·
At the
22 May meeting of the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body (DSB),
China sought establishment of a dispute panel against India over measures
affecting imports of solar cells, solar modules and information technology
goods.
·
The
dispute has been registered as:
o DS644: India – Measures Concerning Trade
in Goods in the Solar Cell, Solar Module, and Information Technology Sectors
·
China
challenged:
o Tariffs imposed by India on certain
imported high-technology products.
o Incentive schemes for solar energy
products allegedly linked to use of domestic goods over imported goods.
·
China
argued that:
o Consultations with India failed to resolve
the dispute.
o India’s measures may violate WTO
commitments.
o Technological and industrial development
should occur through WTO-consistent cooperation rather than restrictive or
discriminatory measures.
o The measures distort competition, disrupt
supply chains and create uncertainty for renewable energy and technology
sectors globally.
·
India
opposed establishment of the panel at this stage and said it was not in a
position to accept China’s first request.
·
India
stated that:
o Extensive consultations had already been
held.
o The measures are fully consistent with WTO
law.
o China had not properly examined the
measures in question.
·
India
also highlighted concerns over concentration of the global solar supply chain,
noting that:
o China is estimated to control over 80% of
the global solar module production value chain.
o It was therefore unusual for China to
challenge efforts aimed at developing manufacturing capability in other
countries.
·
The
DSB took note of the matter and may revisit it at a future meeting if China
renews its request. Under WTO rules, a second request generally cannot be
blocked.
·
Colombia,
speaking on behalf of 130 WTO members, introduced for the 97th time a proposal
to begin selection processes for filling vacancies in the WTO Appellate Body.
·
The
group emphasized:
o Importance of restoring a fully
functioning WTO dispute settlement system.
o Need to comply with obligations under the
Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU).
·
The
United States again opposed the proposal.
·
The US
reiterated:
o It has longstanding concerns regarding WTO
dispute settlement.
o Restoring the Appellate Body without
reforms would not address systemic issues.
o Members should instead focus on broader
dispute settlement reform discussions.
·
Twenty-six
members, including the European Union, supported restoring the Appellate Body.
·
Several
members also encouraged wider participation in the:
o Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration
Arrangement (MPIA)
o This mechanism provides an alternative
appeal system under Article 25 of the DSU for participating members.
·
New
DSB Chair Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota of Brazil addressed members on reviving
WTO dispute settlement reform discussions.
·
Key
observations made by the Chair:
o Previous ministerial conferences
reaffirmed the objective of a “fully and well-functioning” dispute settlement
system.
o Changes in the global trading environment
since late 2024 may require fresh reassessment of earlier reform proposals.
o Earlier technical discussions generated
several reform options that may need reconfirmation and narrowing down.
·
An
informal plenary meeting on dispute settlement reform is expected immediately
after the next DSB meeting scheduled for 23 June 2026.
·
The US
submitted compliance reports in disputes involving:
o Japanese hot-rolled steel products.
o Copyright Act Section 110(5).
o Korean residential washers.
o Anti-dumping methodologies involving
China.
·
The EU
submitted reports related to:
o Palm oil and oil crop-based biofuels
disputes.
o Biotech product approvals.
·
Indonesia
presented updates concerning disputes on:
o Importation of horticultural products,
animals and animal products.
·
The
next regular meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body is scheduled for:
o 23 June 2026.
At
a meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) on 22 May, members considered a request
from China for the establishment of a dispute panel to review measures in India
affecting imports of solar cells, solar modules and information technology goods.
The new DSB Chair, Ambassador Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota (Brazil), also made a
statement on advancing the WTO's dispute settlement reform talks.
DS644: India - Measures Concerning
Trade in Goods in the Solar Cell, Solar Module, and Information Technology Sectors
China
submitted its first request for the establishment of a dispute panel to determine
whether tariffs applied by India to certain imported high-tech goods, as well as
certain incentive measures for solar energy products that China say are contingent
upon the use of domestic over imported goods, are consistent with India's WTO commitments.
China
said that consultations were held with India with a view to reaching a mutually
satisfactory solution but that they failed to resolve the dispute, prompting China's
request for the panel. China said members
should promote their technological and industrial development through cooperation
consistent with WTO rules rather than through restrictive and discriminatory measures
that disturb competitive opportunities, disrupt supply chains, increase uncertainties
for businesses and operators, and negatively affect the healthy development of global
renewable energy and technology sectors.
