INDIA – MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS COMMUNICATION FROM INDIA
Document: COMMUNICATION FROM
Date: 19 July 2016
Document codes: WT/DS430/18
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 18 July 2016, wa s 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, India informed the DSB of its intention to implement the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in connection with this matter.
On 8 December 2015, India and the United States informed the DSB that they had agreed that a
reasonable period of time upto 19the June 2016 for India to implement the recommendations and
rulings.
Indian authorities have been conferring with interested parties and the administrative authorities
since the adoption of the rulings and recommendations of the DSB to fully comply with them. They
have held extensive internal stakeholder consultations in this regard.
Based on these consultations and deliberations, India prepared the draft notification on the
proposed measure and notified the same to the SPS committee vide notification
dated 20 April 2016, allowing import of poultry and poultry products into India from country, zone
or compartment free from avian influenza, in acco rdance with the relevant international standard,
i.e. the OIE Terrestrial Code. The draft notification provided a 60 day time period for interested
parties to provide comments against the same. Further, India vide addendum dated 21 June 2016
amended item 8 of the duly filled in standard fo rmat submitted with the aforesaid notification to
appropriately reflect the relevant international standard.
India has received comments on its draft notification from only one member namely the United
States, which has been taken into consideration by the Government of India and has subsequently
issued the new notification, i.e. S.O. 2337(E) dated 08 July 2016 (' notification'). The notification
has been issued in exercise of the power conferre d by sub-section (1) of Section 3 and Section 3A
of the Livestock Act, 1898 (9 of 1898) and in su persession of the earlier notification of the
Government of India in the Ministry of Agriculture published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary,
part II, Section 3, sub-section (ii) vide number S.O.1663 (E) dated 19 July 2011, which was the
measure in the present dispute. The notification ha s come into effect from the date of publication
in the Official Gazette i.e. 8 July 2016. The notification is available at
http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2016/170589.pdf.
The notification takes into account, the findings of the WTO Panel and the WTO Appellate Body in
WT/DS430 and provides that import of poultry and poultry products shall be allowed from country,
zones/compartments free from avian influenza virus in accordance with the relevant international
standard, i.e. the OIE Terrestrial Code. The notification further provides for the process to be
followed for recognition of such country, zones/ compartments in conformity with the OIE
Terrestrial Code and the SPS Agreement. Further, India has also framed the relevant guidelines

referred in the notification as well as the questionnaire for recognizing part of a country,
zone/compartment as free from Avian Influenza which can be accessed at http://www.dahd.nic.in.
With the publication of the new notification supe rseding the earlier notification S.O. 1663(E), India
considers that it has fully complied with the rulings and recommendations of the Dispute
Settlement Body in this dispute.