International Trade and the

WTO
By
WTO Cell
Trade Development Authority of
Pakistan
3rd September 2008

International Trade and the

WTO

WTO An Introduction
GATT: Negotiations on Agriculture in the WTO
NAMA Negotiations in the WTO

GATS
TRIPS
Regulatory Framework in Pakistan & NTC
Regionalism
WTOs Dispute Settlement Mechanism

WTO An Introduction
By
Abdul Aleem Khan
Economist, Advisory Unit,
WTO Cell, TDAP

WTO An Introduction

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the principal

international organization governing world trade.

It was established in 1995 as a successor institution

to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) which was a post-World War II institution.

WTO has 153 member countries, representing 95%

of world trade.

It aims to provide fair and stable conditions for the

conduct of international trade with a view to
encouraging trade and investment that will raise
living standards worldwide.

WTO is a forum where countries continuously

negotiate exchanges of trade concessions to further
lower the trade barriers all over the world.

WTO An Introduction (cont. 2)

Decisions within the WTO are made by

member countries, not by staff and by
consensus, not by formal vote.

High-level policy decisions are made by the

Ministerial Conference, which is a body of
political representatives (trade ministers)
which meet at least every two years.

Operational decisions are made by the General

Council ( representative from each member
country) which meets monthly and chair
rotates annually.

WTO An Introduction (cont. 3)

GATT came into force in1948 with 23

founding members.

It was intended to promote

nondiscrimination in trade among
countries, with the view that open trade
was crucial for economic stability and
peace.

Different trade rounds were held so as

to liberalize the trade.

GATT and WTO Trade Rounds

1st Round - Geneva in 1947

23 Countries participated
Decided to cut 45,000 trade tariffs

2nd Round - France in 1949

13 Countries participated
Proposed further reductions in 5,000 tariffs

3rd Round - Britain in 1950-51

38 Countries participated
Proposed further reductions in 8,700 tariffs

4th Round - Geneva in 1955-56

26 Countries participated
Proposed to Cut Custom Tariffs with a total value of US$2.5 bn

5th Round - (Dillion Round) in Geneva in 1960-62

26 Countries participated
Proposed to cut 4,400 tariffs covering US$.9 bn worth of trade

6th Round - (Kennedy Round) in Geneva in 1964-67

62 Countries participated
Decided on substantial tariffs reductions on all industrial products
US$40bn of trade.

covering

GATT and WTO Trade Rounds Cont 2

7th Round - (Tokyo Round) in Geneva in 1973-79

102 countries participated
-Customs cuts averaging 20% to 30% covering US$300 bn
- Improved framework for subsidies, customs rates and
technical obstacles to trade.

8th Round - (Uruguay Round) started in Uruguay ended in Morroco 1986-94

123 countries participated
The round led to the creation of WTO, and extended the range of trade
negotiations, leading to major reductions in tariffs (about 40%) and agricultural
subsidies, an agreement to allow full access for textiles and
clothing from
developing countries, and an extension of intellectual property
rights.

9th Round - (Doha Round) started - in Doha in 2001 ( at forth Ministerial Conference)
- in Cancun in 2003 (at fifth Ministerial Conference)
- in Hong Kong in 2005 (at sixth Ministerial Conference)
- in Geneva in July 2006 (at seventh Ministerial Conference Not yet concluded.
141 countries participated,
Subject covered are tariffs, non-tariffs measures, agriculture, labour standards,
environment, competition, investment, transparency, patents etc.

WTO Agreements

Agreement on Agriculture

Agreement on Textiles & Clothing (ATC)

Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures

Agreement on Anti-Dumping

Agreement on Safeguards

Agreement on Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs)

Agreement on Custom Valuation

Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and on Sanitary and Phytosanitary

Measures (SPS)

Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)

General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)

Understanding on Dispute Settlement (DSU)

Special & Differential Treatment ( S& D )

Presentation by:

Mujeeb Ahmed Khan

Head WTO Cell

Trade Development Authority of
Pakistan

GATT

Agreement on Agriculture - Objectives

To establish a fair and market-oriented agriculture

trading system.
To initiate a reform process through negotiation of
commitments on support and protection.
To establish strengthened and operationally
effective rules and disciplines.
To provide for substantial progressive reduction in
support and protection.
To correct and prevent restrictions and distortions in
world agricultural markets.
To achieve specific binding commitments in ;market
access, domestic support and export competition.

Special and Differential treatment for

developing countries

S & D is an integral element of the negotiations,

and taking into account the possible negative
effect of the implementation of the reform
programme on least-developed and net foodimporting developing countries.
While implementing their commitments the
developed countries to take fully into account the
particular needs and conditions of developing
countries.
Greater market access for agriculture products of
particular interest to developing countries.
Fullest liberalization of trade in tropical products
and products of importance to the diversification of
production from the growing of illicit narcotic crops.

Reduction commitments in the Uruguay

Round
Developed

Developing

(1995-2000)(1995-2004)

Market Access
Average tariff cuts for all ag.products
Minimum tariff cuts per product

-36%
-15%

-24%
-10%

Domestic Support
Total cuts in aggregate measurement of
support
-20%

-13%

Export Subsidies
Value cut
Volume Cut

-24%
-14%

-36%
-21%

Domestic Support

Green Box - Research, Extension,

PDS,Decoupled payments etc.

Blue Box - Production Limiting Subsidies ;

Amber Box - AMS-subject to reduction

commitments;
- Product specific (MSP)
- Non product specific (input subsidies; fertilizers,
power, irrigation etc

Domestic Support (contd)

De minimis support;
Allowed WTO Members to exempt from the
calculation of the AMS, below a certain threshold
level;
- Developed countries: 5% of the value of
agricultural
production of the product
concerned and 5% of total value of agricultural
production.
- Developing countries: 10% of the value..

The Doha Mandate for negotiations

We commit ourselves to comprehensive
negotiations aimed at:

Substantial improvement in MARKET ACCESS;

Reductions of, with a view to phasing out, all

forms of EXPORT SUBSIDIES;

Substantial reductions in trade distorting

DOMESTIC SUPPORT.

Negotiating priorities for Pakistan

Highest possible tariff reductions. (even U.S

proposal for 55%-90% for developed and slightly
less for developing)

Maximum tariff caps.(75% for developed and

100% for developing)

Expansion of tariff rate quotas. (from the current

5% to 20% of domestic consumption, with and
end-date agreed for their eventual elimination)

Negotiating priorities for Pakistan (contd)

The TRQ in-quota tariffs should be eliminated

where substantial under fill exists.

Sensitive products must be limited to maximum

of 1% -2% of all tariff lines.

