India's ICT Goods Duties Violated Trade Rules, WTO Dispute Panels Say
Dispute panels at the World Trade Organization released panel reports April 17 in cases brought by the EU, Taiwan and Japan and dealing with India's tariff treatment on certain goods in the information and communications technology sector, the WTO announced. In all three cases, the dispute panels found India's duties violated its WTO tariff commitments under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and Article II of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The EU and Taiwan said India's tariff treatment of various information technology products led to ordinary customs duties in excess of those laid out in India's Schedule of Concessions. The dispute panels rejected India's claim that its binding tariff commitments are laid out in the Information Technology Agreement, saying the ITA is not a covered agreement under the WTO Agreement and the Dispute Settlement Understanding, nor is it the source of India's legal obligations in these spats.
India argued that parts of its WTO Schedule are invalid due to an error it committed "during the transposition of its Schedule from the HS2002 to the HS2007." However, the panels said that India "failed to demonstrate that this assumption constituted an essential basis of India's consent to be bound by the certified Schedule."
The panels said India violated Articles II:1(a) and (b) of the GATT since the covered products are subject to "ordinary customs duties in excess of those set forth in India's WTO Schedule." In the case brought by Japan, the panel said India's tariff treatment of these goods is "less favourable than that provided in its WTO Schedule, such that India is acting inconsistently with Article II:1(a) of the GATT 1994."