Australia Attacks Indian Sugar

· Australia vs India (Sugar):

o Australia filed a counter-notification against India for failing to submit domestic support data on sugarcane since 1995–96.

o Australia argues India’s Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP) and State-Advised Prices (SAPs) act as support measures.

o India maintains sugar procurement is private, with no government support.

o The dispute comes amid India’s domestic sugar crisis with rising prices and shortages.

· EU vs US (Beef):

o EU questioned the US on its increased tariff rate quota for lean beef trimmings.

o Asked how the US will ensure imports are sold at 25% below market price and what reference prices are used.

· India vs US (FARM Initiative):

o India sought details on USDA’s new FARM Initiative under its Export-Import Bank partnership.

o Requested objectives, operational guidelines, list of programs, budgetary outlay, and commodities covered.

o India emphasized concerns about US efforts to boost agricultural competitiveness and exports.

[ABS News Service/24.09.2026]

Ahead of the World Trade Organization’s Committee on Agriculture meeting on 24 September, 2026, Australia filed a counter-notification against India, charging that New Delhi has not submitted its domestic support notifications for “sugarcane, or its derived products” since 1995-96.

This move appears to be a naming and shaming exercise targeting India’s sugar policies, according to people familiar with the developments.

Unlike previous counter-notifications by several countries regarding alleged breaches in India's market price support for rice, wheat, cotton and pulses, Australia’s latest action introduces a new dimension: India's failure to notify its domestic support for sugar, said a farm trade analyst who requested anonymity.

In its 19-page counter-notification (G/AG/W/262), Australia stated it continues “to have a significant interest in ensuring a transparent and predictable global trading system, underpinned by a shared understanding of Members' obligations under WTO rules.”

Citing Article 18.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), Australia said it seeks “further clarification from India on its domestic sugarcane and sugar policies”, noting that, “historically, as the world's second-largest sugar producer and third-largest exporter, dynamics in India's sugar market have significant implications for both prices and trade in the global market.”

Over the past few weeks, India has faced a sugar crisis marked by surging domestic prices and potential shortages. According to media reports, the government has intervened by allowing duty-free imports and restricting storage limits to manage the tight market.

India has previously pointed out that it does not procure sugar from the market, noting that all procurement is handled by private sugar companies. Consequently, there is little or no basis for any domestic support for sugarcane and its derived products, argued an India-based analyst.

However, Australia countered that “each sugar season, the Government of India sets the Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP) for sugarcane,” pointing out that the FRP “is an administered price that

effectively acts as a floor price for sugar mills to pay farmers for sugarcane.”

In addition, Australia noted that Indian “farmers are paid premiums for increased production efficiency, and farmers in some states are eligible for additional payments by sugar mills under specific state level support, known as State-Advised Prices (SAPs).”

Separately, the European Union is raising questions about the US decision to increase the aggregate in-quota quantity for certain beef.

The EU noted that the US Trade Representative and Secretary of Agriculture and the Trade Representative said they will “monitor whether the imports of lean beef trimmings entered under the increased in-quota quantity established in this proclamation are being sold at a price 25% below the market price for lean beef trimmings.”

EU’s Questions

The EU asked about two specific issues:

Could the United States clarify how it intends to ensure that imported lean beef trimmings under this increased tariff rate quota will be sold at a price 25 percent below the market price for lean beef trimmings?

Could the United States explain how the monitoring works in practice and indicate which market prices for lean beef trimmings are used as reference?

Meanwhile, India quizzed Washington on USDA’s expanded partnership with the Export Import Bank of the United States “to increase domestic agricultural production and exports, while reducing the agricultural trade deficit.”

“Alongside this partnership,” India stated, “USDA is formally launching the Financial Assurance to Revitalize Markets, or FARM, Initiative, a comprehensive effort to strengthen and modernize its export credit guarantee program in support of US agricultural competitiveness.”

India noted that the US “FARM Initiative serves as the umbrella for a series of programme improvements and activities designed to enhance access to emerging markets, increase certainty for exporters and lenders, and ensure that U.S. agriculture remains a reliable and resilient partner in global trade.”

India asked the Untied States to provide the following details on the FARM Initiative:

The objectives and operational guidelines envisioned to be achieved;

A list of all the programmes and activities under the Initiative and

The budgetary outlay and commodities covered.