India wines
No, that was not a spelling mistake. True, India wins, but that was relating to wines! The US of A had made a complaint with the WTO on excessive customs duties for Imported liquor in India .
The Complaint
On 6 March 2007, the United States requested consultations with India with respect to “additional duties” or “extra additional duties” that India applies to imports from the United States, which include (but are not limited to) wines and distilled products ( HS2204 , 2205, 2206 and 2208. The measures include:
1. Sections 2 and 3, and First Schedule, of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (“basic customs duty”, “additional duty” and “extra additional duty”;
2. Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 (“basic customs duty”);
3. Customs Notification No. 5/2004 (8 January 2004) (“basic customs duty” inter alia on spirits);
4. Customs Notification No. 20/1997 (1 March 1997) (“basic customs duty” inter alia on wine);
5. Customs Notification No. 32/2003 (1 March 2003) (“additional duty” inter alia on wine and spirits);
6. Customs Notification No. 19/2006 (1 March 2006) (“extra additional duty” inter alia on wine and spirits)
The United States claims that the measures are inconsistent with Articles II :1 (a) and (b), and III:2 and III:4 of the GATT 1994.
On 16 March 2007, the European Communities requested to join the consultations. On 21 March 2007, Australia requested to join the consultations. Subsequently, India informed the DSB that it had accepted the request of the European Communities to join the consultations. On 24 May 2007, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 4 June 2007, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 20 June 2007, the DSB established a panel. Australia , Chile , the European Communities, Japan and Viet Nam reserved their third-party rights. On 3 July 2007, the panel was composed. On 17 December 2007, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that due to the complexity of the dispute, and the administrative and procedural matters involved, the Panel is not able to complete its work in six months. The Panel has given its report now.
The Panel concluded:
(a) the United States has failed to establish that the Additional Duty on alcoholic liquor is inconsistent with Article II:1 (a) or (b) of the GATT 1994; and
(b) the United States has failed to establish that the SAD is inconsistent with Article II:1 (a) or (b) of the GATT 1994.
In the light of these conclusions, the Panel makes no recommendations under Article 19.1 of the DSU . However, in the particular circumstances of this case, the Panel found it appropriate to offer some concluding remarks.
(a) To recall, after the establishment of this Panel, India issued new customs notifications making certain changes to the AD on alcoholic liquor and the SUAD , "to address concerns raised by [ India 's] trading partners".
(b) It is therefore appropriate to note that the Panel's disposition of the US claims under Article II :1 (a) and (b) does not necessarily imply that it would be consistent with India's WTO obligations for India to withdraw the relevant new customs notifications or otherwise re-establish the status quo ante , i.e., the situation as it existed on the date of establishment of the Panel.
(c) By the same token, in making this point, we do not wish to suggest that the entry into force of the new customs notifications necessarily implies that the AD on alcoholic liquor, to the extent it still exists, and the SUAD are WTO-consistent.