The US Trade Representative's Office, in a statement, said that the panel had agreed that India provided prohibited subsidies to Indian exporters worth more than $7 billion (5.4 billion pounds) annually, including to producers of steel products, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, IT products and textiles.
India will now have to re-work these incentive schemes to comply with the WTO
ruling. However, it can file appeal against it at an appellate body of the WTO
through a dispute-settlement mechanism.
On March 14 last year, the US had taken India to WTO's dispute-settlement mechanism over New Delhi's export-incentive schemes, including the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS); Export Oriented Units (EOUs) and Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) scheme; and duty-free imports scheme.
The US had alleged that these schemes were harming American companies.
The dispute panel in its report has concluded that most of these schemes like EOU, Electronics Hardware Technology Parks Scheme, EPCG, and MEIS are inconsistent with certain provisions of WTO's Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
The dispute panel has recommended that India withdraw the prohibited subsidies under DFIS within 90 days from adoption of the report.
It should also withdraw the prohibited subsidies under the EOU/EHTP/BTP schemes, EPCG, and MEIS, within 120 days and SEZ scheme within 180 days.
The exemptions from customs duties on importation under the EOU/EHTP/BTP (Bio-Technology Parks) schemes were subsidies contingent upon export performance inconsistent with certain articles of the agreement, the ruling said.
"The duty credit scrips awarded under MEIS are subsidies contingent upon export performance, inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement," it added.
According to the procedure established by the WTO, the first step to resolve a trade dispute is engaging for consultation process. If two trading partners having dispute could not resolve at that level, one of them can ask for settlement of dispute panel for hearing. The panel's report or ruling can be challenged at the appellate body.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.
As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.
Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.