- On March 6, 2012, the United States requested WTO dispute consultations with India regarding India's import prohibitions on certain agricultural products from the US, purportedly due to concerns about Avian Influenza. - A WTO panel was established in February 2013 and found several of India's measures to be inconsistent with WTO agreements in October 2014. India appealed some findings in January 2015. - In June 2015, the Appellate Body upheld most of the panel's findings that India's avian influenza measures were inconsistent with WTO obligations. The DSB adopted the panel and Appellate Body reports. - India was given until June 2016 to bring its measures into compliance with its WTO obligations.

1. WTO
Yasmine 09342
Devyani 09310
Harjas 09312
Rajan 09322
Gourav 09311
Nitish 09339

2. INDIA — MEASURESCONCERNING
THE IMPORTATIONOF CERTAIN
AGRICULTURALPRODUCTS
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: DISPUTE DS430

3. Key facts
Short title: India — Agricultural Products
Complainant: United States
Respondent: India
Third Parties: China; Colombia; Ecuador; European Union; Guatemala;
Japan; Viet Nam; Argentina; Australia; Brazil
Agreements cited:
(as cited in request for
consultations)
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS):
Art. 2, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6,5.7, 6, 6.1, 6.2,
7, Annex B
GATT 1994: Art. I, XI
Request for Consultations received: 6 March 2012
Panel Report circulated: 14 October 2014
Appellate Body Report circulated: 4 June 2015

4. Consultations
• United States requested consultations with India with respect to the
prohibitions imposed by India on the importation of various agricultural
products from the United States because of concerns related to Avian
Influenza.
• The measures at issue are: The Indian Livestock Importation Act, 1898 (9 of
1898) ("Livestock Act"); a number of orders issued by India's Department of
Animal Husbandry, Dairying, and Fisheries pursuant to the Livestock Act
• The United States claims that the measures appear to be inconsistent with:
• Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 6.1, 6.2, 7
• Annex B,
• Paragraphs 2, 5 and 6 of the SPS Agreement
• Articles I and XI of the GATT 1994.

5. Agreements cited
• Article 2: Basic Rights and Obligations
• Article 3: Harmonization
• Article 5: Assessment of Risk and Determination of the Appropriate
Level of Sanitary or Phytosanitary Protection
• Article 6: Adaptation to Regional Conditions, Including Pest- or
Disease-Free Areas and Areas of Low Pest or Disease Prevalence
• Article 7: Transparency
• Annex B: Transparency Of Sanitary And Phytosanitary Regulations
• Article I: General Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment
• Article XI*: General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions

6. • On 6 March 2012, the United States requested consultations with India
with respect to the prohibitions imposed by India on the importation of
various agricultural products from the United States purportedly because of
concerns related to Avian Influenza.
• India had banned US poultry and other farm goods for the since 2007,
supposedly to prevent avian influenza outbreaks in the country.
• India’s argument- India has expressed concern that low pathogenic avian
influenza could mutate into highly pathogenic strains, and argued that it is
allowed to prohibit trade in poultry under the Terrestrial Animal Health
Code of the World Organisation for Animal Health (known by its historical
acronym, OIE).
• USA argument- The US disputes this assessment, arguing that international
standards for avian influenza control only support the imposition of import
bans in outbreaks of high pathogenic strains.
• US also sort scientific evidence from India regarding import restrictions.
Details of issue

7. • Third parties- China; Colombia; Ecuador; European Union; Guatemala; Japan; Viet
Nam; Argentina; Australia; Brazil
• Timelines for proceedings-
• On 6 March 2012, the United States requested consultations with India.
• On 15 March 2012, Colombia requested to join the consultations.
• On 11 May 2012, the United States requested the establishment of a panel.
• On 7 February 2013, composition of panel by D-G on US request.
• On 18 February 2013, the Director-General composed the panel
• On 14 October 2014, the panel report was circulated to Members.
• On 6 November 2014, India and the United States requested the DSB to adopt a draft
decision extending the 60-day time period stipulated in Article 16.4 of the DSU, to 26
January 2015.
• On 26 January 2015, India files appeal in appellate body. On 4 June 2015, the
Appellate Body issued its Report in this dispute.
• On 13 July 2015, India informed the DSB that it intended to implement the DSB's
recommendations.
• On 8 December 2015, India and the United States informed the DSB that they had
agreed that the reasonable period of time for India to implement the DSB
recommendations
Details of proceedings

