India Files Appeal against WTO Panel Ruling in Chicken Legs Case

Avian Flu and Chicken Legs from US are Related?

India appealed last week a WTO dispute panel ruling that found New Delhi’s import ban on US poultry, chicken, and eggs to be in violation of trade rules, ensuring that the dispute will go another round at the global trade arbiter.

The dispute (DS430) was launched by the US nearly three years ago, on the grounds that India’s restriction on imports of these agricultural products – which New Delhi said was due to concerns over avian influenza, or “bird flu” – amounted to an illegal prohibition.

In its appeal, New Delhi mainly argues that the panel failed to make an objective assessment by disregarding some of its arguments and important evidence. For instance, India suggests that the panel would have found that the avian flu measures are based on scientific principles and sufficient evidence, as required by WTO rules, if the panellists had actually assessed all of the arguments and evidence submitted.

OIE Jurisdiction Questioned: India has also challenged the finding that that its measures do not reflect international standards, arguing that the panel wrongly delegated the judicial function to the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and failed to review the issue in an objective manner.

India also says that the panel mistakenly deemed that the US had successfully provided initial proof of the existence of a less restrictive alternative, and thus made a legal error by concluding it would meet India’s objectives of preventing the spread of avian flu.

India is also challenging findings of arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination between members where identical or similar conditions prevail.

In its interpretation of certain SPS provisions that require members to recognise pest- or disease-free areas from which the product originated and to which the product is destined, India says that the panel did not take into account that these rules only require the recognition of these concepts in domestic law, and do not address their implementation.

Moreover, India says, an importing country must adapt its sanitary measures to the characteristics of the area of the exporting country only after receiving a formal proposal from the latter, which New Delhi claims it has not received from the US.

The Appellate Body now has 90 days to issue its report and can review aspects of law – such as legal interpretation – but generally will not interfere with factual findings.