Special products must be limited to 2% - 3% of all

tariff lines.

A Special Safeguard Mechanism, with strict and

transparent guidelines.

Negotiating priorities for Pakistan (contd)

Elimination of Tariff escalation through the use of

progressively higher tariff reductions for more
processed products.

Most restrictive overall level of support.

(minimally acceptable position is the G-20
proposal of 80% reduction for EU and 70% for the
U.S).

Product specific caps for the Amber Box and the

Blue Box.

Negotiating priorities for Pakistan (contd)

Capping of the Blue box at 2.5% of the value of

production.

Commitment to review the Green and Blue box

criteria to ensure that these programs are truly
non-trade distorting and production limiting.

Possibility of a cap on Green Box expenditures.

Elimination of all forms of export subsidies,

including subsidy elements of export credits, state
trading and food aid.

NAMA Negotiations
in the WTO
By
Tippu Sultan
Head Advisory Unit, WTO Cell
TDAP

WTO NAMA Negotiations : (Non Agriculture Market Access)

Challenges and opportunities for Pakistan

The Doha Ministerial Declaration requires that
negotiations should aim by modalities to be agreed
upon to
a)

Reduce or eliminate tariffs

b)

Reduce or eliminate tariff peaks

c)

Reduce or eliminate non tariff barriers

d)

Not exclude any products

e)

Allow less than full reciprocity to developing

countries in making reduction commitments.

NAMA Tariff Cut formulas

The United States (US) has proposed to use simple Swiss

formula with a negotiated coefficient.

The US elaborated that there could be two coefficients, one

separately applied by developing countries and another applied
by developed countries.

The Simple Swiss formula is expressed as follows:

Final tariff

=
Coefficient (a) x Initial tariff
Coefficient (a) + Initial tariff

Where the:
Initial tarif is the bond rate, as listed in national schedules, and
Coefficient is a figure to be negotiated

Different Proposals

EU and US proposal:

In 6th Ministerial Conference at Hong Kong, the EU and US proposed using

coefficient of a = 10 for developed countries and a coefficient of a = 15 for
developing countries.

THE ABI formula:

The second proposal has been presented by Argentina, Brazil and India,
modified Swiss-type formula, which incorporates national tariff averages
into the formula reducing the impact of the coefficient and establishing a
linkage between tariff reductions and a countrys current tariff levels. It is
expressed as follows:
Final tariff
= (Coefficient x National average of bond rates) x Initial tariff
(Coefficient x National average of bond rates) + Initial tariff
Where the:

Initial tarif is the bond rate, as listed in national schedules, and

Coefficient is a figure to be negotiated
National average of bond rates is calculated using all non-agricultural bond duties

Different Proposals . Cont

Coefficient proposed by Pakistan:

At the mini-ministerial meeting held in China,
Pakistan put forward a proposal to bridge the
difference between the supporters of the Simple
Swiss formula and the supporters of the ABI
formula.
The coefficients proposed by Pakistan would be
around a = 6 for developed countries and
around a = 30 for developing countries

Pakistans position after NAMA

Negotiations
Pakistan is fairly comfortably place in this
negotiation, because:
a)

Our tariff rates are relatively low

b)

We are hardly giving any subsidy

c)

Our reliance on custom revenue has

reduced drastically and constitutes only
15% of our total revenue.

Conclusions

a)

b)

c)

In order to get greater market access, we would

like to see:
Tariff reductions by other developing countries
Reduction / elimination of peak tariffs in
developed countries in products of our export
interest; most of their tariffs are otherwise very
low.
Reduction / elimination of non tariff barriers in
all countries

GATS
Presentation by:

Mujeeb Ahmed Khan

Head WTO Cell

Trade Development Authority of Pakistan

General Agreement on Trade in

Services (GATS)
The Service Agreement rests on three pillars.

The first is the framework Agreements containing

the basic obligations which apply to all members.

The second concerns national schedules of

commitments.

The third is a number of measures addressing the

special situations of individual services sectors.

WTO classification of Services Sectors

The four modes:
Mode I: cross-border -- when a Pakistani firm
delivers to an overseas customer without leaving
home. Some examples of this mode are internet,
telecom, financial services etc.

Mode II: consumption abroad -- when a foreign

consumer is in the Pakistani market and receives
or uses a service. Examples of this mode include
tourism, education, machinery sent for repairs etc.

WTO Classification (contd)

Mode III: Commercial presence -- when the

Pakistani firm establishes an office abroad;
Illustrations of Mode-III are branches set up by
banks and Hotel chains etc.

Mode IV: movement of natural persons -- when

Pakistani service employees travel to another
country to provide a service. Examples of this
mode are Doctors, engineers, skilled or semi
skilled laborers etc.

Commitments on services in the WTO

Each member will submit schedules of commitments

pertaining to different services sectors on each of the
four modes.

These schedules will then be negotiated in a request and

offer format resulting in submission of revised schedules.

11 sectors were approved by the ECC for the proposal

Pakistan has submitted its initial offer on 9 services

sectors including 68 sub-sectors (on 24 th May 2005).

ECC approved Sectors:

(Marked Red were not in the initial offer)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Business Services
Communication Services
Construction and related engineering Services
Distribution services
Educational services
Environmental services
Financial services
Health and related social services
Tourism and travel related services
Recreational, cultural and sporting services
Transport services

i.

ii.

iii.

SALIENT FEATURES OF ECC APPROVED OFFER:

Commercial presence' - subject to incorporation in
Pakistan with maximum foreign equity participation of
70% is inscribed against a particular sector or subsector.
Establishments to be located in Export processing zones
may negotiate higher than 70 percent limits on foreign
investment .
Profits of foreign-invested companies will be fully
repatriable except as provided in specific sector
commitments.

SALIENT FEATURES OF ECC APPROVED

OFFER (contd)
iv.

v.

vi.

No legal restriction on acquisition of real estate

by foreign-invested judicial entities or natural
persons.
Subsidies, if any, will be granted to domestic
companies only.
Movement of natural persons - Unbound, except
for measures concerning the entry or temporary
stay of natural persons falling in specified
categories. E.g.Intracorporate transferees,
Business visitors, Independent Professionals etc...

SALIENT FEATURES OF ECC APPROVED OFFER

(contd)
vii. The commitments relating to Professional
services apply only to countries that provide
similar commitments to Pakistan except natural
persons qualified in the United Kingdom and the
USA.
viii. In specific sectors; Access granted both to
natural persons and companies based on
economic needs test. Criteria include rate of
growth of the services sector recorded by the
national accounts in the previous 5 years.

Pakistans offer

SALIENT FEATURES OF INITIAL OFFERS:

i.

