Download - TRIMS Agreement
The Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs)
Saravanan APhD Candidate
RGSOIPL
Disclaimer:
Images, content, and published articles are for reference and illustrative purposes only. Under no circumstances should any image, logo, content or article be viewed as an endorsement for this presentation or any of its contents. This presentation is intended for educational purposes only.
2
3
Outline: Legal Background- FIRA Panel Case Uruguay Round Negotiations on TRIMs General Features of TRIMs Provisions of the TRIMS Agreement
Illustrative List: Para 1 (a) & (b) Dispute Settlement Cases Involving The TRIMs Agreement Current Debate and Prospects of TRIMs Agreement India’s notified TRIMs
4
Legal Background- FIRA Panel Case:
Until 1980s, investment issues received only marginal attention in the context of GATT
In 1982, GATT dispute settlement proceeding initiated by US against Canada
For implementation of Canada’s Foreign Investment Review Act (FIRA) Certain undertakings required from foreign investors in order
to get an approval for investment projects in Canada Three undertakings
Those requiring foreign investors to buy goods of Canadian origin or from Canadian sources (LCR)
To manufacture goods in Canada Foreign investors to export specified quantities or proportions of their
local production (EPR) Several parties expressed doubt about competence of GATT Panel
5
Cont… Finally panel was allowed to hear the dispute
Condition- findings would be limited to trade issues fall within scope of GATT
Panel concluded that LCR were inconsistent with N.T obligation contained in Art III:4- because they discriminated
against imported products Purchase Canadian goods (LCR) did not prevent
importation of goods Hence, not inconsistent with Art XI:1 of GATT (prohibits QR)
Panel did not rule on GATT consistency of EPR, because it falls outside the coverage of GATT
Panel made it very clear that, The dispute instituted before the Panel pertained to consistency with
GATT rules of certain TRIMs applied by Canada Not to Canada’s right to regulate FDI
6
Uruguay Round Negotiations on TRIMs:
Launching Negotiations: US was the main advocate for introducing TRIMs and other
investment issues into GATT framework In 1981 joint study by IBRD and IMF concluded
EPR could have trade-distorting effects Japan and EC expressed support for US proposal Opposition from developing countries,
Argued EPR should outside the remit of GATT FIRA decision brought this issue to negotiating table In 1986, US succeeded to included the subject in agenda of
Uruguay round negotiations
7
Issues During Negotiations The fundamental differences emerged between DC and Dvg C
Lack of definition and clarity in the mandate, need, nature and coverage of possible new disciplines
DC took a broad view of investment and investment measures DC (US and Jap) sought to introduce strong disciplines on
TRIMs Proposed prohibition of wide range of measures in addition to LCR
These included, manufacturing req, trade balancing req, exchange req, domestic sales req, EPR, product mandating, TT req, and local equity req.
EC and Nordic countries took somewhat more nuanced approach
8
Negotiating Positions: On the contrast Dvg C led by India, Egypt and Latin
American Countries Took a much narrower view To preserve their freedom to use TRIMs as instrument of
development policy Existing GATT rules already addressed trade-restrictive and trade-
distorting effects India and other countries proposed negotiations should
address Restrictive business practices of MNCs
But, DC opposed such move
9
Outcome: Finally compromise situation emerged limited to an
interpretation and clarification of application to TRIMs TRIMS Agreement did not create new obligations
Went beyond those already established under old GATT Many of the measures proposed during negotiation were
excluded from coverage of TRIMs Export performance and TT req. No new disciplines regarding treatment of FI per se were
established Dvg C succeeded in limiting the scope of TRIMs to
application of existing GATT Rules From DC point of view, the Agreement failed to cover most
of the investment measures
10
General Features of TRIMs: TRIMS does not create any new substantial obligations Instead of that, it introduces transition periods for the
elimination of inconsistent measures It establishes notification req – introduced some degree of
transparency TRIMS also included a provision for its own review
Lead to amendment or expansion of its disciplines DSU- to date 41 cases have been involved
Few- resulted in panel proceedings TRIMs has never been invoked on its own
but in conjunction with other WTO provisions (Art III & XI of GATT) After 20 yrs of EIF still some debates are unsettled Working Group on Trade and Investment launched during
Doha Conference 2001
11
General Features of TRIMs: It focuses on two Articles that were identified in a previous case under
the GATT Article III (National Treatment) Article XI (Quantitative Restrictions)
It is concerned with discriminatory treatment of both imported and exported products
