INDIA — MEASURES AFFECTING THE AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR
Document: Report of the Panel Corrigendum Paragraph 6.18 Should read as follows: "In footnote 414, the Panel added the relevant reference to the European Communities' argument as requested by it." Paragraph 7.21 The last sentence should read as follows: "The European Communities, similarly, requested the Panel to find that the trade balancing requirements contained in Public Notice No. 60 and in the MOUs concluded thereunder were inconsistent with Articles III and XI of the GATT 1994 and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement and that the indigenization requirements contained in these measures are inconsistent with Article III of the GATT 1994 and with Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement.308 " Paragraph 7.86
Date: 10 January 2002
Document codes: WT/DS146/R/Corr.1; WT/DS175/R/Corr.1
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: India
Third parties: EU, Japan, South Korea
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. III:4, XI:1  GATT 1994Art. 2.1, 2.2  Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs)

INDIA — MEASURES AFFECTING THE AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR
Report of the Panel
Corrigendum
Paragraph 6.18
Should read as follows:
"In footnote 414, the Panel added the relevant reference to the European
Communities' argument as requested by it."
Paragraph 7.21
The last sentence should read as follows:
"The European Communities, similarly, requested the Panel to find that the trade
balancing requirements contained in Public Notice No. 60 and in the MOUs
concluded thereunder were inconsistent with Articles III and XI of the GATT 1994
and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement and that the indigenization requirements
contained in these measures are inconsistent with Article III of the GATT 1994 and
with Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement.308 "
Paragraph 7.86
The second and third sentences should reads as follows:
"Nor did that panel expressly consider the earlier MOUs applicable to restricted kits
and components at the time of establishment of that panel. The India – Quantitative
Restrictions panel based its finding of violation in relation to the discretionary import
licensing on the more general observation that licenses were granted on the basis of
"unspecified 'merits'".
Paragraph 7.211
The second sentence should read as follows:
"The first is that, although there is no express provision to that effect in Public Notice
No. 60, it has been argued by the complainants and confirmed by India that purchases
by an MOU signatory within India of previously imported CKD/SKD
kits/components that were subject to a license requirement on their importation, also
count towards the signatory's export balancing requirement.
405 "

Paragraph 7.230
The last sentence should read as follows:
"It indicated that evidence concerning calculations performed in the past and
signatories' annual report under the MOUs were not available to it, and relied on the
plain meaning of the documents concerned.410 bis
410 bis See EC's response to Question 94 of the Panel."
Paragraph 7.234
The last sentence should be replaced with the following:
"The Panel's ruling does not seek to determine, or prejudge, any determination which
might be made in other contexts relating to the extent of specifications under
individual MOUs."
Paragraph 7.287
The fourth sentence should read as follows:
"More importantly, areas of coverage such as safeguards, anti-dumping and
countervailing duties require domestic analysis where affected foreign interests may
be represented and may use local courts to challenge bureaucratic determinations."
Footnote 414
Footnote 414 should read as follows:
"See First Submission of the European Communities, para. 74. See also US response
to Question 82 of the Panel."