Commercial presence' - subject to

incorporation in Pakistan with maximum foreign
equity participation of 60% is inscribed
against a particular sector or subsector. In
certain sub sectors e.g. Engineering services it
is 51%.

ii.

In specific sectors; Access granted both to

natural persons and companies based on
economic needs test.

SALIENT FEATURES OF INITIAL OFFERS (contd)

iii. Presence of natural persons in certain sub sectors
there are conditions that qualifications for foreign
service suppliers will be set by the concerned
Pakistani Association/Council and any other relevant
law in force.
iv. Commercial presence in certain sub sectors there
are conditions of Economic needs test e.g. wholesale
trade services, Franchising etc.
v. The commitments in Financial Services are given to
the nationals and financial institutions of the Members
whose laws and policies do not bar the provision of
similar commitments to the Pakistani nationals and
financial institutions.

Pakistans offer
SALIENT FEATURES OF PROPOSED REVISED OFFER:
i.

As per the ECC mandate all 11 sectors and 86

sub-sectors covered.

ii.

Commercial presence' - subject to incorporation

in Pakistan with maximum foreign equity
participation of 70% is inscribed against a
particular sector or sub sector. (ECC mandate)

SALIENT FEATURES OF PROPOSED REVISED

OFFER (contd)
iii.

No limitations on Market Access or National

treatment in Cross border supply (mode I) and
Consumption abroad (mode II) except for
Financial Sector and its sub sectors.

iv.

Movement of natural persons - Unbound,

except for measures concerning the entry or
temporary stay of natural persons falling in
specified categories. E.g.Intracorporate
transferees, Business visitors, Independent
Professionals etc...

SALIENT FEATURES OF PROPOSED

REVISED OFFER (contd)
v. No commitments contingent upon reciprocity by other
countries. (ECC plus)
vi. No requirement of Economic Need Test for granting
Market Access or National Treatment. (ECC plus)
vii.Presence of natural persons in certain sub sectors
there are conditions that qualifications for foreign
service suppliers will be set by the concerned Pakistani
Association/Council and any other relevant law in force.
(Initial offer)

Pakistans View in Service Sector

Pakistan believes that the liberalization in
Services sector is in our own interest, as it will
enhance the efficiency of local service
suppliers through competition and
introduction of new techniques apart from
improving the quality of manufactured goods,
since the service are also inputs for
manufacturing.
Pakistan is presently consulting various
Domestic stakeholders before a final offer is
made.

Trade Related Intellectual Property Right

TRIPS
Presentation by:

Mujeeb Ahmed Khan

Head WTO Cell

Trade Development Authority of
Pakistan

TRIPS

TRIPs included in the single undertaking of the

UR
It establishes minimum standards for all types
of IPRs (but utility models and breeders rights)
It is based on and supplements, with additional
obligations, the Paris, Berne, Rome and
Washington Conventions
It extends to IPRs the principles governing
international trade: MFN, NT
It contains provisions relating to enforcement of
IPRs, amendment and reservation

TRIPS (cont2)

TRIPS requires member states to provide

strong protection for intellectual property
rights. For example, under TRIPS:
Copyright terms must extend to 50 years
after the death of the author, although
films and photographs are only required to
have fixed 50 and to be at least 25 year
terms, respectively.(Art.7(2),(4)).
Copyright must be granted automatically,
and not based upon any "formality", such
as registrations or systems of renewal.

TRIPS (cont3)

Computer programs must be regarded as

"literary works" under copyright law and
receive the same terms of protection.
National exceptions to copyright (such as
"fair use" in the United States) are
constrained by the Berne three-step test .
Patents must be granted in all "fields of
technology," although exceptions for
certain public interests are allowed
(Art.27.2 and 27.3 [1]) and must be
enforceable for at least 20 years (Art 33).

TRIPS (cont4)

Exceptions to the exclusive rights must be limited,

provided that a normal exploitation of the work
(Art.13) and normal exploitation of the patent
(Art30) is not in conflict.
No unreasonably prejudice to the legitimate interests
of the right holders of computer programs and
patents is allowed.
Legitimate interests of third parties have to be taken
into account by patent rights (Art30).
In each state, intellectual property laws may not
offer any benefits to local citizens which are not
available to citizens of other TRIPs signatories by the
principles of national treatment (with certain limited
exceptions, Art.3 and 5 [2]). TRIPS also has a most
favored nation clause.

TRIPS (cont5)

Many of the TRIPS provisions on copyright were

imported from the Berne Convention for the
Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and many
of its trademark and patent provisions were
imported from the Paris Convention for the
Protection of Industrial Property.

IPRs addressed under TRIPs

Copyrights.
Patents.
Trade Marks.
Industrial Designs.
Layout designs of Integrated circuits.
Geographical Indications.
Traditional Knowledge and Folklore

Regulatory Framework
in Pakistan and NTC
Tippu Sultan
Head Advisory Unit, WTO Cell
TDAP

Regulatory Framework in
Pakistan

Ministry of Commerce is responsible

for negotiating and representing
Pakistan at multilateral negotiations.

MOC takes its position after

consultation with all ministries,
divisions, associations and chambers.

National Tariff Commission

Established in 1990 under the
National
Tariff Commission Act, 1990
Function
Implementation of Trade Defense Laws

Functions of the Commission

The Commission is the implementing body for two WTO
agreements, namely, Agreement on Subsidies & CVDs, and
Agreement on Safeguards.
Pakistans Trade Defence Laws:
Anti-Dumping Duties Ordinance, 2000
Countervailing Duties Ordinance, 2001
Safeguards Measures Ordinance, 2002

Implementation of Trade Defense Laws

Anti-Dumping Duties Ordinance, 2000
Mandate
Imposition of anti-dumping measures after due process
Procedure
Application processing, preliminary investigation,
preliminary determination, final investigation, final
determination, imposition of anti-dumping measures.
The anti-dumping duty is imposed for a period of 5 years.
Time frame: 365 days

TRANSPARENCY
Commission maintains a Public File in each investigation, which
contains all documents (non-confidential) including application,
notices, reports, comments and correspondence with interested parties
and other related documents.
The public file is open for inspection and copying to all interested
parties.
The public file is usually inspected by domestic industry, foreign
missions, foreign exporters and producers, lawyers etc.

