57. In the case DS360 raised by the United States against India, the Appellate Body considered the additional duty and extra additional duty inconsistent with paragraph 1 b) of Article II of GATT 994, to the extent they exceed the tax on domestic consumption of alcoholic beverages and sales tax, taxes on value added and other taxes or local charges that India claims that are equivalent to the additional duty and extra additional duty. What has taken India to avoid the burdens on these taxes do not exceed the taxes that India considered "equivalent"? (Page 59, paragraph 43)
Reply: The Appellate Body has reaffirmed the existing legal position that under Article II:2(a) of the GATT 1994, Members are allowed to impose a charge on the imported products equivalent to internal taxes levied on like domestic products. The duties and taxes on imported alcoholic beverages other than customs duties are charges equivalent to internal taxes imposed in respect of like domestic products.
58. In case the state trading companies cannot make imports of products subject to state trading, are others authorized to import or should they meet certain requirements? Is there any restriction on the import volume? (Page 68, paragraph 68)
Reply: Paragraph 2.11 of the FTP prescribes that the DGFT may grant an authorisation to any person to import and export any of these goods. To get such authorisations, a person has to apply to DGFT.
59. The report of the Secretariat notes that the Central Government of India may extend the stipulated period of one year of anti dumping investigations in cases of judicial intervention of any court. Could you clarify in what case can a court intervene in an investigation of an administrative nature that is still in progress? (Page 71, paragraph 74)
Reply: Various high courts of India and the Supreme Court of India (the Apex Court) may intervene in trade remedy investigations, particularly before the final determination is made, as per the provisions of Article 226 and Article 32 of the Constitution of India. This writ jurisdiction is generally invoked whenever the courts find that the matter is in larger public interest or there is want of jurisdiction or when issues relate to allegations of errors in the investigations for which there may not be legal remedy before the Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
60. Could India confirm that its domestic legislation on antidumping establishes the mandatory application of the lesser duty rule? (Page 71, paragraph 75)
