INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY JAPAN
Document: REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL
Date: 10 March 2017
Document codes: WT/DS518/5
Complainant: Japan
Respondent: India
Third parties: Australia, China, EU, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Singapore, Taiwan, Ukraine, U.S., Vietnam
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 3.1, 4.2(c), 11.1(a)  SafeguardsArt. XIX:1  GATT 1994Art. 2.1, 4.2(a), 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 4.1(c), 4.2(b), 5.1, 7.1, 12.4, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3  SafeguardsArt. II:1(b), I:1  GATT 1994

INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT 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 ,

Japan held consultations with India on 6 and 7 February 2017. Unfortunately, those
consultations failed to resolve the dispute.
1. Background and Measures 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 1975) (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 the 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);

- 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
(Department 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

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 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 parties and to submit their 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 decision
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 substantial 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

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.