TRANSPARENCY
Throughout the investigation, the Commission keeps all interested
parties including the governments of exporting countries informed of the
developments in an investigation.
In addition, the following documents are available on the Commissions
website and are, therefore, in the public domain:
Notice of Initiation
Notice of Preliminary Determination
Report on Preliminary Determination
Notice of Final Determination
Report on Final Determination
Commissions website: www.ntc.gov.pk

Implementation of Trade Defense Laws

Anti-Dumping Actions Taken by Pakistan

Initiation
Date

Preliminary
Determination

Final Determination
Anti-Dumping Duties

Thailand
Korea, Indonesia

09.08.2006

0% to 8.33%
09.02.2007

0% to 10.26%
07.06.2007

Tiles

China

27.03.2006

0% to 21.02%
30.11.2006

14.85% to 23.65%
30-03-2007

Tinplate

UK, USA, Italy,

Germany and
France

06.12.2005

Terminated
03.06.2006

Formic Acid

Finland and
Germany

08.09.2005

16.49% and 6.16%

09.03.2006

13.63% and 6.25 %

07-07-2006

Pthalic Anhydride

India

11.08.2005

10.94%
13.02.2006

10.94%
26-05-2006

12.05.2005

0% to 36.56%
12.11.2005

0% to 29.68%
17-03-2006

Product

Exporters from

Polyester Staple
Fibre

Indonesia, Korea,
*Polyester Filament
Malaysia, and
Yarn
Thailand

Anti-dumping duties imposed after final determination remain in force for a period of five years.
*15 Price undertakings have been accepted from the exporters and are being monitored

Implementation of Trade Defense Laws

Anti-Dumping Actions Taken by Pakistan

Product

Exporters from

UFMC

China

Initiation
Date

Preliminary
Determination

Final Determination

12-01-2005

4.31% to 14.89%
18-07-2005

3.43% to 11.58%

PVC Resin

Iran
Korea

25-6-2004

31.06%
40.18%
26-10-2004

31.06%
40.18%
24-02-2005

Acrylic Tow

Uzbekistan

16-3-2004

12.71%
13-08-2004

12.71%
10-12-2004

Glacial Acetic Acid Taiwan

1-9-2003

13.77%
25-2-2004

13.77%
18-6-2004

Sorbitol 70%
Solution

France
Indonesia

6-3-2003

96.50% & 91.12%

19-7-2003

96.50% & 22.26%

19-11-2003

Tinplate

South Africa

26-2-2002

23.91%
22-7-2002

27.33%
26-11-2002

19-11-2005

Implementation of Trade Defense Laws

Reviews of Anti-dumping Measures

Product

Exporters from

Sorbitol 70% Solution

Indonesia

Tinplate

South Africa

Tiles

China

Initiation
Date

Status

25-07-2007
(Changed
Circumstances)

Terminated on
02-02-2008

07-07-2007
(Sunset)

Under Process

Request Received
(Newcomer)

Under Process

Implementation of Trade Defense Laws

APPEAL AGAINST THE COMMISSIONS DECISION

Appellate Tribunal (Pakistan)

Any interested party can file an appeal against a
final determination made by the Commission
Dispute Settlement Body (Geneva)
The government of exporting country may
approach the DSB to challenge the inconsistencies
of a measure with the WTO Agreements

Implementation of Trade Defense Laws

Countervailing Duties Ordinance, 2001
Mandate
Imposition of countervailing measures after due process
Procedure
Application processing, preliminary investigation, preliminary
determination final investigation, final determination, imposition of
Countervailing measures.
The countervailing duty is imposed for a period of 5 years.
Time frame: 365 days.

Implementation of Trade Defense Laws

Safeguard Measures Ordinance, 2002

Mandate
Safeguard Measures against surge of imports.
Procedure
Application processing, investigation, determination and making
recommendations to the Government.
Recommendations
NTC sends recommendations on safeguard measures to the Federal
Govt. for consideration.
Safeguard Measures are imposed for a period of 4 years.
Time Frame: 120 days.

Implementation of Trade Defense Laws

Safeguard Investigation by Pakistan

Product

Date of Initiation

Determination

Footwear

17-06-2005

Investigation
Terminated

Assisting Exporters Facing Trade Defense Actions

Assisting Pakistani exporters facing foreign

actions under WTO Trade Defense
Agreements.
NTC assisted Pakistani exporters of Ethyl
Alcohol, Pet Resin and Match Boxes.

Assisting Exporters Facing Trade Defense

Actions
The Commission has been assisting the exporters from Pakistan
facing anti-dumping actions by other WTO Member countries,
mainly in the following:
Response to the questionnaires
Accounting details
Procedural compliance
DSB proceedings

REGIONALISM

By
Aamir Hussain Siddiqui
Economist, Research & Information Unit,
WTO Cell, TDAP

WTO Provisions for

Regionalism

Article XXIV of GATT 1994:

Para 4 of the Doha Declaration: We
stress our commitment to the WTO as
the unique forum for global trade rulemaking and liberalization, while also
recognizing that regional trade
agreements can play an important role
in promoting the liberalization and
expansion of trade and in fostering
development.

Global tendency of RTAs

Some 380 RTAs have been notified

to the GATT/WTO up to July 2007.
Of these, 300 RTAs were notified
under Article XXIV of the GATT
1947 or GATT 1994; 22 under the
Enabling Clause; and 58 under
Article V of the GATS. At that same
date, 205 agreements were in
force.

If we take into account RTAs which are

in force but have not been notified,
those signed but not yet in force, those
currently being negotiated, and those in
the proposal stage, we arrive at a figure
of close to 400 RTAs which are
scheduled to be implemented by 2010.
Of these RTAs, free trade agreements
(FTAs) and partial scope agreements
account for over 90%, while customs
unions account for less than 10 %.

World major RTAs

European Union (EU) Custom Union
North America Free Trade Area (NAFTA)
ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA)
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Custom
Union

MERCOSUR (South American Common Market)

Custom Union

Pakistans position

Pakistan has signed following Trade

Agreements
a. SAFTA (RTA)
b. FTAs with
(1) Sri Lanka
(2) China
(3) Malaysia
c. PTAs with
(1) Mauritius
(2) Iran

South Asian
Cooperation

Association

for

Regional

The South Asian Association for Regional

Cooperation (SAARC) was established when its
Charter was formally adopted on December 8,
1985 by the Heads of State or Government of
Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal,
Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
SAARC provides a platform for the peoples of
South Asia to work together in a spirit of
friendship, trust and understanding. It aims to
accelerate the process of economic and social
development in Member States.
SAFTA is an economic agreement for free trade
among member states.

