://www.mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/reports_and_publication/statistical_publication/Nationa l_Accounts/NAS18/S8.1.2.pdf  and 
http://mospi.nic.in/sites/default/files/reports_and_publication/cso_national_acco unts/national_account_statistics/2014/S55.pdf . G/AG/W/188  
 
- 3 - 
 
  4  EXPLANATION OF APPAR ENT FINDINGS  
4.1  INDIAN EXPORTS AND DOMESTIC SUPPORT  
4.1.  According to the Food and Agricultural Organization, India is the world's second largest 
agricultural producer.4 Also a major agricultural exporter, India's agric ultural exports were valued at 
USD 34 billion in 2016, making India the world's ninth largest agricultural exporter.5 India is a 
particularly significant and growing player in the international market for cotton. Since 2006, India 
has been the second largest cotton producer, behind only China, and during  that time production 
has nearly doubled by value and volume.6,7 India has also been the second largest cotton exporter 
since 2007, with peak exports in 2013 of more than 2.0 MMT.8 
4.2.  In addition to being a major agricultural producer, India is also a major p rovider 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 expand ing agricultural production and stocks, coinciding with 
increased exports  
4.2  RELATIONSHIP OF MPS TO CURRENT TOTAL AMS  
4.3.  Article 7, paragraph 2 of the AoA states that "[w]here no Tota l 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 in Part IV of its Schedule (XII).  
4.4.  Annex 3 of the AoA identifies support that "shall" be included i n a Member's AMS calculation. 
It states that "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 commitmen t ("other non -exempt 
policies") ".9 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 countr y. 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 o f its AMS 
commitments unde r the AoA.  
4.3  PRINCIPLES FOR CALCULATING 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 
payments, or any other subsid y not exempt  from the reduction commitments ".10 Annex 3 further 
provides a specific calculation methodology for determining the value of "market price support."  
                                                
4 "Production -Value of Agricultural Production, " FAOSTAT, available at, http://www.fao.org/  
(accessed  23 August 2018). Values reported in current US D. 
5 See WTO World Trade Statistical Review 2017  at page 31, available at, 
https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/wts2017_e/wts2017_e.pdf  (accessed 16 August 2018) . 
6 "Production -Value of Agricultural Production, " FAOSTAT, available at, http://www.fao.org/  (accessed 
23 August 2018). Values reported in current US D. 
7 Third Advance Estimates of Production of Commercial Crops for 2017 -18", obtained from the 
Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation , available at  
http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/Advance_Estimate/3rd_Adv_Estimates2017 -18_Eng.pdf  (accessed 
19 September  2018).  
8 Indian and global export data obtained from IHS GTA using Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 
code 5201. 
9 See AoA, Annex 3, paragraph 1 (emphasis added).  
10 See AoA, Annex 3, paragraph 1.  G/AG/W/188  
 
- 4 - 
 
  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 
reference 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 admini stered 
price"  (AAP) and the "fixed external reference price." An AAP would be a price that is dispensed or 
provided by a governmental scheme.11 The "fixed external refer ence price" is defined in Annex  3, 
paragraph 9, which states that this price "shall be b ased on the years 1986 to 1988."12 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."13 
4.9.  The calculation methodology provided in Annex 3, par agraph 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 sam e understanding of the meaning of "market 
price suppo rt" under Annex 3, paragraph 8.14 
 
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 eligibl e to receive the applied 
administered price."15 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 receive the AAP, whether or not that amount of production 
actua lly received the specified AAP.16 
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 similar understanding.17 
The Appellate Body stated that "production eligible to receive the applied administered price" has "a 
different meaning in ordinary usage from 'production actually purchased.'"18 The Appellate Body 
further defined "eligible" as that which is "fit or entitled to be chosen."19 It noted that "[p]roduction 
actually purchased may often be less than eligible production."20 Thus, "eligible production" within 
the meaning of Annex 3, paragraph 8 of the AoA is productio n, which is fit or entitled to receive the 
applied administered price, whether or not the production was actually purchased.21  
                                                
11 Of relevance, "administer" i s defined as to "execute or dispense" , or to "furnish, supply, give 
(orig.  something beneficial to). " Shorter  Oxford  English  Dictionary , "administer " p. 28 (ed. 1993).  
12 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"). In 
some instances, it appears that India notifies the applied administered price (AAP), fixe d external reference 
price (FERP), and eligible production that are not reflective of the same stage of production or processing for 
which the MSP policy operates. For instance, India 's MSP supports seed cotton prices; however, India notifies 
market price support for cotton on a lint basis , not on a seed cotton basis. India converts the AAP to lint cotton 
with the notified conversion co -efficient of 2.35 from seed cotton to be consistent with the FERP and eligible 
production, which are notified on a lint ba sis (G/AG/N/IND/10).  
13 See AoA, Annex 3, paragraph 8.  
14 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.  
15 See AoA, Annex 3, paragraph 8.  
16 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)); Shorte r Oxford English Dictionary , "fit" , p. 960 (ed. 1993) ("Be suited to or appropriate 
for;" "Meet the requirements of").  
17 See Korea – Beef (AB), para. 120.  
18 See Korea – Beef (AB), para. 120 (emphasis in original).  
19 See Korea – Beef (AB), para. 120.  
20 See Korea – Beef (AB), para. 120.  
21 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/A B/R, WT/DS169/AB./R , (Korea  – Beef (Panel)), para. 827 (noting that 
"eligible production for the purposes of calculating the market price support component of current support G/AG/W/188  
 