Do not regulate the issue of entry and treatment of FI as such
TRIMs Agreement makes no distinction w.r.t phase of investment at which measure is imposed
It covers measures applied both at the moment of entry of investment as wells as afterwards
It applies only to goods and not to cover trade in services
12
Aims of the Agreement: Desiring
to promote the expansion and progressive liberalization* of world trade and to facilitate investment, while ensuring competition
Take into account trade, development and financial needs of developing
countries, particularly least developed countries Recognizing
certain investment measures can use trade-restrictive and distorting effects
13
Structure of TRIMS Agreement:
Nine Articles and an Annex Art I - clarifies that the agreement applies only
to trade in goods Art 2 - applies Articles III or XI and refers to the
Annex list Art 3-4 deal with general exceptions and Art
XVIII (b) Art 5- Notification and transition periods Art 9 - Review
14
Economic Rationale of TRIMs: TRIMs shall not apply to any TRIM that is inconsistent with NT and
QR TRIMs Agreement does not define the term ‘TRIM’
Its coverage is provided in an illustrative list annexed to Agreement Other requirements not covered in TRIMs
Export performance, manufacturing , TT, JV and local equity
TRIMs tend to concentrate in specific industries , particularly in automotive, chemical and petrochemical, and computer/informatics
Local content requirements used more intensively in automotive sector Export performance requirements are more common in
computer/informatics Combination of both measures in chemical and petrochemical
15
Economic Rationale of TRIMs:
Empirical studies shows performance requirements- employed by both DC and Dvg C
But use has been more frequent by Dvg C
Dvg C often imposed performance requirements in an attempt to
Offset market failures and monopolistic powers of MNCs Prevent foreign subsidiaries from crowding domestic enterprises
Long controversial debate on development and trade effects of PR
Has not been settled to date
16
Provisions of the TRIMS Agreement:
Art 1- Coverage: This agreement covers only to trade in goods and it does
not apply to trade in services
Art 2 and the Illustrative List (Annex)- Basic Obligations: Art 2.1- core obligation requires Members not to apply any
TRIM that is inconsistent with, Art III (NT) or Art XI (prohibition of QR on imports or exports)
17
Cont… Agreement does not mention any definition of TRIMs
Art 2.2 refers to an illustrative list annexed to Agreement Art III:4 of GATT- obligation of NT Art XI:1 of GATT- obligation of general elimination of QR
Para 1 identifies measures that are inconsistent with Art III:4 of GATT
Pertain to purchase or use of products by an enterprise Deals with internal measures
Para 2 identifies measures that are inconsistent with Art XI:1 Concern the importation or exportation of products by an enterprise Deals with border measures
18
Illustrative List: Para 1 (a) & (b)
Para 1(a) covers LCR measures relate to purchase or use by an enterprise of products of domestic origin
Para 1(b) covers trade-balancing requirements Limit the purchase or use of imported products
It is inconsistent with Art III:4, the measure discriminates against imported products to less favourable conditions than the domestic products
19
Illustrative List: Para 2 (a), (b) & (c) Para 2(a)- refers to measures that limit the importation Para 2(b) - measures that restricts imports through the
imposition of foreign exchange balancing requirement Act like import quotas- incompatible with Art XI:1
Para 2(c)- measures that involve restriction on exportation or sale for export specified in terms of particular products,
In terms of volume or value of products , or In terms of a proportion of volume or value of its local production
Para 2(c) refers to measures that restrict exports
20
Three aspects of illustrative list : 1) List covers both measures
Mandatory or enforceable under domestic law or under administrative rulings
Compliance with which is necessary to obtain an advantage
2) The term ‘advantage’ is not defined but, Interpreted by Panel in Indonesia-Autos dispute
3) The list is an illustrative nature not intended to be an exhaustive one
Still, other measures not explicitly mentioned in list would still be inconsistent with Art 2 of this Agreement
21
Exceptions: (Art 3) All exceptions under GATT 1994 shall apply, as appropriate to the
TRIMs Agreement Exceptions also applicable to prohibition contained in Art 2 of TRIMs
E.g. LCR applied in context of govt procurement of goods is excluded from NT obligation
Art 4- Developing Countries: In addition to transition periods, some flexibility to Dvg C Art 4- allows Dvg C to deviate temporarily from obligations in Art 2
to extent in such a manner as Art XVIII of GATT Governmental Assistance to Economic Development
Other safeguard provisions for situations of BoP difficulties
22
Notification and Transitional Arrangements (Art 5):
It allowed the existing TRIMs that were inconsistent with GATT subject to certain conditions