India
said it regretted China's request for a panel and that it was not in a position
to accept the request. India noted that it engaged in extensive consultations with
the view to reaching a mutually satisfactory resolution and was surprised China
has not undertaken an actual consideration of the measures at issue, adding that
it believes the measures in question are entirely consistent with WTO law.
India
also said it was strange that, despite the importance of a responsible and diversified
supply chain, a country that is estimated to control more than 80% of the global
value chain for solar module production feels it necessary to take actions to stymie
the legitimate growth of this industry in other countries.
The
DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter, should a requesting
member wish to do so.
Appellate Body appointments
proposal
Colombia,
speaking on behalf of 130 members, introduced for the 97th time the group's proposal
to start the selection processes for filling vacancies on the Appellate Body (AB).
The extensive number of members submitting the proposal reflects a common interest
in the functioning of the Appellate Body and, more generally, in the functioning
of the WTO's dispute settlement system, Colombia said.
The
United States said that it does not support the proposed decision. The US reiterated
that it has set out its fundamental concerns on WTO dispute settlement and that
the proposal does not address those concerns. The US once again questioned the value
of repeating this agenda item and said a more productive approach would be to introduce
an item on dispute settlement reform that does not simply call for restoring an
Appellate Body with all its fundamental problems.
Twenty-six
members (including the EU-27) then took the floor and reiterated their support for
the joint proposal and for the urgent need to restore a fully functioning dispute
settlement system. Several members underscored the need for continued engagement
on dispute settlement reform in Geneva following the 14th Ministerial Conference
(MC14) in Yaoundé in late March.
Around
a dozen members that took the floor encouraged others to consider taking part in
the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), which provides the
possibility of resorting to arbitration under Article 25 of the Dispute Settlement
Understanding in case of an appeal in disputes between any two or more participating
members.
Colombia,
on behalf of the 130 members, said it regretted that for the 97th occasion members
have not been able to launch the selection processes. Ongoing conversations about
reform of the dispute settlement system should not prevent the Appellate Body from
continuing to operate fully, and members shall comply with their obligations under
the Dispute Settlement Understanding to fill the vacancies as they arise, Colombia
said for the group.
Dispute settlement reform
The
new DSB Chair, Ambassador Patriota, made a statement on the dispute settlement reform
talks. He noted that at a meeting on 6-7 May the General Council Chair (and previous
DSB Chair) encouraged members to engage, "when the time is right," towards
a fully and well-functioning dispute settlement system, a goal set out and reaffirmed
at previous ministerial conferences.
Ambassador
Patriota noted it was his duty as DSB Chair to seek members' views on this important
matter and that it was his intention to take stock of members' current positions
on the work done thus far, on how to resume dispute settlement reform discussions
as soon as possible and on the basis for further work.
The
Chair said that developments in the international trading environment since late
2024 may warrant renewed reflection on whether some of the elements explored in
the earlier discussions still command convergence among members. The earlier discussions
generated a certain number of options which would need to be reconfirmed and, if
possible, narrowed down, he said. Against this backdrop, it may be useful to hear
members' views on whether aspects of the technical work previously undertaken could
provide useful starting points for future engagement.
An
informal plenary meeting dedicated to dispute settlement reform would be convened
soon, with the idea of holding it immediately after the next DSB meeting on 23 June,
the Chair said.
Surveillance of implementation
The
United States presented status reports with regard to DS184, "US - Anti-Dumping
Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan"; DS160, "United States - Section 110(5)
of US Copyright Act"; DS464, "United States - Anti-Dumping and Countervailing
Measures on Large Residential Washers from Korea"; and DS471, "United
States - Certain Methodologies and their Application to Anti-Dumping Proceedings
Involving China."
The
EU presented it status report with regard to DS600 "European Union and Certain
Member States - Certain Measures Concerning Palm Oil and Oil Palm Crop-Based Biofuels";
DS291, "EC - Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products";
and DS593, "European Union - Certain Measures Concerning Palm Oil and Oil Palm
Crop-Based Biofuels."
Indonesia
presented its status reports in DS477 and DS478, "Indonesia - Importation of
Horticultural Products, Animals and Animal Products."
Next meeting
The
next regular DSB meeting will take place on 23 June 2026.