8. Panel responded to India's first
request for a preliminary ruling:
• The panel request was sufficiently precise in identifying the measure at issue
as required by Article 6.2 of the DSU.
• The products listed in S.O. 1663(E) and the United States' panel request were
within the scope of the dispute.
Panel responded to India's second
request for a preliminary ruling:
• Two of India's legal instruments that had not been explicitly mentioned in the
United States' panel request were not measures at issue.
• The United States was under no obligation to identify in its panel request
India's rules applicable to domestic products in order to be able to rely on
them in support of its arguments under Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement.

9. The Panel further found that
India's AI measures are
inconsistent with
• Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement.
• Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.
• Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement.
• Articles 5.6 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.
• Articles 6.2 and 6.1 of the SPS Agreement.
• Article 7, Annex B(2) and Annex B(5)(a), (b) and (d) of the SPS Agreement.

10. Request for Extension
• 6th Nov, 2014: India & US requested DSB to adopt a draft
decision extending the 60-day time period stipulated in Article
16.4 of the DSU, to 26th Jan, 2015
• 18th Nov, 2014: At its meeting, DSB agreed that DSB, shall no
later than 26th Jan, 2015, adopt the panel report, unless the
DSB decides by consensus not to do so or India or the United
States notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal pursuant to
Article 16.4 of the DSU.
• 26th Jan, 2015: India filed an appeal challenging several key
findings of the Panel

11. • On 26 January 2015, India filed an appeal challenging several key findings of
the Panel. On 4 June 2015, the Appellate Body issued its Report in this
dispute.
• Articles 2.2, 5.1, and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement. The Appellate Body agreed
with the Panel that its finding, that India's AI measures are inconsistent with
Articles 5.1 and 5.2 because they are not based on a risk assessment, raised a
presumption that those measures are also inconsistent with Article 2.2.
• Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the SPS Agreement. After also rejecting claims raised
by India under Article 11 of the DSU, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's
findings under Articles 3.1 and 3.2 that India's AI measures are neither “based
on”, nor “conform to”, the relevant international standard.
• Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. The Appellate Body found that the Panel did
not, as contended by India, err in interpreting the relationship between
Article 6.1 and Article 6.3. The Appellate Body also found that, in applying
Article 6.2 to determine whether India's AI measures recognize the concepts
of disease-free areas and areas of low disease prevalence in respect of AI.
Appeal filled by India on 26th Jan,2015

12. • Article 5.6 and Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement. After also rejecting
claims raised by India under Article 11 of the DSU, the Appellate Body
upheld the Panel's findings that India's AI measures are inconsistent
with Article 5.6 because they are significantly more trade-restrictive
than required to achieve India's appropriate level of protection.
• Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement. The Appellate Body upheld the
Panel's finding that India's AI measures are inconsistent with the first
sentence of Article 2.3 because they arbitrarily and unjustifiably
discriminate between Members where identical or similar conditions
prevail.
• At its meeting on 19 June 2015, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body
report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.
Appeal filled by India…..cont..!!

13. Conclusion
Appellate Body and/or Panel finds the disputed trade measures to be
inconsistent with WTO law.
Report(s) adopted, with recommendation to bring measure(s) into
conformity with WTO law.

14. Reasonable period of time
• 13 July, 2015
• 8 December, 2015
• 19 June 2016
• India informed the DSB that it
intended to implement the
DSB's recommendations and
rulings.
• India requested for
reasonable period of time.
• India and US agreed on 12
months from date of adoption
of Appellate Body and panel
reports.
• Expiry of reasonable period of
time.

15. THANKYOU