INDIA - CERTAIN MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY JAPAN
Document: REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY
Date: 9 January 2017
Document codes: WT/DS518/1; G/L/1172; G/SG/D49/1
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 CONSULTATIONS BY JAPAN
The following communication, dated 20 December 2016 , from the delegation of Japan to the
delegation of India and to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in
accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.

My authorities have instructed me to request 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 pro ducts into Ind ia as further described
below.
1. Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products And the Investigation
That Led to the Imposition of Those Measures
On 7 September 2015, the Directorate General of Safeguards published "Notice of Initiation
of a Safeguard Investigation " F.No.D-22011/26/2015/Pt-I/ in the Gazette of India whereby it
initiated an investigation with a view to the application of safeguard 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
Notification No. 2/2015 -Customs (SG) in the Gazette of India 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 a 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 ") in the Gazette of India whereby definitive safeguard measures were
imposed on the products 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 fro m 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 March, 2017 to 13th September, 2017 (both days
inclusive); and
WT/DS518/1 • G/L/1172 • G/SG/D49/1

- 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 imposing 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) in the Gazette of India which amends paragraph 2 of the initial
notification imposing the definitive safeguard measures. It provides that th e safeguard duty shall
not be imposed on the products concerned which are imported at or above certain price listed in
the notification.
The Government of Japan ("Japan") is deeply concerned about the safeguard measures
imposed by India and the underlying investigation that led to the imposition of those measures.
Specifically, those measures appear to be in violation of India’s obligations under the GATT 1994
and the Agreement on Safeguards, in particular, but not limited to:
(1) Articles 3.1, 4.2(c) and 11.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards and with 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 , and
how those alleged unf oreseen 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 with Article XIX:1(a)
of the GATT 1994 , because I ndia failed to make reasoned and adequate findings and
conclusions in its determination as to the alleged effect of the obligations incurred under
the GATT 1994, and how that effect has 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 injury and/or 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/or threat of serious
injury to the domestic industry;
(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 measures beyond
the extent 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 findings and rea soned 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;
WT/DS518/1 • G/L/1172 • G/SG/D49/1

(9) Article 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because India 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 and failed
to initiate consultations immediately after the measure was taken;
(11) Articles 12.1 and 12.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards , because India failed to
immediately notify the Committee on Safeguards upon taking actions identified in
Article 12.1 and to provide all pertinent information;
(12) Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safe guards, because India failed to provide adequate
opportunity for prior consultations with Members having a substantial export interest of
the products concerned;
(13) Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 , because through the safeguard measures, India imposes
other duties or charges contrary to the second sentence of that provision; and
(14) 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 no t
been accorded immediately and unconditionally to the like products originating in other
WTO Members.
(15) Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, because the measures impose a restriction on the
importation of the products concerned through the minimum import price requirements by
virtue of paragraph 2 of Notification No. 2/2016-Customs (SG).
2. The Minimum Import Price System on Iron and Steel Products
On 5 February 2016, the Ministry of Commerce & Industry (Department of Commerce)
published Notification No. 38/2 015-2020 in the Gazette of India whereby, pursuant to the Foreign
Trade (D&R) Act 1992 and the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020, it imposed a Minimum Import
Price on iron and steel products. Those products cannot be imported unless their import prices are
at or above the minimum import prices listed in Notification No. 38/2015 -2020. The Minimum
Import Price was applied against iron and steel products falling within 173 Harmonized System
(HS) Codes under Chapter 72 of Indian Trade Classification (ITC), 2012 – Schedule -1(Import
Policy) during six months.
By Notification No. 20/2015 -2020 of the Ministry of Commerce & Industry (Department of
Commerce), dated 4 August 2016, the Minimum Import Price was extended for two additional
months ending on 4 October 2016. T he said notification also amended the scope of application,
limiting the application to iron and steel products falling within 66 HS Codes under Chapter 72 of
ITC, 2012 – Schedule -1 (Import Policy). The Minimum Import Pri ce was further extended until
4 December 2016 by Notification No. 30/2015 -2020 of the Ministry of Commerce & Industry
(Department of Commerce) dated 4 October 2016.
By Notification No. 31/2015 -2020 of the Ministry of Commerce & Industry (Department of
Commerce), dated 3 December 2016, the Minimum Import Price was extended for two additional
months until 4 February 2017. The said notification also amended the scope of application, limiting
the application to iron and steel products falling within 19 HS Codes under Chapter 72 of ITC, 2012
– Schedule -1 (Import Policy).
Japan is deeply concerned about the Minimum Import Price system. The legal instruments
through which India operates the M inimum Import Price system on imports of iron and steel
products include the following:
- the Foreign Trade (D&R) Act 1992;
- the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020;
WT/DS518/1 • G/L/1172 • G/SG/D49/1

- the Customs Act 1962;
- Notification No. 38/2015-2020 of 5 February 2016;
- Notification No. 20/2015-2020 of 4 August 2016;
- Notification No. 30/2015-2020 of 4 October 2016;
- Notification No. 31/2015-2020 of 3 December 2016; and
- any amendments, extensions, renewal measures, continuation measures, supplements,
replacement measures, related measures and implementing measures taken by India in relation to
the Minimum Import Price system on iron and steel products based on laws or regulations
including but not limited to those listed above.
Specifically, Japan considers that through this Minimum Import Price system on iron and steel
products, India appears to prohibit or restrict the importation of ir on and steel products, thereby
acting inconsistently with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.

 Japan reserves the right to raise additional factual claims and legal matters during t he course
of the consultations.
 We look forward to receiving your reply to this request for consultations and to agreeing upon a
mutually acceptable date for the consultations.