South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA)

Article-7 of the Agreement contains modalities of tariff reduction
under TLP, which are as follows:No tariff reduction on items in the Sensitive List.
Non-LDCs (Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka) shall reduce tariff to 0-5% for
LDCs (Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Maldives) within three years (2009)
Tariff Reduction by Non-LDCs for Non-LDCs
Reduction in two phases:
Phase-I (2006-2008)
Existing tariff rates above 20% to be reduced to 20% within
two years
Tariff below 20% to be reduced on margin of preference basis
of 10% per year.
Phase-II (2008-2013)
Tariff to be reduced to 0-5% within 5 years.
Tariff Reduction by LDCs for all SAARC Members
Reduction in two phases:
Phase-I (2006-2008)
Existing tariff rates above 30% to be reduced to 30% within
two years
Tariff below 30% to be reduced on margin of preference basis
of 5% per year.
Phase-II (2008-2016)

Sensitive List
Countries
Bangladesh
Bhutan
India
Maldives
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka

No. of tariff lines % of total lines

1254
157
884
671
1310
1183
1065

24
3
16.9
12.8
25.5
22.6
20.3

SAFTA Rules of Origin

Annex IV deals with the rules of origin

under the SAFTA required to qualify
products for preferential duty benefits.
Rules of Origin to be operative on
01.07.2006. Basic Criteria is as under:
For non-LDCs
40% value addition + change in tariff
heading at 4 digits (CTH).

For LDCs
30% value addition + CTH.

Pak-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement

Salient Features
Came into force from June 2005.
Establishment of a Free Trade Area through
complete or phased elimination of tariffs.
The FTA does not remove all tariffs on all goods at
once.
Negative Lists to protect national interests of both
countries.
The Rules of Origin (ROO) criteria to ensure a
minimum local content.
Adequate safety clauses to protect domestic and
national interests of both countries.
Review and consultation mechanisms to ensure the
smooth operation of the Agreement.

Pakistan Commitments
From the date of entry into force Pakistan has granted 100%
immediate tariff concessions on 206 items. In addition Sri Lanka
can export up to 10,000 MT of tea per financial year free of duty.
Pakistan has also granted 35% of margin of preference on applied
(MFN1) tariff rate to exports of beetle leaves from Sri Lanka.
Apparel exports from Sri Lanka (21 categories) are also granted
35% margin of preference on applied (MFN) tariff rate up to 3
million pieces. Ceramic exports from Sri Lanka to Pakistan are
given a margin of preference of 20% on applied (MFN) tariff rate.
There is no limit on the quantity of exports. About 10% of tariff
lines at 6-digit level (i.e. 540 items) are included in the negative
list of Pakistan. These consist of very sensitive items where
Pakistan is not in a position to offer any preferential treatment to
Sri Lanka.
All other items that are not included in the negative list and
immediate concession list are subject to a tariff phase out and
would have duty free access to Pakistan by 2008.

Sri Lanka Commitments

From the date of entry into force Sri Lanka has granted
immediate duty free access to Pakistan for 102
products. In addition, Sri Lanka has allowed Pakistan to
export Long Grained Pakistan Rice (Basmathi) up to
6000 MT per year and potatoes up to 1000 MT during
the off season (i.e. June-July & Oct-Nov) free of duty.

The negative list of Sri Lanka has about 13% of tariff

lines at 6-digit level (697 items) where the country
would not give any preferential concessions to Pakistan.

All other items, which are not included in the immediate

100% concession list and the negative list, are subject
to a duty phase out and would be made duty free by
2010.

Pak-China FTA

Pak China Free Trade Agreement was concluded on July

1, 2007. The FTA covers overall 14353 products at 8-digit
level of H.S. Code including 7550 under tariff reduction
modality provided by China and 6803 under Tariff
reduction modality of Pakistan.

Pak- China FTA comprises two phases, providing

elimination and reduction of tariffs within the time frame
as provided under the agreement. The base year for
tariff reduction/elimination is 2006 for China while the
base year for tariff reduction/ elimination is the fiscal
year of 2006-2007 for Pakistan. It is worth mentioning
here that the elimination of tariff on the products
covered in the Early Harvest Program (EHP) shall
continue in accordance with the earlier agreed modality
of tariff elimination for EHP.

Tariff Reduction
(Phase-I)

Modality

of

China

Category
No.

Track

No. of Tariff
Lines

% of Tariff
lines at 8 digit

Elimination of tariff (Three years)

2681

35.5%

II

0-5% ( five years )

2604

34.5%

III

Reduction on Margin of Preference

of 50%( five years )

604

8%

IV

Reduction on Margin of Preference

from 20%( five years)

529

7%

No Concession

1132

15%

Total

7550

Tariff Reduction
(Phase-I)
Category
No.

Modality

Track

of
No. of Tariff
Lines

Pakistan
% of Tariff
lines at 8 digit

Elimination of tariff (Three years)

2423

35.6

II

0-5% ( five years )

1338

19.9

III

Reduction on Margin of Preference of

50%( five years )

157

2.0

IV

Reduction on Margin of Preference from 1768

20%( five years)

26.1

No Concession

1025

15.0

VI

Exclusion

92

1.4

TOTAL

9803

Phase II: Both Parties shall endeavor to eliminate the

tariffs of no less than 90% of products, both in terms of
tariff lines and trade volume within a reasonable period
of time on the basis of friendly consultation and
accommodation of the concerns of both Parties.

Malaysia-Pakistan
Closer
Economic
Partnership Agreement (MPCEPA)

This Agreement is the 1st bilateral FTA between two Muslim Countries members of OIC. This Agreement is Pakistans first comprehensive FTA
incorporating trade in goods, trade in services, investment and Economic Cooperation and Malaysias first bilateral FTA with any south Asian country.

For trade in Goods Pakistan will eliminate tariff on 43.2% of the current imports
from Malaysia by 2012. On the other hand Malaysia will eliminate tariff on 78%
of imports from Pakistan.

In trade in services, both countries have provided WTO plus market accesses to
each other. In the field of computer and I.T related services, Islamic Banking,
Islamic Insurance (Takaful) Pakistan has secured 100% equity in Malaysia.
Market access in services provided by both countries will impact positively on
investment and trade in goods. Mutual recognition arrangements are also apart
of the FTA.

The Agreement also contains a chapter on investment to facilitate

entrepreneurs of both countries. The incentives available to both countries will
not be available to investors from other countries and the bilateral investment
treaty signed by Pakistan will have no impact on the investment provisions
under the FTA.