Set forth requirement in Art 5 w r t transitional mechanism Art 5.1- Members – to notify to Council for Trade in Goods within 90
days of E.I.F of WTO (by March 31, 1995) Regarding any existing TRIM that was inconsistent with this Agreement
Art 5.2- Existing TRIMs shall be eliminated within specific time-periods Length depends upon level of economic development
DC- 2 yrs after e.i.f of WTO Agreement Dvg C- 5 yrs LDC- 7 yrs
Agreement did not provide any mechanism to monitor actions at the expiry of transition period
23
Cont… Countries not members of WTO on 1.1.1995, were entitle to become
original member within two yrs After that, they should submit TRIMs notification within 90 days after acceptance
Art 5.3- CTG may authorize extension of transition periods on request by Dvg C or LDC
They have to demonstrate the ‘particular difficulties’ Several members have availed their rights under this provision
Art 5.4- prevents Members from modifying TRIMs notified under Art 5.1
The benefit of transitional arrangements shall not apply for TRIMs incase introduced less than 180 days before eif of WTO (7/5/94)
24
Cont… Art 5.5- During the transition period Member may apply
the inconsistent TRIM to a new investment if this is, Necessary to prevent trade distortion the condition of competition
between new investment and existing investments To identify the product of existing investment is like products
Member shall notify to CTG incase if they apply these TRIM to a new investment
25
Transparency: (Art 6) Art 6.1- incorporated by reference the transparency
obligation established in Art X of GATT and other WTO related provisions
Art 6.2- Members are required to notify to WTO Secretariat about the publication in which TRIMs may be found
Art 6.3- Confidential information is exempted from Art X of GATT
26
Committee on Trade-Related Investment Measures: (Art 7)
Establishment of a Committee on Trade-Related Investment Measures
To monitor the operation and implementation of the Agreement To provide forum for consultation on implementation of the Agreement
The Committee is required to report annually to CTG
Art 8- Consultation and Dispute Settlement: Articles XXII and XXIII of GATT applied by DSU shall apply to
consultations and settlement of disputes under this Agreement To date, 41 cases cite this agreement in the request for
consultations
27
Review by the Council for Trade in Goods: (Art 9)
CTG shall review the operation of this Agreement every 5 yrs The review shall offers opportunity to propose to the
Ministerial Conference as appropriate amendments to the text of text of the Agreement
During Review CTG shall consider the provisions on investment policy and competition policy
Setback: It does not mention specific procedure on how to undertake
the review Date for its completion also not mentioned in the Agreement
28
Dispute Settlement Cases Involving The TRIMs Agreement:
1. EC Bananas III2. Indonesia- Autos3. Canada- Auto Pact4. India- Autos5. India- Solar cells and solar modules (Feb 24, 2016)
Claims under TRIMs Agreement accompanied by claims under Articles III and XI of GATT
Some cases SCM, TRIPs & GATS also been cited
29
European Communities—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution
of Bananas: (DS 27) Complainants:
Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, United States Respondent:
EC Measure at issue:
The EC’s regime for the importation, distribution and sale of bananas, introduced on 1 July 1993 and established by EEC Council Regulation 404/93
Product at issue: Bananas imported from third countries
30
Cont… Essence of the claims based on preferential treatment granting to EC
and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) bananas at the expense of bananas from third-countries
EC’s regime violated number of WTO provisions
Complainants alleged that regime’s allocation of import quotas and import licensing procedure were inconsistent with Art III of GATT and Art 2 of TRIMs, GATS, AoA, Agreement on import licensing
Panel found that EC’s regime was inconsistent with NT obligation in Art III:4 of GATT
EC contented that the measure is being a border measure and not an internal measure
Hence, import licensing did not fall with purview or Art III:4 of GATT
31
Cont… But, Panel dismissed EC’s argument and held
The measure is an internal measure held within the meaning of Art III:4
Preferred allocation of tariff quota to importers was inconsistent with Art III:4
But, Panel did not consider the rule on consistency with Art 2 of TRIMs Agreement
EC appealed against Panel report on Sept 9, 1997 But, the AB upheld the Panel’s main findings AB held, EC’s import licensing regime violated Art III:4 of
GATT
32
Indonesia—Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry: (DS
54, 55, 59, 64) Complainants:
EC, Japan and US Respondent: Indonesia Measure at issue:
“The 1993 Programme” that provided import duty reductions or exemptions on imports of automotive parts based on the local content percent; and