- 5 - 
 
  4.4  India's MPS Regime for Cotton  
4.12.   India's Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) devises "price policy and relative 
price structure" for approximately two dozen agricultural commodities.22 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 o f agricultural commodities…with a view 
to evolving a balanced and integrated price structure…."23 The mandate of CACP and the products 
for which it sets MSP levels are determined through a "terms of reference" document established 
through ministerial resolu tion.24 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, jowar, bajra, maize, ragi, barely 
{sic}, gram, turn, moong, urad, sugarc ane, groundnut, 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 integ rated price structure in the 
perspective of the overall needs of the economy and with due regard to the interests of  
the producer and the consumer.25 
4.13.   CACP submits price policy reports to India's Cabine t Committee on Economic Affairs  (CCEA), 
which then annou nces final decisions on the levels of MSPs in periodic press releases.26 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 Corporatio n 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.27 
4.14.   India does not cap the quantity  of cotton that the government may procure under its 
MPS programmes.  Accordingly, under the terms of the AoA, all Indian production of these 
commodities constitutes eligible production for purposes of ascertaining the level of India's MPS for 
cotton.  
4.15.   In addition to the MSP announced by India's central government, certain Indian states have, 
in certain years, instituted higher support prices within their states.28 These states pay the increased 
                                                
should comprise the total marketable production of all producers which is eligibl e 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 "). 
22 See "Organisation ", Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, available a t, 
http://cacp.dacnet.nic.in/content.aspx?pid=32  (accessed 23 August  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 , 
https://cacp.dacnet.nic.in/ViewContents.aspx?Input=1&PageId=33&KeyId=0 , (accessed 8 March  2018). 
CACP  states 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.  
23 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 23 
August  2018).  
24 See Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture and Coopera tion, Resolution F 
No. A 49011/6/2009 -EA, 30 July 2009, available at, 
http://cacp.dacnet.nic.in/ViewQuestionare.aspx?Input=2&DocId=1&PageId=34&KeyId=247  (accessed 23 
August  2018).  
25 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 23 
August  2018).  
26 See "Organi sation" , Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, available at, 
http://cacp.dacnet.nic.in/content.aspx?pid=32  (accessed 23 August  2018).  
27 Ibid. 
28 For MY 2017/18, the state of Gujarat announced a Rs. 100 per 20  kg bonus for cotton farmers . The 
bonus was  paid above the declared MSP , see https://twitter.com/CMOGuj/status/922424872612937728 . G/AG/W/188  
 
- 6 - 
 
  price on quantities tendered to state agencies as part of the MP S regime. These higher prices 
accordingly apply to all production of cotton occurring within the state.  
4.5  Differences with 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 cott on. For example, India's notification for MY 2015/16 showed a value of support, 
converted from U.S. dollars, of Rs. 1,176.48 million for cotton.29 By comparison, the United States 
estimates that India’s MPS was Rs. 504,150 million for MY 2015/16 for cotton.  The differences 
between India's reported figures and the apparent actual figures for other years are of similar 
magnitude and can be seen in Table 3 below.  
4.5.1   Currency  
4.17.   India's AGST document provides India's domestic support commitments in Indian Rupees. 
Howe ver, 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   Eligible Production  
4.18.   India's domestic support notifications G/AG/N/IND/10, G/AG/N/IND/11, G/AG/N/IND/12, and 
G/AG/N/IND/13 appear to reflect only volumes actu ally purchased pursuant to the MPS programme. 
By contrast, India's AGST document and first DS:1 notification, for MY 1995/96, relied on total 
production as India's eligible production for similar MPS programmes.30  
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 t he WTO Committee on Agriculture  (CoA) 
to AG -IMS ID 63058. In other responses to questions in the CoA, such as 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 is procured by a government agency.  
4.20.   The United States was unable to identify any change i n India's MPS programm e 
between  1995/96 and 1996/97 that would explain the change in notification methodology. India's 
reporting of only procured quantities is directly contrary to the MPS calculation methodology 
provided in AoA Annex 3, paragraph 8, which provides for the calc ulation to be based on all 
production 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 o f production actually procured by government entities in India.  
4.5.3   Conversion  
4.21.   India’s MSP supports seed cotton prices; however, India notifies MPS for cotton on a lint basis. 
India converts the AAP to lint cotton with the notified conversion co -efficient of 2 .35 from seed cotton 
to be consistent with the FERP and eligible production, which are notified on a lint basis.31 This 
conversion factor would indicate a ginning rate of 43 %. However, based on information published 
by the India Ministry of Textiles, a mor e appropriate conversion factor between seed cotton and lint 
cotton is approximately 2.941, based upon a ginning rate for seed to lint of 34%.32 
4.5.4   Value of Production  
4.22.   India has not notified total VoP for any commodity in its domestic support notifications fo r the 
years that the United States has examined in this document. The VoP data used in the calculations 
                                                
29 India notified MY 201 5/16 values of 17.97  million for cotton . The United States converts India 's 
notified MPS values for MY 201 5/16 in million USD to million Rs. using India 's notified exchange rate for 
2015-16 of 65.469  Rs. to 1 USD , see G/AG/N/IND/12.  
30 See India Notification, G/AG/N/IND/1 (1998).  
31 G/AG/N/IND/10 . 
32 A 2011 report  prepared for Ministry of Textiles  provides a range between 32 -35%. The report is 
located at http://www.txcindia.gov.in/html/TMC_MMIII_MMIV_Final_Report_.pdf  (page 77).  G/AG/W/188  
 
- 7 - 
 
  and tables in this document are sourced from India's National Accounts Statistics.33 India did provide 
unsourced VoP data in response to a question posed  to it in the CoA for several years, but values 
have not been provided to the COA since MY 2013/14.34 These figures differ from those drawn from 
India's National Accounts Statistics. In addition to showing its notified MPS as a percentage of the 
Value of Pr oduction 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 
the CoA questions.  
                                                
33 For MY 2010 /11, see India N ational 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 23 August  2018). For MY 2011/12 -16/17, see India National Accounts 
Statistics  2018 at Statement 8.1.2, available at, 
http://www.mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/reports_and_publication/statistical_publication/National_Accounts/
NAS18/S8. 1.2.pdf  (accessed 7 August  2018).  
34 AG IMS ID 85043.   
  G/AG/W/188  
 
- 8 - 5  OVERALL RESULTS  
5.1.  Table 3 below compares India's reported MPS for cotton  with what appears to be its actual MPS for cotton : 
Table 3 - India’s Notified MPS Relative to United States’ Calculations of India’s MPS35 
 MY 2010/11  MY 2011/12  MY 2012/13  MY 2013/14  MY 2014/15  MY 2015/16  MY 2016/17  
Cotton  
India’s Notified MPS by Value  
(U.S. dollars, millions  
Indian Rupees, millions ) No MPS Notified  USD 0.27  
Rs. 12.94  USD 143.76  
Rs. 7,820.54  USD 1.41  
Rs. 85.31  USD 305.09  
Rs. 18,654.42  USD 17.97  
Rs. 1,176.48  No MPS Notified  
India’s Notified MPS as 
% of VoP36 No VoP or  
MPS Notified  0.00%  1.14%  0.01%  No VoP notified  No VoP notified  No VoP or  
MPS Notified  
U.S. Calculated MPS by Value  
(Indian Rupees, millions)  Rs. 356,485  Rs. 433,047  Rs. 540,754  Rs. 585,283  Rs. 576,100  Rs. 504,150  Rs. 557,223  
U.S. Calculated MPS as 
% of VoP37 53.7%  55.9%  78.9%  70.9%  81.4%  80.9%  67.9%  
                                                
35 Monetary values indicated in million Rs. India 's Notified MPS values are obtained from G/AG/N/IND/10 , G/AG/N/IND/11 , G/AG/N/IND/12 and G/AG/IND/13. 
The United  States converts its calculations of India 's Notified MPS values 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), 2013-14 (60.5 Rs. to 1 USD) , 2014 -15 (61.144 Rs. to 1 USD), 2015 -16 (65.469 Rs. to 1 USD) and 2016 -17 (67.072 Rs. to 1 USD) . 
36 India has not notified VoP for any commodity in its domestic support notifications. Calculations in this row use unsourced Vo P 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: 0.00% (2011/12); 1.14% (2012/13); 0. 01% (2 013/14);  2.46% (2014/15); 
0.18%  (2015/16).  
37 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: 
50.26% (2011/12); 75.20 % (2012/13); 67.78 % (2013/1 4). G/AG/W/188  
 
- 9 - 
 
  6  CONCLUSION  
6.1.  It appears that India provides MPS for cotton vastly in excess of what it has reported to the 
WTO. India’s apparent MPS for cotton appears to have been between 53 -81% of the value of 
production in each of the covered years.  
6.2.  The United States looks forward to future discussion of the significance of India’s MPS for cotton 
for both India’s market and for world markets – both with India and with other Members.  
 
__________