Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Recollections and Reflections of a Stakeholder in WTO Disputes

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
WTO Dispute Settlement at Twenty

  • 526 Accesses

Abstract

The chapter provides a historical account of the integration of the textiles and clothing sector into the GATT and the WTO. It offers an insider’s account of the key role played by the industry stakeholders such as Texprocil in bringing trade issues in this sector before the WTO dispute settlement body (DSB). This chapter provides a comprehensive discussion of all the key textiles and clothing disputes involving India and how Texprocil played a proactive role in ensuring India’s success.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    GATT (1989) Negotiating Group on Textiles and Clothing: Communication from the European Communities, MTN.GNG/NG4/W/24.

  2. 2.

    The “Green Room” is a phrase given to the Director General’s conference room usually meant for meetings at the level of Heads of Delegations.

  3. 3.

    The fast track authority is given under the provisions of the Trade Promotion Act.

  4. 4.

    The sight of a relieved yet triumphant Peter Sutherland, Director General of the WTO, emerging from the “Green Room” with a cigar at around 3.00 am (CET) is still vividly etched in the author’s mind.

  5. 5.

    WTO (1995) EC—Turkey Agreement as notified to the WTO, WT/REG22/N/1.

  6. 6.

    Official Journal of the European Communities, L 275, 8 November 1993.

  7. 7.

    Appellate Body Report on Turkey—Restrictions on Imports of Textiles & Clothing Products, WT/DS34/AB/R (Hereinafter Turkey—Textiles), at paragraph 58.

  8. 8.

    Ibid, at paragraph 59.

  9. 9.

    Ibid.

  10. 10.

    Ibid, at paragraph 62.

  11. 11.

    Ibid.

  12. 12.

    Ibid.

  13. 13.

    Ibid.

  14. 14.

    Ibid.

  15. 15.

    Ibid.

  16. 16.

    These issues were brought up by TEXPROCIL on behalf of its members who felt targeted by these actions on the part of Turkish Authorities.

  17. 17.

    Letter dated 30 November 2001 by the then Joint Secretary (Exports), Ministry of Textiles to Indian Ambassador, Turkey: No.19/1/98/Exports-III/900 & 901.

  18. 18.

    Communication of 22 January 2001 from Indian Ambassador, Ankara to Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, accessed in the files with TEXPROCIL.

  19. 19.

    Summary of the case prepared by the WTO Secretariat, available at www.wto.org/dispute settlement/DS34.

  20. 20.

    The author had the privilege of being associated with all the stages of the proceedings.

  21. 21.

    Panel Report on Turkey—Textiles.

  22. 22.

    Ibid, at paragraph 6.164.

  23. 23.

    Ibid, at paragraph 9.152.

  24. 24.

    Appellate Body Report on Turkey—Textiles, at paragraph 62.

  25. 25.

    Ibid, at paragraph 63.

  26. 26.

    Ibid, at paragraph 65.

  27. 27.

    Letter dated 15 September & 7 November 2000 sent by the Director General of AEPC to Ministry of Textiles available with the Council.

  28. 28.

    An oft quoted expression heard in the ante-rooms of the WTO at Geneva.

  29. 29.

    Ibid, at paragraph 308.

  30. 30.

    Differential and More Favourable Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing Countries; decision of 28 November 1979 (known as “Enabling Clause”).

  31. 31.

    Generalized System of Preferences, June 25, 1971, GATT/ BISD (18th Supp.) at 24 (1972).

  32. 32.

    The details of the GSP schemes are explored in detail in Atul Kaushik’s chapter in this book.

  33. 33.

    Council Regulation (EC) No. 3281/94 of 19 December 1994 applying a four-year scheme of generalized tariff preferences (1995-1998) in respect of certain industrial products originating in developing countries.

  34. 34.

    Appellate Body Report on EC—Tariff Preferences.

  35. 35.

    The Author himself was witness to these banners during his visit to the Fair in 2002.

  36. 36.

    Letter from the Chairman of Texprocil to the Indian Ambassador in Brussels on 12 December 2001.

  37. 37.

    Proceedings of the meeting of the Committee of Administration held on 12 June 2002.

  38. 38.