“The 1996 National Car Programme” that provided various benefits such as luxury tax exemption or import duty exemption to qualifying (local content and etc.) cars or Indonesian car companies
Product at issue: Imported motor vehicles and parts and components thereof
33
Cont… Complainants alleged that these measures were inconsistent with,
Arts I, III and X of GATT Art 2 of TRIMs Several other provisions of SCM and TRIPs
Panel found that Indonesia’s measures violate Art 2.1 of TRIMs Panel found that Art III and SCM do not conflict with each other
They have different coverage and don’t impose the same type of obligations In this case both Agreements were Applicable
Panel held that the disputed measures were ‘investment measures’ Measures fall within the scope of Para 1 of illustrative list
34
Cont… Panel further held, measures violated Art 2.1 of TRIMs
Also noted that Indonesia did not invoke any exceptions contained in Art 3 & 4, nor claimed for enjoyed the transition period
In order to exercise judicial economy, the Panel saw No need to address the claims under Art III:4
Panel also held that the measures violated Articles I and III:2 of GATT & Art 5(c) of SCM
35
Canada—Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry: (DS 139 & 142)
Complainants: Japan and EC Respondent: Canada Canada-Auto Pact concerned several measures taken by
Canada in framework of 1965 Auto Pact Agreement with US
Implemented through 1988 Motor Vehicle Tariff Order (MVTO), Several special remission orders (SRO) and letters of undertaking from Canadian car manufacturers
36
Cont… To qualify for the import duty exemptions, a car manufacturer had
to meet three conditions It had to have had a manufacturing presence in Canada (base year 1963-
64) To achieve a minimum amount of Canadian value-added, which applied to
goods and services (CVA Requirements) To comply with production-to-sales ratio requirement (ratio Requirement)
Claimants contented: Canada’s measures were inconsistent with Articles I:1, III:4 and XXIV of
GATT Art 2 of TRIMS Art 3 of SCM Agreement Several GATS Articles
37
Cont… Canada argued- CVA Req did not affect the internal sale or
use of imported products Panel- dismissed Canada’s argument
Panel found that CVA Req affected the internal sale or use in Canada of imported parts, materials
Panel also found- CVA Req accorded ‘less favorable treatment’ to imported products than to like domestic products
It also affected competitive opportunities Hence, Panel concluded that Canada violated Art III:4 of
GATT Panel held such measures were also inconsistent with Art
2.1 of TRIMs
38
Cont… Panel also held that disputed measures affecting trade in
services inconsistent with Art II:1 of GATS Panel also rejected the claim on ratio req inconsistent with
Art 2.1 of Trims
Canada appealed to AB: AB upheld the Panel’s finding that disputed Measures were
inconsistent with this Art I of GATT AB also upheld panel’s ruling on Ratio Req But reversed the Panel’s decision on GATS Art II:1 and AB
held that measures were consistent with Art II:1
39
India—Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector: (DS 146, 175)
Complainants- US and EU Respondent – India Measures at Issue:
India's indigenization (local content) requirement; and Trade balancing requirement (exports value = imports value)
imposed on its automotive sector Product at issue:
Cars and their components
40
Cont… Indian adopted Automotive Policy in Dec 1997,
Mandatory requirement- Car manufactures wishing to import car kits were required to sign a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’
Car manufactures were asked to fulfill following conditions: To achieve specified minimum local content levels to 75%
(Indigenization Requirement) 75% of total value of materials used within 5 yrs
To balance the value of their imports of car kits and car parts against the value of their exports of cars and car parts (Trade balancing Req)
Car manufacturers who did not sign and MoU could be denied a license to import car kits and car parts
41
Cont… EC and US raised a claims and challenging, the disputed
measures were inconsistent with Arts III:4 and XI:1 of GATT Arts 2.1 and 2.2 of TRIMS
W r t indigenization condition: Panel held such requirements were inconsistent with Art
III:4 of GATT Panel citing Canada- FIRA panel case
Automotive parts and components of domestic and foreign origin were like products
42
Cont…W r t Trade Balancing requirement: Panel first examined whether it constituted a ‘measure’
within meaning of Art XI:1 Panel held it was a measure
Hence, Panel found that this req, Limit the amount of imports in relation to export commitment It acted as a restriction on importation within meaning of Art XI:1
India also failed to justify that the requirement under Art XVIII:B of GATT (BoP exception)
Therefore, Panel concluded that this measure is inconsistent with Art XI:1
43
Cont… India appealed to AB, but subsequently withdrew it s
appeal Consequently, AB issued a short report,
Outlining the procedural history of case But, did not address the substantial legal issue raised by India
Eventually, India adopted AB and Panel reports on April 5, 2002
