India appeals WTO panel ruling on sugar subsidies

India has appealed a ruling by the World Trade Organization’s trade dispute settlement panel on domestic sugar subsidies, saying the panel made “certain errors of law” in its report, said said the WTO on Tuesday.

The appeal was filed by India with the WTO Appellate Body, which is the final authority on these trade disputes.

“India has notified the Dispute Settlement Body of its decision to appeal the panel reports in the cases brought by Brazil, Australia and Guatemala in India – Measures Concerning Sugar and sugar cane, “the WTO said in a statement.

He stated that given the continued lack of agreement among WTO members regarding the filling of vacant Appellate Body posts, no Appellate Body division is available at the meeting. current time to process the call.

In its decision of December 14, 2021, the panel recommended that India withdraw its alleged prohibited subsidies under the production assistance, buffer stock, and marketing and transportation programs within 120 days of the release. adoption of this report.

Ruling in favor of Brazil, Australia and Guatemala in their trade dispute with India over New Delhi’s sugar subsidies, the WTO panel said the support measures are inconsistent with trade rules of the WTO.

In its submissions to the Appellate Body, India appealed and requested the body to “reverse, vary or declare moot and without legal effect the findings, conclusions, rulings and recommendations of the Panel. Special “, with respect to certain” errors in the law or the legal interpretation contained in the panel report “.

India requested reconsideration of the panel’s conclusion that the sugar mill assistance scheme for expenses related to marketing costs, including handling, recovery and other processing costs and transportation costs international and domestic and the freight costs for the export of sugar for the period 2019-20 sugar season (MAEQ scheme), is part of its mandate.

“The Panel makes a gross error in considering that the MAEQ program is of the same essence as other alleged export subsidies identified in the Complainants’ panel requests. India considers that the Panel selected some broad similarities while ignoring the differences between the MAEQ and other alleged export subsidy measures, ”according to a submission from India, circulated to members.

New Delhi also stated that the panel erred in concluding that India’s fair and remunerative price and the State Recommended Price constitute market price support under the WTO agreement. on agriculture.

In 2019, Brazil, Australia and Guatemala dragged India into the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, claiming that New Delhi’s domestic support measures to sugarcane and sugar producers and export subsidies are inconsistent with world trade rules, including various provisions of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT ).

(Only the title and image of this report may have been reworked by Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is automatically generated from a syndicated feed.)

Dear reader,

Business Standard has always strived to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that matter to you and have broader political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering has only strengthened our resolve and commitment to these ideals. Even in these difficult times resulting from Covid-19, we remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and cutting-edge commentary on relevant current issues.
However, we have a demand.

As we fight the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more so that we can continue to provide you with more quality content. Our subscription model has received an encouraging response from many of you who have subscribed to our online content. More subscriptions to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of providing you with even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practice the journalism to which we are committed.

Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.

Digital editor

Rachel J. Bradford