    Panel Report on EC—Tariff Preferences, at paragraph 9.20.

  39. 39.

    Ibid, at paragraph 9.21.

  40. 40.

    Ibid, at paragraph 7.42.

  41. 41.

    Appellate Body Report on European Communities—Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries, WT/DS/AB/R at paragraph 32.

  42. 42.

    EU Regulation (EU) No 1/2014 of 28 August 2013 establishing Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012.

  43. 43.

    Panel Report on United States—Rules of Origin for Textiles and Apparel Products, WT/DS243/R (Hereinafter, U.S.—Textiles Rules of Origin), at paragraph 6.2.

  44. 44.

    Ibid, at paragraph 6.4.

  45. 45.

    Ibid, at paragraph 6.5.

  46. 46.

    Ibid, at paragraph 6.6.

  47. 47.

    WTO (1995) Japan—Measures Affecting the Purchase of Telecommunications Equipment: Request for Consultations by the European Communities, WT/DS15/1; G/L/23.

  48. 48.

    On the files of Texprocil.

  49. 49.

    Panel Report on US—Rules of Origin at paragraph 6.73.

  50. 50.

    India’s Statement at the DSB Meeting.

  51. 51.

    Ibid, at paragraph 6.77.

  52. 52.

    Ibid, at paragraph 6.84.

  53. 53.

    Ibid, at paragraph 6.84.

  54. 54.

    Ibid, at paragraph 6.92.

  55. 55.

    Ibid, at paragraph 6.98.

  56. 56.

    Ibid, at paragraph 6.117.

  57. 57.

    Panel Report on US—Rules of Origin at paragraph 6.148.

  58. 58.

    Part of India’s Statement at DSB Meeting.

  59. 59.

    Ibid, at paragraph 6.159.

  60. 60.

    Going through the Panel Report a dozen years later, one cannot but feel that it was more a case of “taking away” than “getting away” from India.

  61. 61.

    Commission Regulation No.2208/96 OJL295/3 of 20 November 1996.

  62. 62.

    Commission Decision 96/167/EC, OJL42/16 of 20 February 1996.

  63. 63.

    Notice of Initiation of anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of unbleached cotton fabrics originating in China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey 97/C 210/12, Commission Regulation No.773/98 OJ C210/12,199 of 11 July 1997.

  64. 64.

    Council Regulation (EC) No.773/98 OJ L111/19 of 7 April 1998.

  65. 65.

    Council Regulation (EC) No.773/98 OJ L154/37 of 28 May 1998.

  66. 66.

    Panel Report on European Communities—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas WT/DS27/R (Hereinafter EC—Bananas), at paragraph 5.12.

  67. 67.

    This was in line with the Appellate Body ruling in the EC—Banana dispute.

  68. 68.

    WTO (2001) Ministerial Decisions on Implementation—Related Issues and Concern, WT/MIN(01)/17.

  69. 69.

    WTO (2002) Submission by the European Communities concerning the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (Anti-dumping Agreement), TN/RL/W/13.

  70. 70.

    Ibid.

References

  • Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/19-adp.pdf.

  • Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/16-tex_e.htm.

  • Appellate Body Report on European Communities—Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries, WT/DS/AB/R.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appellate Body Report on European Communities—Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-type Bed Linen from India, WT/DS141/AB/R.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appellate Body Report on United States—Measures Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India, WT/DS33/AB/R.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appellate Body Report on European Communities—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appellate Body Report on United States—Measures Affecting Imports of Women’s and Girl’s Wool Coats, WT/DS32/AB/R.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appellate Body Report on Turkey—Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products, (WT/DS34/AB/R).

    Google Scholar 

  • Communication dated 22 January 2001 from Indian Ambassador, Ankara to Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, accessed in the files with TEXPROCIL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhar B & Majumdar A (2006) The India-EC GSP Dispute: The Issues and the Process (ICTSD Working Draft) available at http://ictsd.org/downloads/2008/06/dhar.pdf 9.

  • European Communities—Anti-Dumping Investigations Regarding Unbleached Cotton Fabrics from India: Request for Consultations by India, WT/DS 140/1.