44
India - Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules: (DS
456) On Jan 1, 2010, India had launched National solar policy
named, the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (NSM) Ambitious target of generating 20,000 MW of solar power by 2022 The solar photovoltaic and solar thermal are the two types of solar
power projects
Under NSM scheme, above two projects were subject matter of certain measures,
1) It is mandatory under the scheme that, all the Solar PV projects to use cells and modules manufactured in India (100% DCR)
Measures allows for PV Modules made from thin film technologies or concentrated PV may be sourced from any country
45
Cont…
2) w.r.t Solar thermal project- the project developers are to ensure 30% local content
In all plant and installations under solar thermal technology Solar power developers are entitled to enter into power
purchase agreement with NVVM (National Thermal Power Company Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Limited, Govt nodal agency)
Who would purchase the electricity produced
46
Summary of key findings: US claimed that the measures appear to be inconsistent with
Art III:4 of the GATT 1994; Art 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement; and Arts 3.1(b), 3.2, 5(c), 6.3(a) and (c), and 25 of the SCM Agreement
On 23 May 2014 DSB established a panel Brazil; Canada; China; European Union; Japan; Korea, Republic of Malaysia;
Norway; Russian Federation; Turkey; Ecuador; Saudi Arabia, Chinese Taipei reserved their 3rd parties
On 24th Feb 2016, the panel report was circulated Panel found that the disputed measures are TRIMs
Covered by Para 1(a ) of illustrative list Panel found that this suffice to establish that the measures are,
Inconsistent with both Article III:4 of GATT and Art 2.1 of TRIMs DCR do accord ‘less favourable treatment’
India claimed for Govt procurement derogation under Art III:8(a) of GATT
47
Cont… Panel fount that discrimination relating to solar cells and
modules under LCR is not covered by Govt procurement exceptions
India argued LCR are justified under general exception in Art XX(j) of GATT
Risk of a disruption in imports, makes these ‘products in general or local short supply’
Panel found that terms ‘products in general or local short supply’ refer to
Quantity of supply of a product from all sources, does not meet demand in a relevant geographical area or market
India has not demonstrated the existence of any imminent risk of a short supply
Therefore, panel found that India failed to justify the challenged measured under Art XX(j) of GATT
48
Cont… India also argued that LCR are justified under Art XX(d) of GATT
India’s compliance with ‘laws or regulations’ requiring it to take steps to promote sustainable development
Panel did not find any of instruments identified by India are within meaning of Art XX(d)
Therefore, panel held that India failed to demonstrate the disputed measures are justified under Art XX(d)
Finally, Panel asked India to ‘bring its measures into conformity with its obligations under TRIMs and GATT’
India will soon appeal to AB against panel’s findings
49
Current Debate and Prospects of TRIMs Agreement:
Mandated Review with in 5 yrs (1.1.2000) Singapore Ministerial Conference established two Working
Groups: One on relationship between Trade and Investment Other on Future negotiations
Review under Art 9 is foreseen and not focused till to date WTO work on Trade and Investment is still unclear
It might be pursued in future
50
India’s notified TRIMs: As per the provisions of Art. 5.1 of the TRIMs India had
notified three TRIMs as inconsistent with the provisions of the Agreement,
Local content (mixing) requirements in the production of News Print,
Local content requirement in the production of Rifampicin and Penicillin – G, and
Dividend balancing requirement in the case of investment in 22 categories consumer goods
Such notified due to be eliminated by 31st Dec 1999 None of these measures is in force at present Currently not have any outstanding obligations
51
References: Martha Lara de Sterlini, The Agreement on Trade-Related Investment
Measures, The General Agreement on Trade in Services, The World Trade Organization: Legal, Economic and Political Analysis International Trade Law Center eds. Arthur E. Appleton, Michael G. Plummer (Springer, 2007)
Robert H. Edwards, Jr. & Simon N. Lester, Towards a More Comprehensive World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade Related Investment Measures, 33 STAN.J. INT'L L. 169 (1997)
Scott S. Quillin, The World Trade Organization and its Protection of Foreign Direct Investment: The Efficacy of The Agreement on Trade-related Investment Measures, 28 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 875 2003
Carlos Correa, Nagesh Kumar-Protecting Foreign Investment Implications of A WTO Regime and Policy Options (RIS, 2004)
Syed Nasir Aziz Rizvi, Global Investments and the WTO, World Trade Organization and India- a Critical Study of Its First Decade, eds. J K Mittal, KD Raju (New Era Law, 2005)
52
Thank you….