India has raised a fresh trade dispute against the European Union at the World Trade Organization over Brussels’ decision to continue with final anti-dumping duties as well as anti-subsidy (countervailing) measures on the Indian exports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), trade diplomats said.
Last week, India lodged a complaint against the EU’s measures on PET at the WTO, saying Brussels allegedly violated core provisions of the Agreement on Anti-Dumping as well as Subsidies and Countervailing measures.
Under the WTO’s anti-dumping and anti-subsidy rules, the EU is required to terminate its measures after five years. But Brussels continued to impose them on the ground that the Indian exports could harm the European producers.
India said the EU had not properly applied the relevant legal standards, arguing that Brussels failed to justify why it would need to continue these measures even after their expiry under the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy rules.
India has asked the EU to enter into what are called Article 4 consultations under the dispute settlement mechanism. This is the first step for countries to resolve trade disputes, under which the complainant has the right to call the other party to enter into consultations.
Brussels is required to hold consultations within 60 days during which it can amicably resolve the dispute.
More From This Section
If the two parties fail to reach a satisfactory outcome, New Delhi can call for the establishment of a panel to adjudicate over its complaint.
Reliance Industries is the largest producer of PET in India, said analysts, arguing that it may have suffered a major disruption due to the EU’s anti-dumping and countervailing measures.
In its complaint, India said the EU had initiated expiry reviews in both these measures, based on the requests from its industry that were not duly substantiated, and more so, after the date on which the definitive duties should have been removed.
Further, the EU measures are not based on positive evidence and an objective examination. India maintained that Brussels violated several other provisions of the two agreements.