New Delhi: A dispute panel of world trade organization ,in that) on Tuesday recommended that India’s support measures for Sugar The regions are inconsistent with global trade norms, a conclusion New Delhi said was “totally unacceptable” for the country.
In 2019, Brazil, Australia and Guatemala dragged India into the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism, alleging that New Delhi’s sugar subsidies to farmers are inconsistent with global trade rules. Brazil is the largest producer and exporter of sugar in the world.
The WTO circulated the panel’s report in ‘India – Measures with respect to sugar and sugar’ in matters brought by Brazil, Australia and Guatemala. Sugarcane‘, according to a statement from the organization.
Giving separate findings and recommendations on the complaints of the three countries, the WTO panel said that “we find that India is acting inconsistently with its obligations under Article 7.2(b) of the Agricultural Agreement”.
It recommended that India bring its “WTO-incompatible” measures in line with its obligations under the Agriculture Agreement.
“We conclude that, to the extent that the measures at issue are inconsistent with certain provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture, they have nullified or worsened the benefits to Brazil under that Agreement”.
Commenting on the development, India said that India’s current and ongoing policy measures in the sugar sector will have no impact on the findings of the WTO panel on sugar.
An official statement said that India has taken all necessary steps to protect its interests and has filed an appeal against the report in the World Trade Organization, in order to protect the interests of its farmers.
It said these countries had “wrongly claimed” that the domestic assistance provided by India to sugarcane growers exceeded the limits permitted by the World Trade Organization and India provided prohibited export subsidies to sugar mills.
The panel in its report made some “wrong” conclusions about India’s plans to support sugarcane growers and exports.
The findings are “totally unacceptable” for India, it said, adding that the panel’s findings are unfair and not supported by WTO rules.
It said, “The panel has also avoided the key issues which it was obliged to determine. Similarly, the panel’s findings on alleged export subsidies undermine the logic and reasoning. India is of the view that Its measures are in line with its obligations under the WTO agreements.”
As per WTO rules, a member or members of the WTO can file a case with the Geneva-based multilateral body if they feel that a particular measure is against WTO norms.
Bilateral consultation is the first step in resolving any dispute. If both the parties are not able to resolve the matter through consultation, one can approach for setting up of Dispute Settlement Panel.
In 2019, Brazil, Australia and Guatemala dragged India into the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism, alleging that New Delhi’s sugar subsidies to farmers are inconsistent with global trade rules. Brazil is the largest producer and exporter of sugar in the world.
The WTO circulated the panel’s report in ‘India – Measures with respect to sugar and sugar’ in matters brought by Brazil, Australia and Guatemala. Sugarcane‘, according to a statement from the organization.
Giving separate findings and recommendations on the complaints of the three countries, the WTO panel said that “we find that India is acting inconsistently with its obligations under Article 7.2(b) of the Agricultural Agreement”.
It recommended that India bring its “WTO-incompatible” measures in line with its obligations under the Agriculture Agreement.
“We conclude that, to the extent that the measures at issue are inconsistent with certain provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture, they have nullified or worsened the benefits to Brazil under that Agreement”.
Commenting on the development, India said that India’s current and ongoing policy measures in the sugar sector will have no impact on the findings of the WTO panel on sugar.
An official statement said that India has taken all necessary steps to protect its interests and has filed an appeal against the report in the World Trade Organization, in order to protect the interests of its farmers.
It said these countries had “wrongly claimed” that the domestic assistance provided by India to sugarcane growers exceeded the limits permitted by the World Trade Organization and India provided prohibited export subsidies to sugar mills.
The panel in its report made some “wrong” conclusions about India’s plans to support sugarcane growers and exports.
The findings are “totally unacceptable” for India, it said, adding that the panel’s findings are unfair and not supported by WTO rules.
It said, “The panel has also avoided the key issues which it was obliged to determine. Similarly, the panel’s findings on alleged export subsidies undermine the logic and reasoning. India is of the view that Its measures are in line with its obligations under the WTO agreements.”
As per WTO rules, a member or members of the WTO can file a case with the Geneva-based multilateral body if they feel that a particular measure is against WTO norms.
Bilateral consultation is the first step in resolving any dispute. If both the parties are not able to resolve the matter through consultation, one can approach for setting up of Dispute Settlement Panel.
,