I had blogged yesterday about India's consultation request with Turkey over cotton yarn imports. India's request for consultation with Turkey over imposition of definitive and provisional safeguard measures on cotton yarn imports revolves around the alleged violation of Turkey's WTO obligations relating to the Agreement on Safeguards (AoS).
India's request for consultation is found here.
" (a) With regard to the definitive Safeguard Measures imposed with effect from 15 July 2008,Turkey acted inconsistently with the provisions of -
(i) Article XIX:(1(a) of GATT 1994 and Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) of the AoS as Turkey did not establish that increased imports causing serious injury to the domestic industry were as a result of unforeseen developments and of the effect of GATT obligations;
(ii) Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1(c), 4.2(c) of the AoS as Turkey did not consider data relating to domestic producers whose collective output constituted a 'major proportion' of total domestic production of like or directly competitive articles;
(iii) Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.2(b) and 4.2(c) of the AoS as Turkey failed to demonstrate, on the basis of objective evidence, the existence of causal link between increased imports and serious injury;
...(iv) Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Articles 3.1, 4.2 (c), 5.1 and 7.1 of the AoS as Turkey failed to establish that the measure was necessary for a period of three years to 'facilitate adjustment' as the investigation report did not consider this aspect at all;
(c) With regard to the definitive measures applied on 28 January 2012 retroactively with effect from 15 July 2011, Turkey acted inconsistently with the provisions of-
(i) Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) of the AoS as Turkey did not establish that increased imports causing serious injury to the domestic industry were as a result of unforeseen developments and of the effect of GATT obligations;
(ii) Article 7.2 of the AoS as Turkey extended the period of application of measures on 28 January 2012 after the expiry of the measures on 14 July 2011, and without making a prior determination in conformity with the procedures set out in Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the AoS that the safeguard measures continue to be necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury to its domestic industry, that there is evidence that the industry is adjusting, and provided that the pertinent provisions of Articles 8 and 12 having been observed.
(iii) Article 7.5 of the AoS as the initial application period of safeguard measures expired on 14 July 2011 and Turkey made the fresh application of measures on the same product on 28 January 2012 without waiting for the mandatory period as required under Article 7.5 of the AoS;
(iv) Article 7.2 of AoS as the determination made by Turkey did not meet the requirements of Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of AoS regarding determinations with respect to domestic industry, like or directly competitive articles, serious injury or threat thereof, causal link and that the safeguard measures continued to be necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and that there was evidence that the industry was adjusting."
The thrust of India's argument is that Turkey has not supported it's safeguard measures with "objective" evidence and data that establishes a causal link between the rise of imports and serious injury to domestic producers. Will await this space to see Turkey's reaction. Will this issue result in a full fledged WTO dispute or an amicable compromise pursuant to consultations?