Tariff Reduction Modality by Malaysia

Category

No. of Items

Duty Dates for duties

Fast Track

6699

0%

1-1-2009

Normal Track

1215

0%

1-1-2012

Sensitive Track-1

224

5%

1-1-2011

Sensitive Track-2

616

10% 1-1-2014

Sensitive Track-3

1271

20% 1-1-2011

450 items are in Highly Sensitive List, where no concession is given

16 items are in Tariff Rate Quota List
102 items are in Exclusion List

Tariff Reduction Modality by Pakistan

Category

No. of Items

Duty Dates for duties

Fast Track

1703

0%

1-1-2009

Normal Track

1206

0%

1-1-2012

Sensitive Track-1

796

5%

1-1-2011

Sensitive Track-2

593

10% 1-1-2014

Sensitive Track-3

1423

20% 1-1-2011

765 items are in Highly Sensitive List, where no concession is

given
129 items are in Margin of Preference -1, on which 5%, 10%,
15% and 20% MOP would given in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011,
respectively
9 items related to Palm nut and oil, are in Margin of Preference
-2, where MOP would be given 10% in 2008 and 2009 and 15% in

Pak Iran PTA

Pakistan
signed
Preferential
Trade
Agreement with Islamic Republic of Iran on
4th March 2004. The Cabinet ratified the
agreement on 25th May 2005. As mutually
agreed the agreement has become
operational from 1st September 2006.
Preferences granted by both countries
each other cover approximately 18%
MFN tariff of both countries.

to
of

Preferences given by Iran to

Pakistan
Total 309 Items
Main items are Textile and Clothing (125
items), Chemicals, Marble & Granite, Fish,
Bananas, Mangoes and Citrus fruits,
Pharmaceutical, Plastics, Rubber & Articles,
Footwear, Cutleries, Refrigerators, Electric
Motors, Brushes, Pens, Pencils & Markers,
etc.
Margin of Preference is between 10 to 30
percent, except Rice, which is given TRQ
status, but Commercial benefit is about 96%.

Preference given by Pakistan to

Iran
Total 475 items
Major items, are animal products, vegetables, fruits, tea
& spices, oilseeds, animal of vegetable oils,
confectionary, salts and minerals, fuels Petroleum and
LPG
etc.
Organic
&
Inorganic
Chemicals,
Pharmaceuticals, Fertilizers, Chemicals, Textile &
Clothing materials, Articles Stones, Glass & Glassware,
Pig iron and Ferrous alloy, Copper and Industrial
Machines etc.
Margin of Preference is between 10 to 30 percent,
Organic and Inorganic, Ores and other are given
highest MOP of 30%

Pak Mauritius PTA

Pakistan signed Preferential Trade
Agreement with Republic of Mauritius
on 30th July 2007. As mutually
agreed the agreement has become
operational from 1st December 2007.

Preference granted by Mauritius

Total 101 items
Major items are Vegetables and
Fruites, Rice, Biscuits, Tobacco,
Marble & Granites, Articles of Wood,
Carpets, Textile Made-ups, etc.
Margin of Preference would become
100% one year.

Preference granted by Pakistan

Total 66 items
All are related to Garments (Chapter
61: Knitted garments and Chapter
62: Woven Garments)
Margin of Preference is between 30 to
50%
Most of the items are subject TRQs.

ECO Trade Agreement

Economic
Cooperation
Organization
(ECO),
is
an
intergovernmental regional organization established in 1985
by Iran, Pakistan and Turkey for the purpose of promoting
economic, technical and cultural cooperation among the
Member States. In 1992, the Organization was expanded to
include seven new members, namely: Afghanistan,
Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
The Organization has a permanent Secretariat in Tehran Iran
headed by a Secretary General. Mr. Khursheed Anwar, from
Pakistan is the current Secretary General of ECO Secretariat.
ECO Trade Agreement was approved in 2005 in Turkey and
need ratification by member governments after which it will
become operational.

Dispute Settlement
Mechanism (DSM) of the
WTO
By
Abdul Aleem khan
Economist, Advisory Unit,
WTO Cell, TDAP

Introduction to the DSU

What is WTOs DSS & DSU

Need for a DSU

Principles: equitable, fast, effective,

mutually acceptable

How are disputes settled?

The case has been decided: what next?

What is WTOs DSU

WTOs DSU is the Central Pillar of MTS

Evolved through years of negotiations

Important achievement of UR

Based on Clearly defined rules

Need for a DSU

System without DSU is fragile

Enhances the Practical Value of the
Commitments
Settles disputes in a timely &
structured manner
Mitigates the imbalances between
stronger and weaker players
Members Trust it!

Improvements over GATT 1947

- a set of Principles

The system is designed to be: Equitable,

Fast, Effective, Mutually Acceptable
Following agreed procedures instead of
taking unilateral action
Clearly defined stages
Flexible-but not so flexible deadlines
A case shall normally take 12-15 months
Blocking the ruling is difficult
Encourages consultation & mediation

How are Disputes Settled?

Settling disputes is the responsibility

of DSB.
Consultation (1st stage up to 60
days)
The Panel (2nd stage 45 days + 6
months)
How the Panel works?

How the Panel Works?

Before the First Hearing

First Hearing
Rebuttals
Experts
First Draft
Interim Report
Review
Final Report
The Report becomes a ruling

Appeal

Either side can appeal a panels ruling.

(Sometimes both sides do so)
Each appeal is heard by 3 members of a
permanent 7-member Appellate Body
The appeal can uphold, modify or
reverse the panels legal findings and
conclusions.
DSB has to accept or reject the appeals
report within 30 days

The case has been decided

what next?

Bring Policy in line with the Ruling

Inform the DSB
Adjustment Period
Mutually Acceptable Compensation
Limited Trade Sanctions
How to impose sanctions?
DSB watches

Pakistans Experience

1
2
3

As complainant as respondent
3 cases:
2 cases:
DS58 US
DS192 US
DS327 Egypt

DS36 EC
DS107 US

4
5
6
7
8

as third party
9 cases:
DS32 US
DS33 US
DS58 US
DS190
Argentina
DS243 US
DS246 EC
DS267 US
DS334 Turkey
DS367
Australia

Major Cases
Disput
e
Numbe
r

Request for
Consultations

Description

PAKISTAN AS COMPLAINANT
DS58 United States Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products
(Complainants: India; Malaysia; Pakistan; Thailand)
DS19 United States Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from
Pakistan (Complainant: Pakistan)
2
DS32 Egypt Anti-Dumping Duties on Matches from Pakistan (Complainant:
Pakistan)
7

DS36
DS24
3
DS24
6
DS26
7

DS31
6
DS31
7
DS34
7

8October1996
3April2000
21February200
5

30April1996

PAKISTAN AS RESPONDENT
Pakistan Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical
Products (Complainant: United States)

PAKISTAN AS THIRD PARTY

United States Rules of Origin for Textiles and Apparel Products (Complainant: 11January2002
India)
European Communities Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to
5March2002
Developing Countries (Complainant: India)
United States Subsidies on Upland Cotton (Complainant: Brazil)
27September20
02
OTHER CASES
European Communities Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft
(Complainant: United States)
United States Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (Complainant:
European Communities)
European Communities Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft
(Second Complaint) (Complainant: United States)

6October2004
6October2004
31January2006

DS 58: Import Prohibition of Certain

Shrimp and Shrimp Products

Complainant: Pakistan, Malaysia, India, Thailand

Respondent: USA
Third Parties: Australia; Colombia; Costa Rica; European
Communities; Ecuador; El Salvador; Guatemala; Hong
Kong, China; Japan; Mexico; Nigeria; Pakistan;
Philippines; Senegal; Singapore; Sri Lanka; Venezuela
8 October 1996: Complainants requested for
consultation concerning a ban on Importation of Shrimp
& Shrimp Products from the complainants, imposed by
US under section 609 of US Public Law 101-162.
Violations of Articles I, XI and XIII of GATT 1994, as well
nullification and impairment of benefits, were alleged.

