WT/DS518/5  
 
10 March 2017  
(17-1424) Page: 1/4 
  Original: English  
 
 INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS  
REQUEST FOR THE ESTA BLISHMENT OF A PANEL  BY JAPAN  
The following communication, dated 9 March 2017 , from the delegation of Japan  to the 
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.  
 
_______________  
 
 
On 20 December 2016, the Government of Japan ( "Japan ") requested consultations with the 
Government of India ( "India") pursuant to Articles  1 and  4 of the Understanding on Rules and 
Procedures Governing  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 
products into India. The request was circulated on 9 January 2017 as document WT/DS518/1, 
G/L/1172, G/SG/D49/1.  
Japan held consultations with India on 6 and 7 February 2017. Unfortunately, those 
consultations failed to resolve the dispute.  
1. Background and Measure s at Issue  
On 7 September  2015, the Directorate General of Safeguards  published in the Gazette of 
India "Notice of Initiation of a Safeguard Investigation " F.No.D-22011/26/2015/Pt -I/ whereby it 
initiated an investigation with a view to the application of s afeguard measures on imports of "hot-
rolled flat products of non -alloy and other alloy steel in coils 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 197 5) (hereinafter referred to as the "the products concerned ") into India. 
On 14 September 2015 , the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) published in the 
Gazette of India Notification No. 2/2015 -Customs (SG) 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 
the 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) (hereinafter referred to as "the initial notification imposing the definitive 
safeguard measures ") whereby definitive safeguard measures were imposed on the pr oducts 
concerned, in the form of th e following duties:  
- twenty per cent ad valorem  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 from 14th September, 2016 to 13th March, 2017 (both  
days inclusive);  WT/DS518/5  
 
- 2 - 
 
  - fifteen per cent ad valorem  minus anti -dumping duty payable, if any, when imported 
during the period from 14th Ma rch, 2017 to 13th September, 2017 (both days 
inclusive); and  
- 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 impo sing the definitive safeguard measures states that the safeguard 
duty shall not 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 
(Departm ent of Commerce) (Directorate General of Foreign Trade), dated 5  February  2016.  
On 5 August 2016, the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) published Notification  
No. 2/2016 -Customs (SG) which amends paragraph 2 of the initial notification imposing t he 
definitive safeguard measures. It provides that the safeguard duty shall not be imposed on the 
products concerned which are imported at or above the prices listed in Notification No. 2/2016-
Customs  (SG).  
The measures at issue in this dispute cover all d ecisions and notifications of the authorities 
mentioned above as well as any related measures and amendments or replacement measures 
taken by the authorities in relation to this investigation and/or the imposition of the safeguard 
measures at issue.  
2. Legal Basis for the Claims  
Japan  considers that  the safeguard  measures  cited above which India has  imposed and the 
underlying investigation that led to the  imposition  of those safeguard measures are inconsistent 
with the following provisions of the GATT 1994  and the Agreement on Safeguards:    
(1) Articles 3.1, 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  with respect to the alleged unforeseen developments , 
as well as to  how those alleged unforeseen 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 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 alleged effect  of the obligations incurred by 
India under the GATT 1994, as well as to  how that  effect resulted in increased imports 
of the products  concerned causing or threatening 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 determination  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 injur y and 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 WT/DS518/5  
 
- 3 - 
 
  reasoned and adequate finding s and conclusions in its determination as to the causal 
link between the alleged increase in imports and the alleged serious injury  and threat 
of serious injury  to the domestic industry . In particular, there are no reasoned and 
adequate findings and conclu sions substantiating the causal relationship between the 
alleged increased imports and the alleged serious injury and threat of serious injury 
to the domestic industry nor explanations as to how the alleged serious injury and 
threat of serious injury to th e domestic industry caused by factors other than imports 
was not attributed to the increased imports ; 
(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 mea sures 
beyond the extent and the period of time 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 findin gs and reasoned 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;  
(9)   Article 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because I ndia 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 par ties and to submit the ir views;  
(10)   Articles 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 ; 
(11)   Articles 12.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards , because India  failed to notify  
immediately the Committee on Safeguards upon (a) initiating an investigation relating 
to serious injury or threat thereof and the reasons for it; (b) making a finding of 
serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports; and (c) taking a decisi on 
to apply or extend a safeguard measure ; 
(12)   Article  12.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards , because India failed, in making the 
notifications referred to in paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of Article 12 of the Agreement on 
Safeguards to the Committee on Safeguards, to provide all pertinent information 
including, but not limited to, evidence of the causal link between the increased 
imports and the serious injury and threat thereof, a precise description of the 
products involved, a precise description of the proposed m easures and the proposed 
date of introduction of the measures at issue;   
(13)   Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards  and Article XIX:2 of the GATT 1994, 
because  India failed to provide adequate opportunit ies for prior consultations with 
Members having a s ubstantial export interest of the products concerned ; 
(14)   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 
(15)   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 
not been accorded immediately and  unconditionally to the like products originating in 
other WTO Members . 
As a result, J apan considers that India 's measures nullify and impair benefits accruing to 
Japan under the Agreement on Safeguards and the GATT 1994.  
Accordingly, Japan respectfully requests that, pursuant t o Article 6 of the DSU, Article  XXIII 
of the GATT 1994 and Arti cle 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards, the Dispute Settlement Body WT/DS518/5  
 
- 4 - 
 
  establish a Panel to examine this matter, with the standard terms of referen ce as set out in 
Article  7.1 of the DSU.  
Finally, Japan notes that the duration of the safeguard measures at issu e which were 
imposed is two and a half years, ending on 13 March 2018.  
Japan requests  that this request  be placed on the agenda for the meeting of the Dispute 
Settlement Body to be held on 21 March  2017. 
__________