Indian Ag Bans Violate WTO Rules, Could Open Market for U.S. Poultry
A World Trade Organization dispute settlement panel shot down a range of Indian import bans on agricultural products, namely American poultry and live eggs, saying the restrictions violate international trade rules by, in part, failing to provide sufficient scientific justification (here). India put the measures in place, at least ostensibly, to fight back the spread of avian influenza (AI), also known as bird flu. But the WTO ruled in favor of U.S. claims that the bans do not comply with the WTO agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, as well as the WTO General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The Indian bans “arbitrarily and unjustifiably” discriminated against U.S. imports, and the bans mark a “disguised restriction on international trade,” said the WTO as part of its findings. Among other conclusions the WTO made public on Oct. 14, India’s import restrictions are not necessary to safeguard human and animal life and health. The restrictions also do not “recognize the concept of disease-free areas and areas of low disease prevalence,” said the WTO panel report. India had previously countered that the measures are consistent with both World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) standards and the WTO SPS agreement.
This ruling marks the first time WTO adjudicators have decided a trade measure does not comply with Article 6 of the SPS agreement, said a USTR official on an Oct. 14 call with reporters. Capitol Hill lawmakers, Obama administration officials and industry representatives all joined to praise the ruling on the conference call. Article 6 requires importing countries to acknowledge that different conditions, such as disease or pest prevalence and control programs, exist in different parts of one country or region, and therefore should be treated differently (here).
The U.S. has not had an outbreak of the high-pathogenic disease since 2004, and the Indian restrictions had no legal foundation in WTO rules, said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on the press call. “The only other type of AI detected in the U.S. since 2004 was a low-pathogenic AI,” said Vilsack. “The OIE standards for AI do not and have not afforded imposition of import bans due to detection of the low-pathogenic strains.” India banned the U.S. products in 2007, after low-pathogenic bird flu surfaced in the U.S.
The removal of those bans may restore roughly $300 million in trade for U.S. industry, Vilsack added. The U.S. and India both have 60 days to appeal the ruling, but the U.S. won every challenge it raised in the case, so it is unlikely the U.S. would appeal the ruling, said another USTR official on the call.