    Google Scholar 

  • GATT (1988) Negotiations Group on Textiles & Clothing: Communications from the European Union, MTN/GNG/NG11/W/24.

    Google Scholar 

  • GATT (1989) Arrangement Regarding International Trade in Textiles, MT/TNC/11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geithner T and Nankani G (2002) Market Access for Developing Country Exports—Selected Issues, IMF and the World Bank. https://www.imf.org/external/np/pdr/ma/2002/eng/092602.pdf.

  • General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1948 https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_e.pdf.

  • Hindley B (1988) Dumping and the Far East Trade of the European Community. World Economy 11(4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoda A and Prakash S (2011) Is the GSP scheme of the EU benefiting India’s exports. ICRIER Policy Research Series No. 6, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howse R (2003) India’s WTO challenge to Drug Enforcement conditions in the European Community Generalized System of Preference: A Little known case with Major Repercussions for “Political conditionality in US Trade Policy. Chicago J Intl L 4(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Keesing DB and Wolf M (1980) Textile Quotas against Developing Countries (Thames Essays No. 23, Trade Policy Research Centre, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Letter from Chairman of 12 December 2001 TEXPROCIL to the Indian Ambassador in Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Letter from Chairman of 12 December 2001 TEXPROCIL to the Indian Ambassador in Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Letter dated 15 September & 7 November 2000 sent by the Director General of AEPC to Ministry of Textiles available with the Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Letter of 30 November 2000 by the then Joint Secretary (Exports), Ministry of Textiles to Indian Ambassador, Turkey: No.19/1/98/Exports-III/900 & 901.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neufeld IN (2001) Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Procedure—Use or Abuse? Implications for Developing Countries. UNCTAD Policy Issues in International Trade and Commodities Study Series No. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panel Report on United States—Rules of Origin for Textiles and Apparel Products, WT/DS243/R.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panel Report on European Communities—Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries, WT/DS246/R.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panel Report on Turkey—Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products, (WT/DS34/AB/R).

    Google Scholar 

  • Panel Report on United States—Rules of Origin for Textiles and Apparel Products, WT/DS243/R.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panel Report on European Communities—Anti-Dumping Investigations Regarding Unbleached Cotton Fabrics from India, WT/DS140/R.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panel Report on European Communities—Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-type Bed Linen from India, WT/DS141/R.

    Google Scholar 

  • Request for Consultations by India, Brazil—Anti-Dumping Duties on Jute Bags from India, WT/DS229/R.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regulation (EC) No. 3281/94 of the Council of 19 December 1994 applying a four-year scheme of generalized tariff preferences (1995–1998) in respect of certain industrial products originating in developing countries.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regulation (EC) No.773/98 of the Council of 7 April 1998 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain unbleached cotton fabrics originating in China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravindra Pratap (2003) WTO & Rules of Origin—Issues for India. Economic and Political Weekly 38:33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf M (1990) How to Cut the Textile Knot: Alternative Paths to Liberalization of the MFA, The Uruguay Round—Textiles Trade and the Developing Countries—Eliminating the Multi-Fibre Arrangement in the 1990s, The World Bank, Washington, D.C. 20433, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO (1995) EC—Turkey Agreement on notified to the WTO, WT/REG22/N/1.

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO (2001) Doha Ministerial Declarations and Decisions: Implementation-related issues and concerns, 14 November 2001, WT/MIN(01)/17.

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO (2002) EC—Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries: Request for Consultations by India, March 2002, WT/DS246/1.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Cotton Textiles Export Promotion Council (TEXPROCIL), Mumbai, India

    Siddhartha Rajagopal

Authors
  1. Siddhartha Rajagopal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Siddhartha Rajagopal .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for WTO Studies, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, India

    Abhijit Das

  2. Jindal Global Law School, O.P Jindal Global University, Sonepat, Haryana, India

    James J. Nedumpara

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Centre for WTO Studies (CWS), Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT), New Delhi

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Siddhartha Rajagopal (2016). Recollections and Reflections of a Stakeholder in WTO Disputes. In: Das, A., Nedumpara, J. (eds) WTO Dispute Settlement at Twenty. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0599-2_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0599-2_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-0598-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-0599-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation