(i) Trade remedy disputes filed by India

On 9 September 2016, in the WTO dispute US – Renewable Energy, India requested consultations with the United States regarding domestic content requirements and other subsidies instituted by the governments of the states of Washington, California, Montana, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Michigan, Delaware and Minnesota, in the energy sector. India claimed that the measures resulted in violation of:

a.    Articles III:4, XVI:1 and XVI:4 of the GATT 1994;

b.    Article 2.1 of the TRIMS Agreement; and

c.    Articles 3.1(b), 3.2, 5(a), 5(c), 6.3(a), 6.3(c) and 25 of the ASCM.

The Report of the Panel was issued on 27 June 2019 and found that the measures in dispute were inconsistent with the United States' obligations under Article III:4 of the GATT, as they provided an advantage for the use of domestic products, which amounted to a less favourable treatment for similar or identical imported products. Currently, the Report of the Panel is the subject of an appeal to the WTO Appellate Body at the request of the United States. Later, India also notified the DSB of its decision to cross-appeal. On 14 October 2019, the chair of the Appellate Body informed the DSB that regrettably the Appellate Body would not be able to circulate a report in this case within the required 90 days. The chair of the Appellate Body noted that there was a queue of appeals pending, as was well known, and the Appellate Body was considering them in the order in which they were appealed. Owing to non-availability of Appellate Body members, the outcome of this dispute is unlikely to be issued in the near future.

In 2018, the US imposed additional import duties of 25 per cent and 10 per cent on certain steel products and aluminium products. Challenging the imposition of additional import duty, India filed the dispute US – Steel and Aluminium Products (India) and requested the establishment of a panel by the DSB. Since the selective levy of additional duty distorts international trade, eight other WTO members, namely Canada, China, the European Union, Mexico, Norway, Russia, Switzerland and Turkey, have also filed disputes against the United States, and almost 30 member countries have reserved their right as third party. In January 2019, the Director General established a panel to adjudicate the dispute. In February 2021, the panel conveyed its inability to issue a panel report within the stipulated time due to delay caused by the covid-19 pandemic. On 9 December 2021, the chair of the panel informed further delay, and the final report is expected to be issued no earlier than the first half of 2022. 

(ii) Trade remedy disputes against India

In 2013, the United States filed the case India – Solar Cells, wherein both the panel and the Appellate Body found measures introduced by the government of India to be inconsistent with Article III of GATT 1994 and Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement. Although India gave notice of its decision to implement the DSB ruling by December 2017, the United States claimed that India had failed to comply with the ruling and sought suspension of concessions accorded to India. Subsequently, in 2018, India requested the DSB to establish a panel to resolve the disagreement between India and the United States. 

In 2015, the government conducted a safeguard investigation into imports of 'hot rolled flat products' and imposed a safeguard duty of 20 per cent ad valorem. Aggrieved by this decision, Japan filed the dispute India – Iron and Steel Products with the DSB and submitted that the safeguard measures were imposed in violation of Article 2 of the GATT 1994 and various provisions of the AOS. The DSB panel concluded that India's decision was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards, in failing to provide reasoned conclusions on all pertinent issues of fact and law. Subsequently, both India and Japan gave notice of their decisions to appeal this ruling before the Appellate Body. Owing to the limited number of members available, the Appellate Body has not issued its report yet owing to the backlog of appeals. 

Another WTO trade remedy case, India – Export Related Measures, is at the appellate stage. In this dispute, the United States challenged numerous programmes applicable to an array of products and in its decision the panel held certain programmes, such as the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme, to be inconsistent with the ASCM. By the end of 2019, the government of India had notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body. Notwithstanding this appeal, the government has taken initiatives to modify, amend or terminate the programmes found to be inconsistent with the ASCM. One such initiative is replacement of the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme by the Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported Products Scheme (the RoDTEP scheme). 

In 2019, Brazil (DS579), Australia (DS580) and Guatemala (DS581) filed disputes with the WTO, challenging domestic support subsidies and export subsidies granted by India to the sugar and sugar cane industry. In these disputes, WTO members claimed various measures to be in violation of the Agreement on Agriculture and the ASCM. The complainants claimed that India has substantially increased domestic support, which adversely impacts the competitiveness of other exporting WTO members. On 14 December 2021, the Panel issued its report to members. The Panel in its decision held that domestic support and export subsidies granted by the central and state government are inconsistent with Article 7.2 (b), Article 3.3 and Article 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Later, on 24 December 2021, India announced its decision to appeal, claiming errors by the Panel on interpretation of legal provisions.