World Trade Organization Organisation Mondiale du Commerce Organización Mundial del Comercio

Norway 4:

III. 2.viii – Contingency measures – anti dumping and countervailing measures

Norway notes from the Secretariat's Report that India is the most frequent user of anti dumping measures, accounting for almost 18 % of all measures introduced during the life of the WTO, and that India has an almost equivalent share of the investigations initiated (16 %).

India is in the process of conducting a dumping investigation against certain imports from Norway. This is, to our knowledge, the first investigation against imports from Norway ever conducted by India, so we of course follow the process closely.

We have questions regarding the right to respond to preliminary disclosures and regarding reasonable time for providing such responses.

• 
  What is the minimum time India allows for providing a response to preliminary disclosures? Would in India's view a period for collecting comments from Friday at 7:02 PM (i.e. after business hours) to the following Tuesday at 5:00 PM, i.e. two working days, seem reasonable?
  
• 
  Does India allow an extension of the time limit for comments as Norway requested, or is the practice not to answer such requests, as Norway has experienced?
  

Any investigation imposes costs for the parties examined. Do Indian authorities conduct any analysis of the costs incurred by an investigation, as well as the cost linked to the introduction of antidumping measures, both to down stream producers or to consumers over the life span of a measure?

Reply: There is no minimum time stipulated either under the Anti dumping Rules of India or under the WTO Agreement for providing a response to disclosure. The designated authority stipulates the time period for comments on disclosure statement keeping in mind the requirements of due process as well as overall time limit for completion of anti dumping proceedings. The same parameter applies to any request for extension of time limit as well.

Norway 5, 6, 7:

III. 2.x   SPS measures, page 71, para 116 through 121

While Norway fully recognizes India's right to regulate in order to protect human, animal or plant life or health we do have certain concerns regarding the way some of these regulations are implemented as they seem to be more trade restrictive than necessary. In particular, this relates to difficulties in obtaining necessary licences, to difficulties concerning certain requirements in the field of SPS, and that their seems not to be a consistent and uniform application of the rules. An additional problem reported had been a difficulty in establishing contact with the relevant Indian authorities.

• 
  Certain requirements regarding attestation of fish health, microbiological examination and processing do not seem to be in accordance with internationally recognised methods for risk based management and technological processes. Examples include requirements for frozen salmon and cold smoked salmon. Can India elaborate on the basis for its regulations on these products?
  
• 
  When does India envisage that the Food Safety and Standards Regulations 2010, and Rules 2011 will be notified and consequently when does India envisage that the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 will be fully implemented? Will implementation of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 lead to a change in the designated contact points for SPS questions?
  
• 
  Para 121 implies that imports of fish products are only allowed through the port of Vishakhapatnam. This seems unnecessarily restrictive given India's large coastline. Is this policy something India is considering to revise?