World Trade Organization Organisation Mondiale du Commerce Organización Mundial del Comercio

Reply: The provision for suspension or termination of investigation on furnishing of price undertaking is explained under Rule 15 of India's Anti Dumping Rules.

WTO Secretariat's report, page 66, para. 97

The report indicates that initiations of safeguard investigations increased substantially during the reviewing period. It is noted that the mere initiation of safeguard investigation even if no measures are imposed can disrupt imports.

11. 
    Could India explain how it ensures that:
    

i) Such investigations are initiated on the basis of a duly justified complaint;

ii) Due restraint is exercised in using this exceptional instrument in consideration of India's commitment to resist protectionism (G 20);

iii) Safeguard measures are applied only to the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment?

It must be added that, in some cases, the same product was subject to both a safeguard and an anti dumping investigation.

Reply (i): Rule 5(3) of India's Safeguard Duty Rules obligates the investigating authority to examine the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application and to satisfy that there is sufficient evidence regarding: (a) increased imports; (b) serious injury or threat of serious injury; and (c) a causal link between increased imports and alleged injury or threat of serious injury. The DG (safeguards) initiates safeguard investigations by following this Rule.

Reply (ii) and (iii): During the period of review, 17 safeguard investigations were initiated based on prima facie evidence furnished in the applications. However, measures were recommended by the Investigating Authority only in 6 cases out of 17. Further restraint was exercised by imposition of lower rate of safeguard duty and for a shorter duration of time than recommended by the Investigating Authority (IA). In one case, the safeguard measure was limited to the period of provisional safeguard measure. At present only one safeguard measure of India is in force.

11. 
    Could India provide a legislative reference, if any, or explain how in practice India applies simultaneously trade defence instruments (notably anti dumping and safeguard measures) and avoids double imposition?
    

Reply: In such cases, India ensures that there is no double imposition. If an anti dumping measure is applied where a safeguard measure is already in force, the anti dumping measure is adjusted to take into account the injury addressed by the safeguard measure. Similarly where an anti dumping measure is already in force, the safeguard measure is applied after taking into account the existing anti dumping measure in force.

(ix) Technical regulations and standards

WTO Secretariat's report, pages 67 68, para. 99 102

The WTO Secretariat's report contains a section on technical regulations and standards, including labelling.  However, it is only in the following section on Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures (SPS) that the Food Safety and Standards Act of 2006 is mentioned, which established the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).  The FSSAI has recently published and implemented Food Safety and Standards Regulations on various subjects, which affect all food and drink products imported into India.  Some of these contain labelling and packaging provisions, thereby falling under the scope of the TBT Agreement. However, despite repeated requests from the EU, these requirements have these requirements have not yet been notified to the TBT Committee

11. 
    Does the Government of India intend to notify these new regulations under the TBT Agreement, thereby providing WTO members with the opportunity to comment formally?  If not, why not?
    

Reply: The draft Regulation was notified to SPS Committee during October 2010, and was also placed on FSSAI Portal giving opportunity to its stakeholders to offers comments. The comments so received were duly considered before final notification on 1 August 2011 by Government of India. As such there is no plan to notify the same to WTO TBT Committee now.

WTO Secretariat's Report, page 70 et seq., para. 112 114

The Report states that "according to the authorities, labelling requirements are uniform across all states and for all foreign suppliers" (paragraph 112). On the other hand, the Report concedes that "the requirement that packaging must specify the maximum retail price of the product, including taxes, is a further complication, since sales taxes are levied at the state level" (paragraph 114). However, through a Customs Circular of 15 April 2011 India granted exemptions to the requirement that all pre packaged goods must be labelled, including with the maximum retail price (MRP), already before being imported to India: imported goods which are "small sized" or "sensitive to heat and dust" may be labelled in bonded warehouses at the point of import, subject to certain procedural conditions.

11. 
    Could India confirm that this important exemption which allows labelling (including with respect to the MRP) in bonded warehouses will be applied extensively? Would it be possible for India to consider an even broader exemption which would generally allow labelling of imported products in bonded customs warehouses, prior to distribution and sales, as an alternative to labelling in the country of origin?