DS 58 (cont.)

9 January 1997: Malaysia and Thailand requested the

establishment of a panel.
22 Jan 1997: the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
30 January 1997: Pakistan also requested the establishment
of a panel.
25 February 1997: DSB established a panel
25 February 1997: India also requested the establishment of
a panel on the same matter.
20 March 1997: DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
10 April 1997: Further to a second request to establish a
panel by India, the DSB agreed to establish a panel. It was
also agreed to incorporate this panel with that already
established in respect of the other complainants.
On 15 April 1997, the Panel was composed.

DS 58 (cont.)

15 May 1998: Report of the Panel was circulated to Members.

The Panel found that the import ban in shrimp and shrimp
products as applied by the United States is inconsistent with
Article XI:1 of GATT 1994, and cannot be justified under Article XX
of GATT 1994.
13 July 1998: the US notified its intention to appeal certain issues
of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel.
12 October 1998: Appellate Bodys Report was circulated to
Members.
The Appellate Body reversed the Panels finding that the US
measure at issue is not within the scope of measures permitted
under the chapeau of Article XX of GATT 1994, but concluded that
the US measure, while qualifying for provisional justification under
Article XX(g), fails to meet the requirements of the chapeau of
Article XX.

DS 58 (cont.)

6 November 1998: The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report

and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report.

On 25 November 1998, the US informed the DSB that it was

committed to implementing the recommendations of the DSB
and was looking forward to discussing with the complainants the
question of implementation. The parties to the dispute
announced that they had agreed on an implementation period
of 13 months from the date of adoption of the Appellate Body
and Panel Reports, i.e. it expired on 6 December 1999.

On 22 December 1999, Malaysia and the United States informed

the DSB that they had reached an understanding regarding
possible proceedings under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU.

DS 58 (cont.)

27 January 2000: US stated that it had implemented the

DSBs rulings and recommendations.
12 October 2000: Malaysia requested that the matter be
referred to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of
the DSU, considering that by not lifting the import
prohibition and not taking the necessary measures to
allow the importation of certain shrimp and shrimp
products in an unrestrictive manner, the US had failed to
comply with the recommendations and rulings of the
DSB.
23 October 2000: DSB referred the matter to the original
panel pursuant to Article 21.5 DSU.
15 June 2001: The Panel circulated its report.

DS 58 (cont.)
The Panel concluded that:

the measure adopted by the US in order to comply with the

recommendations and rulings of the DSB violated Article XI.1 of the
GATT 1994;

in light of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, Section 609 of

Public Law 101-162, as implemented by the Revised Guidelines of 8
July 1999 and as applied so far by the US authorities, was justified
under Article XX of the GATT 1994 as long as the conditions stated in
the findings of this Report, in particular the ongoing serious good faith
efforts to reach a multilateral agreement, remain satisfied.

should any one of the conditions referred above cease to be met in the
future, the recommendations of the DSB may no longer be complied
with. In such a case, any complaining party in the original case may be
entitled to have further recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU.

DS 58 (cont.)

23 July 2001: Malaysia notified the DSB its intention to appeal

the above report. Malaysia, in particular, sought review by the
Appellate Body of the Panels finding mentioned in point 2 in
previous slide.
19 September 2001: the Appellate Body informed the DSB of
a delay in the circulation of its Report in this appeal.
22 October 2001: Report was circulated to the Members.
The Appellate Body upheld the contested findings of the
Panel: Since it had upheld the Panels findings that the US
measure was now applied in a manner that met the
requirements of ArticleXX of the GATT 1994, the Appellate
Body refrained from making any recommendations.
21 November 2001: DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report
and the Panel Report, as upheld by the Appellate Body Report.

DS 192: Transitional Safeguard

Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from
Pakistan
Complainant: Pakistan
Respondent: USA
3 April 2000: Pakistan requested consultations with the US in
respect of a transitional safeguard measure applied by the US,
as of 17 March 1999, on combed cotton yarn from Pakistan.
Pakistan claimed as follows:
the transitional safeguards applied by the United States are
inconsistent with the United States obligations under Articles
2.4 of the ATC and not justified by Article 6 of the ATC;

the US restraint does not meet the requirements for

transitional safeguards set out in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 7 of
Article 6 of the ATC.

DS 192 (cont.)

3 April 2000, Pakistan requested the establishment of a panel.

18 May 2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
Further to a second request to establish a panel by Pakistan, the
DSB established a panel at its meeting on 19 June 2000
On 30 August 2000, the Panel was composed.
The panel circulated its report on 31 May 2001.
The Panel concluded that the transitional safeguard measure
(quantitative restriction) imposed by the US on imports of
combed cotton yarn from Pakistan as of 17 March 1999, and
extended as of 17 March 2000 for a further year is inconsistent
with the provisions of Article 6 of the ATC.
With respect to the other claims, the Panel found that Pakistan
did not establish that the measure at issue was inconsistent
with the US obligations under Article 6 of the ATC.

DS 192 (cont.)

The Panel recommended that the DSB request that the US bring
the measure at issue into conformity with its obligations under
the ATC, and suggested that this can best be achieved by prompt
removal of the import restriction.
On 9 July 2001, the US notified its decision to appeal to the
Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report
and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel.
On 5 September 2001, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that
it would not be able to circulate its report within the 7 September
deadline.
The Report was circulated to Members on 8 October 2001.
The Appellate Body upheld the Panels overall conclusion that the
transitional safeguard measure taken by the United States with
respect to imports of combed cotton yarn from Pakistan was
inconsistent with the ATC.

DS 192 (cont.)

The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel
Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, on 5
November 2001.

21 November 2001: the US stated that it had implemented

the DSBs recommendations and rulings. Specifically, on 8
November 2001, the Committee for the Implementation of
Textile Agreements, chaired by the Department of
Commerce, had directed the US Customs Service to
eliminate the limit on imports of combed cotton yarn from
Pakistan. This action was effective from 9 November 2001.

