INDIA – MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS COMMUNICATION FROM INDIA
Document: COMMUNICATION FROM
Date: 23 September 2016
Document codes: WT/DS430/19
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: India
Third parties: China, Colombia, Ecuador, EU, Guatemala, Japan, Vietnam, Argentina, Australia, Brazil
Dispute stage: Mutually Agreed Solution
Agreements cited: Art. 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 6.1, 6.2, 7, Annex B  Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)Art. XI  GATT 1994

INDIA – MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF
CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
COMMUNICATION FROM INDIA
The following communication, dated 22 September 2016 , was received from the delegation of
India with the request that it be circulated to the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB).

On 19 June 2015, the Dispute Settlement Body ( "DSB") adopted its recommendations and rulings
in India – Measures Concerning the Importation of Certain Agricultural Products (WT/DS430). At
the following DSB meeting, Ind ia informed the DSB of its intention to implement the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB with respect to this matter.
On 8 December 2015, India and the United States informed the DSB that they had agreed on a
reasonable period of time up to 19 June 201 6 for India to implement the recommendations and
rulings of the DSB. In this respect, India notified a draft am endment notification to the
SPS Committee on 20 April 2016 1 allowing a 60 -day time period for interested parties to provide
comments to the same. Further, India vide corrigendum dated 22 June 2016, amended item 8 of
the aforesaid draft amendment notification, to appropriately reflect the relevant international
standard.2
India received comments on its draft amendment notification from only one WTO Member, namely,
the United States. These comments were taken into consideration by India while issuing the final
notification, S.O. 2337(E), which superseded the previous notification S.O. 1663(E). 3 Thereafter,
India notified the DSB on 18 July 2016 that it had adopted measures necessary to comply with the
recommendations of the DSB.4

Notification S.O. 2337(E) complies with the recommendations of the DSB in this dispute as it:

i) allows imports of poultry and poultry products into India in accordance with the
relevant international standard, i.e. the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code
("Terrestrial Code");
ii) recognizes the concept of disease-free areas; and
iii) provides for the process to be followed for recognition of such disease-free areas,
zones/compartments in conformity with the Terrestrial Code and the SPS Agreement.

Further, India has also issued the relevant guidelines referred to in notification S.O. 2337(E) as
well as the questionnaire for recognizing a part of a country, zone/compartment in accordance
with the relevant international standard, i.e. the OIE Terrestrial Code for the purpose of trade in
poultry and poultry products.

After the publication of S.O. 2337(E), India and the United States entered into bilateral discussions
to address further concerns of the United States, if any. Pursuant to such bilateral discussions,
India has further amended notification S.O. 2337(E) vide notification S.O. 2998(E) dated

1 Notification of draft S.O. 2337(E) to the SPS Committee, G/SPS/N /IND/143 circulated on
20 April 2016.
2 Notification of corrigendum to the SPS Committee, G/SPS/N/IND/1 43/Corr.1 circulated on
22 June 2016.
3 See http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2016/170589.pdf
4 Communication from India, WT/DS430/18 circulated on 19 July 2016.

19 September 2016, clarifying the concerns of the US. 5 The amendment notification has also been
notified to the SPS Committee on 21.9.20166.

Notification S.O. 2337(E) dated 8 July 2016, and the amendment notification S.O. 2998(E) dated
19 September 2016, the guidelines, and the questionnaire, together form the "revised Avian
Influenza measures". The notifications have been issued in exercise of the power conferred by
sub-section (1) of Section 3 and Section 3A of the Livestock Act, 1898 (9 of 1898) and came into
effect on the date of publication in the Official Gazette.

In view o f the above, India strongly considers that it has complied with the recommendations of
the DSB by bringing its measures into conformity with its WTO obligations.

Lastly, India would draw attention to the fact that despite requests from India, the United S tates
has not entered into a sequencing agreement in this dispute which is a standard practice among
the WTO members. A sequencing agreement is entered into in order to ensure that, in the event of
disagreement between the parties with respect to complianc e with the DSB's rulings and
recommendations, recourse under Article 21.5 of the DSU should be pursued as the first option.

In India's opinion, if there is a disagreement between the parties with respect to "the consistency
with a covered agreement of me asures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings",
the proper course of action is first to have recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU. In fact, this has
also been the position of the United States in other disputes. 7 Instead, on 7 July 2016, the U nited
States made a request pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU seeking authorization from the DSB to
suspend concessions under the covered agreements in the amount of US$450 million in 2016,
which will be updated annually. 8 India objected to this request vide its communication to the DSB
dated 18 July 2016 and at the DSB meeting held on 19 July 2016. Till date, the United States has
not agreed to suspend the arbitration proceedings under Article 22.6 of the DSU.

In view of the fact that India has brought itself into conformity with its WTO obligations, India
would urge the United States to terminate the Article 22.6 proceedings in this dispute.