WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
WT/DS430/3 
14 May 2012  
 
(12-2600) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
INDIA –MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF  
CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS  
 
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 11 May 2012, from the delegation of the United States to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is  circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
On March 6, 2012, the United States requested c onsultations 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 11 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures  ("SPS Agreement"), and Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade 1994  ("GATT 1994"), concerning measures that India imposes on the importation of 
various agricultural products from the United States purportedly because of concerns related to avian 
influenza.  The United States and India held such consultations on April 16 and 17, 2012.  
Unfortunately, those consultations were unsuccessful in resolving this dispute. 
India's avian influenza measures prohibit the im portation of various agricultural products into 
India from those countries reporting Notifiable Av ian Influenza (both Highly Pathogenic Notifiable 
Avian Influenza and Low Pathogenic Notifiable Avian Influenza).  India maintains its avian influenza 
measures through the following legal instruments:  
– the Indian Livestock Importation Act, 1898 (9 of 1898) ("Livestock Act"); and – orders issued by India's Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying, and Fisheries 
("DAHD") pursuant to the  Livestock Act, most recently S.O. 1663(E), which was 
published in the Gazette of India on July 19, 2011, 
as well as amendments, related measures, or implementing measures in force as of the date of this 
request.    
Legal instrument S.O. 1663(E) imposes im port restrictions on the following products: 
(a) domestic and wild birds (including poultry and captive birds); 
(b) day old chicks, ducks, turkey, and other newly hatched avian species; 
(c) un-processed meat and meat products from Avian species, including domesticated, 
wild birds and poultry; 
(d) hatching eggs; WT/DS430/3 
Page 2  
 
  (e) eggs and egg products (except Specific Pathogen Free eggs); 
(f) un-processed feathers; 
(g) live pigs; 
(h) pathological material and biological products from birds; 
(i) products of animal origin (from birds) intended for use in animal feeding or for 
agricultural or industrial use; and  
(j) semen of domestic and wild birds including poultry. 
India's measures have adversely affected expor ts of these products from the United States to 
India.  The United States considers that India's measures are inconsistent with India's commitments 
and obligations under the following provisi ons of the SPS Agreement and the GATT 1994: 
SPS Agreement 
1. Article 2.2, because India's avian influe nza measures are not applied only to the 
extent necessary to protect human or an imal life or health, are not based upon 
scientific principles, and are maintained without sufficient sci entific evidence.  
Further, India's measures are not provisional m easures within the scope of Article 5.7.    
2. Article 2.3, because India's avian influen za measures arbitrarily or unjustifiably 
discriminate between Members where similar conditions prevail, including between 
India's own territory and that of other Members.  For example, while India applies the avian influenza measures at issue here to imported products, India does not apply 
similar avian influenza related controls w ith respect to like domestic products and 
their internal movement within India.  Fu rther, India has applied its measures in a 
manner that constitutes a disguised restriction on international trade.  
3. Article 3.1, because India's measures are not based on the relevant international 
standards, guidelines, or recommendations of  the World Animal Health Organization 
("OIE"), nor are India's measures in accordance with Article 3.3 of the SPS 
Agreement.     
4. Article 5.1, because India's avian influe nza measures, which are not based on the 
relevant international standards, are not  based upon an assessment, as appropriate to 
the circumstances, of the risks to human, an imal, or plant life or health, taking into 
account risk assessment techniques devel oped by the relevant international 
organizations.    
5. Article 5.2, because in failing to make an assessment of risks as appropriate to the 
circumstances, India failed to take into a ccount available scientific evidence; relevant 
processes and production methods; the prev alence of different types of avian 
influenza; the existence of notifiable-avia n-influenza-free areas and high-pathogenic-
notifiable avian-influenza-free areas; relevant ecological and environmental 
conditions, and other potential options besides those imposed by its measures.      
6. Article 5.5, because India is maintaining arb itrary or unjustifiable distinctions in its 
appropriate levels of sanitary  protection in different situations, and these distinctions 
result in discrimination or a disguised restri ction on international trade.  For example  WT/DS430/3 
 Page 3 
 
 
  – to the extent transmission of avian influen za by way of U.S. agricultural products is 
considered a "different situation" than th e transmission of avian influenza by way of 
India's domestic agricultural products – India is maintaining arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions in its appropriate levels of san itary protection in different situations, and 
these distinctions result in discrimination or a disguised restriction on international 
trade. 
7. Article 5.6, because India's avian influenza measures are more trade-restrictive than 
required to achieve its appropriate level of sanitary protection.    
8. Articles 6.1, because India's avian influen za measures are not adapted to the sanitary 
characteristics of the area from which U.S. imports originated, and in failing to assess the sanitary characteristics of particular U.S. areas from which U.S. imports 
originated, India has not taken into acco unt disease-free areas or areas of low disease 
prevalence, or the existence of eradication or control programs.  Moreover, India has 
not taken into account the relevant guidelines of the OIE in assessing the sanitary characteristics of a region.    
9. Article 6.2, because India's avian infl uenza measures do not recognize disease-free 
areas or areas of low disease prevalence. 
10. Article 7, and Annex B, paragraphs 2 and 5(a)-(d), because India has not provided the 
information on its avian influenza measur es in accordance with the provisions of 
Annex B.  India has not notified its avia n influenza measures until well after these 
measures have entered into force, to the ex tent any notification was made whatsoever, 
despite the fact that India's avian influen za measures are not substantially the same as 
the content of an international standard , guideline, or recommendation and have a 
significant effect on the trade of other Members.       
India failed to notify other Members, through the Secretariat, of the products to be 
covered by the measures along with the objectiv e and rationale of the measures, at an 
early stage where amendments could be introduced and comments taken in to 
account.   
India failed to identify the parts of its avian influenza measures which in substance 
deviate from international standards, guidelines, or recommendations.   
India failed to publish its avian influenza measures at an early stage in such manner to 
enable interested Members to become  acquainted with the proposal.   
India also failed to allow a reasonable interval between the publication of its 
measures and their entry into force. 
Further, India's failure to comply with A nnex B, paragraph 5 is not justified by any 
urgent problem of health protection that has arisen or threatened to arise for India, 
and India has in any event failed to comply with the requirements of Annex B, paragraph 6.    
GATT 1994 
11. Article XI, because India's measures constitu te import prohibitions or restrictions 
other than duties, taxes, or other charges. WT/DS430/3 
Page 4  
 
   
India's measures also appear to nullify or impa ir the benefits accruing to the United States 
directly or indirectly under the cited agreements. 
Therefore, the United States respectfully requests,  pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, that the 
Dispute Settlement Body establish a panel to examine this matter, with standard terms of reference as 
set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU. 
 
__________