Ds 327: Anti-Dumping Duties on

Matches from Pakistan

Complainant: Pakistan
Respondent: Egypt
On 21 February 2005, Pakistan requested consultations with Egypt
regarding definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Egypt on
matchboxes from Pakistan. According to Pakistan, these measures
appear to be inconsistent with Egypts obligations under the GATT
1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
On 9 June 2005, Pakistan requested the establishment of a panel. At
its meeting on 20June 2005, the DSB deferred the establishment of
a panel. At its meeting on 20 July 2005, the DSB established a panel.
On 27 March 2006, Pakistan and Egypt informed the DSB that they
had reached a mutually agreed solution under Article 3.6 of the DSU
in the form of price undertaking agreements between the concerned
Pakistani exporters and the Egyptian Investigating Authority.

DS 36: Patent Protection for

Pharmaceutical and Agricultural
Chemical Products

Complainant: USA
Respondent: Pakistan
In its request for consultations dated 30 April 1996, the
United States claimed that the absence in Pakistan of (i)
either patent protection for pharmaceutical and agricultural
chemical products or a system to permit the filing of
applications for patents on these products and (ii) a system
to grant exclusive marketing rights in such products, violates
TRIPS Agreement Articles 27, 65 and 70.
On 4 July 1996, the United States requested the
establishment of a panel.
The DSB considered the request at its meeting on 16 July
1996, but did not establish a panel due to Pakistans
objection.

DS 36 (cont.)

At the DSB meeting on 25 February 1997,

both parties informed the DSB that they
had reached a mutually agreed solution to
the dispute and that the terms of the
agreement were being drawn up, and
would be communicated to the DSB once
finalized.
On 28 February 1997, the terms of the
agreement were communicated to the
Secretariat.

DS 243: Rules of Origin for Textiles and

Apparel Products

Complainant: India
Respondent: USA
Third Parties: Bangladesh; China; European Communities;
Pakistan; Philippines.
On 11 January 2002, India requested consultations with the
United States in respect of its rules of origin applicable to
imports of textiles and apparel products as set out in Section
334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Section 405 of the
Trade and Development Act of 2000 and the customs
regulations implementing these provisions.
On 7 May 2002, India requested the establishment of a panel.
On 22 May 2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a
panel.

DS 243 (cont.)

Further to a second request by India, the DSB established a

panel on 24 June 2002.
EC, Pakistan and the Philippines reserved their third party
rights. On 3 July 2002, Bangladesh reserved its third party
rights. On 4 July 2002, China reserved its third party rights.
On 10 October 2002, the Panel was composed.
On 9 April 2003, the Chairman of the Panel informed the
DSB that due to the complexity of the matter, the Panel
would not be able to complete its work in six months. The
Panel expects to issue its final report to the parties in early
May 2003.
On 20 June 2003, the Panel Report was circulated to
Members.

DS 243 (cont.)
On 20 June 2003, the Panel Report was circulated to Members. The
Panel found that:
India failed to establish that section 334 of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act is inconsistent with Articles 2(b) or 2(c) of the
RO Agreement; and

India failed to establish that section 405 of the Trade and

Development Act is inconsistent with Articles 2(b), 2(c) or 2(d)
of the RO Agreement;

India failed to establish that the customs regulations contained

in 19 C.F.R. 102.21 are inconsistent with Articles 2(b), 2(c) or
2(d) of the RO Agreement;
At its meeting on 21 July 2003, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.

DS 246: Conditions for the Granting of

Tariff Preferences to Developing
Countries

Complainant: India
Respondent: European Communities
Third Parties: Bolivia; Brazil; Colombia; Costa Rica; Cuba; Ecuador;
El Salvador; Guatemala; Honduras; Mauritius; Nicaragua; Pakistan;
Panama; Paraguay; Peru; Sri Lanka; Venezuela; United States.
On 5 March 2002, India requested consultations with the EC
concerning the conditions under which the EC accords tariff
preferences to developing countries under its current scheme of
generalized tariff preferences (GSP scheme). India presented this
request pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU, Article XXIII:1 of the GATT
1994 and paragraph 4(b) of the so-called Enabling Clause.
On 6 December 2002, India requested the establishment of a
panel.
On 19 December 2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a
panel.

DS 246 (cont.)

At its meeting on 27 January 2003, the DSB established a Panel.

On 24 February 2003, India requested the Director-General to
compose the Panel.
On 6 March 2003, the Director-General composed the Panel.
On 22 September 2003, the Chairman of the Panel informed the
DSB that it would not be possible to complete its work in six
months due to the complexity of the matter involved and that
the Panel expected to complete its work at the end of October
2003.
On 1 December 2003, the Panel report was circulated to the
Members.
On 8 January 2004, the European Communities notified its
decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law
covered in the Panel Report.

DS 246 (cont.)

On 5 March 2004, the Chairman of the Appellate Body

informed the DSB that it would not be possible for the
Appellate Body to complete its work within the 60-day
period due to the time required for completion and
translation of its Report. The Appellate Body estimated that
the Report would be circulated to Members no later than 7
April 2004.
On 7 April 2004, the Appellate Body Report was circulated
to Members.
On 20 April 2004, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body
report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate
Body report.

DS 267: United States Subsidies on

Upland Cotton

Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: USA
Third Parties: Argentina; Australia; Benin; Canada; Chad; China;
Chinese Taipei; European Communities; India; New Zealand;
Pakistan; Paraguay; Venezuela; Japan; Thailand.
27 September 2002: Request for Consultation made by Brazil,
concerning US agricultural "domestic support" measures, export
credit guarantees and other measures alleged to be export and
domestic content subsidies on Upland Cotton.
Panel was established on 18 March 2003.
Panel report was circulated on 8 September 2004.
Appellate body report was circulated on 3 March 2005
On 18 August 2006, Brazil requested the establishment of an
Article 21.5 panel.

DS 267 (cont.)

On 1 September 2006, the DSB deferred the establishment

of an Article 21.5 panel. Further to a second request, at its
meeting on 28 September 2006, the DSB agreed, if possible,
to refer the matter raised by Brazil to the original panel.
On 18 and 20 October 2006, Brazil and the United States
respectively requested the Director-General to compose the
Article 21.5 panel. On 25 October 2006, the Director-General
composed the panel.
On 18 December 2007, the compliance panel report was
circulated to Members.
On 12 February 2008, the US and on 25 February 2008,
Brazil notified their decision to appeal to the Appellate Body.
Compliance panel report is currently under appeal.

DS 316: Measures Affecting Trade in

Large Civil Aircraft

Thank You