NEW DELHI: India’s decision to impose safeguard duty on imported solar cells drew criticism from the European Union and Japan at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on Monday, with the two trade giants criticising the conduct of investigation and the initial findings even as New Delhi joined seven WTO members to back China in lodging a protest against US import duty on steel and aluminium products.
Safeguard duties are imposed temporarily on products which cause, or threaten to cause, serious injury to the industry.
At a meeting of the WTO’s Safeguards Committee, the EU recalled that safeguard measures should only be imposed under exceptional circumstances, particularly if the imports causing problems come from predominantly one source. The EU representative at the meeting slammed India for its “casual analysis” and added that the injury analysis of imported solar cells was inconclusive since injury to other domestic producers needed to be assessed. The trading bloc went on to warn that the actions will create serious domestic shortages and even risk the environment. Japan suggested that there were flaws in the investigation process, which involved reasonable public notice.
Indian officials, however, countered the charges saying that in January, a preliminary safeguard duty of 70% was notified to WTO and that this was followed by a challenge to the measure in the domestic courts, sources said.
But the key focus was on US duty hike on aluminium and steel products, which several members led by China said was safeguard action although the Trump administration had imposed “under the guise of national security”.
Chinese representative at the WTO meeting said that the US action will severely damage the stability of the multilateral trading system and distort international supply chains, with considerable negative follow-up effects. China argued that the US decision to exempt certain exporters from the tariffs violated the WTO’s principle of nondiscrimination between members. India said such unilateral actions have no place in the international trading system and that it was watching the situation closely, refusing to divulge its plan even as China sought action against the US.
While the US denied to classify the move as a safeguard action, it attacked China for “rebalancing tariffs of 128 American products”, saying it was unjustified. The American delegation believes that China did not appear to be addressing this issue, but was instead seeking to increase state intervention under its ‘Made in China 2050’ industrialization and innovation programme.
Get latest news & live updates on the go on your pc with News App. Download The Times of India news app for your device. Read more Business news in English and other languages.
Source : timesofindia
