october - december, 2010 india the wto · october - december, 2010 shri anand sharma, union...

OCTOBER - DECEMBER, 2010

Shri Anand Sharma, Union Minister of Commerce and Industry, during his meeting with Mr. Pascal Lamy, Director General of the WTO, in Geneva on October 20, 2010, reaffirmed India's commitment to an ambitious and balanced outcome of the Doha round. He recalled that world leaders have also reaffirmed their commitment to an early conclusion of Doha Round at the G-20 Summit and added that the issue would come up again in the G-20 Seoul meeting next month. “Sustaining trade and investment flows is critical for the future prosperity of developed and developing economies alike. They recognized that one of the main threats to the revival of trade flows is the rising protectionist pressures and continued delay in concluding the Doha Round. Therefore, strengthening the multilateral trading system by concluding the Doha Round at the earliest is a vital imperative”, Shri Sharma emphasized. Shri Sharma also met Ambassadors of the key players in the Doha Round, including the G-33, NAMA 11 and the recently constituted G-11, Chairs of Agriculture, NAMA and Services.

Shri Sharma pointed out that since March 2010 stock taking, while some progress has been achieved in small group meetings, the text based negotiations led by the chairs must resume at the earliest. He said that while there are still a few gaps and large number of unresolved issues, the December 2008 texts of Agriculture and NAMA presented, a fine balance and any attempt to revisit settled issues would potentially unravel the round itself. He said that 2011 presented a “Year of opportunity” for conclusion of the round and felt that through the G-20 summit in Seoul, a strong articulation of political intent would lend the necessary momentum to negotiations.

A Newsletter of the Ministry of Commerce & IndustryVol. 14 No. 10-12

INDIA

The

INDIA

The WTO& WTO

In this issue Page No.

ANAND SHARMA REAFFIRMS INDIA'S COMMITMENT TO BALANCED OUTCOME OF THE DOHA ROUND

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE LAMY: “THE FINAL COUNTDOWN STARTS NOW”

SHORT-TERM MERCHANDISE TRADE STATISTICS TRADE VALUE GROWTH SLOWS IN THE THIRD QUARTER OF 2010

LAMY: “THE DOHA ROUND MARKS A TRANSITION FROM THE GOVERNANCE OF THE OLD GOLD TRADE ORDER TO THE NEW GOVERNANCE OF A NEW TRADE ORDER

PARLIAMENT BRIEFS

WTO NEWS

PRESS CLIPINGS

EARLY CONCLUSION OF INDIA-EU FTA: ANAND SHARMA

3

11

13

19

22

25

32

A Newsletter of the Ministry of Commerce & IndustryIndia & The WTO

02

The Minister stressed that Doha Round negotiations hold the promise of raising standards of living worldwide, alleviating global poverty, removing inequities in the trade regime, and enhancing international stability especially in times of global financial and economic crisis. There are signs of recovery, however, there are also continuing concerns on the uncertainty on the prospects of the recovery as many countries have not fully recovered from the impact of the crisis. The conclusion of the Round would provide a big boost to help recovery. Shri Sharma reiterated that this is a Development Round and the mandate of the Doha Round is non-negotiable and should be respected. The final outcome must correct the historical distortions and address structural flaws in the global trading regime, while responding to the legitimate concerns and aspirations of the poor in the developing world. The Special safeguard mechanisms and special products are crucial to protect the livelihood concerns of millions of small and marginal farmers in the developing world.

��


03

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE

Lamy: “The final countdown starts now”

Director-General Pascal Lamy announced at a Trade Negotiations Committee meeting on 30

November 2010 an “intensive work programme” to finish the Doha Round by the end of next year. He

said: “We have the political signal, we have the technical expertise and we have the work programme.

We now need to translate these into a comprehensive deal which you can all take back home.”

I would like to welcome delegations to this informal meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee.

thAs indicated in my fax to you of 15 November I thought it would be useful for us to review and assess

developments in the Doha Development Agenda, following the meeting of the G-20 and APEC. Also,

since our last meeting in this format a second round of meetings of the small brainstorming groups has

taken place and today is a good opportunity to take the temperature and evaluate the discussions in

this process.

thYou will recall that at the 19 October 2010 TNC meeting delegations had looked ahead to the meeting

of G-20 Leaders in Seoul and the APEC leaders meeting in Yokohama, with the hope that a clear

political signal would emanate from those gatherings that the Doha negotiations had now entered the

final stretch.

WORLD TRADE

ORGANIZATION

A Newsletter of the Ministry of Commerce & Industry India & The WTO

04

In my concluding remarks at that meeting I emphasized that the challenge facing us in Geneva was to

take the recent positive engagement in Geneva to a higher gear by going deeper and wider in the

discussions, as a prelude for the “give and take” spirit that will be required to build a final package in

our multilateral process. Delegations also called for the G-20 Leaders to empower their negotiators to

make the compromises necessary for this gear change to happen.

On the basis of the discussions among Leaders and Ministers at these recent meetings and my own

private conversations, I believe we have now received the signals we need. The G-20 in Seoul and

APEC Leaders and Ministers in Yokohama both sent strong signals of political resolve to conclude the

Doha Development Round. They recognised the 2011 window of opportunity to achieve this goal.

They called for intensified engagement and for negotiations across the board to conclude the end

game. They also committed to seeking domestic ratification once an outcome is reached. In short,

they provided a clear signal that they expect the Doha Development Round to be a deliverable next

year.

The discussions between leaders on this topic were to the point: how to supplement what is already on

the table with new “gives and takes” in order to build a final package that they could take to their

respective legislatures. Our task now is to translate this political will into negotiations here in Geneva.

Since June last year, Members have been testing flexibilities in various formats. This process must now

intensify in order to “walk the talk”.

In practical terms, if we are to deliver on this recent momentum we need a clear sense of urgency in

the work programme in Geneva. Our “Cocktail Approach” means that every configuration and every


05

possibility for progress must be exploited to the fullest, whether it is small groups, bilateral contacts,

negotiating groups or my own consultations. We have been mixing these ingredients up until now.

From now on we will continue to mix these ingredients but with different proportions. In order to

ensure full participation, though, the Negotiating Groups need to be at the heart of our intensified

efforts over the coming months, with the Chairs taking a more pro-active role in accelerating the work.

I know the Chairs are all prepared to do this. Together we plan an intensive work programme from now

on, through the beginning of next year, advancing on all fronts of the negotiations at the same time.

This is the only way to take advantage of our narrow window of opportunity. We need to recall

constantly that the clock is not our friend. In order to finish the Round by the end of next year we will

have to operate on a very tight timetable bearing in mind that, once the package is agreed, scheduling

and legal polishing will take up a minimum of six to seven months.

With this timing in mind, I believe there is now a collective sense emerging that revised texts in all

areas of the negotiation will have to be developed so that they appear towards the end of the first

quarter of 2011. We all know these texts are essential as a tool to conclude the negotiations, but we

also know that they need to be constructed in our customary bottom-up way, on the basis of

consensus emerging from Members. I should also add that in order to arrive at these texts it will be

essential for participants to take an active role and come up with inputs which take us towards

consensus. As usual, convergence is best achieved by Members, so that Chairs can reflect rather than

create compromises.

At the right moment we will also need to develop more of a global sense of what the final package will

contain. I sense that issues are no longer confined to silos: as is to be expected, and indeed hoped,

there are inter-linkages which are starting to appear and these will have to be properly addressed and

negotiated when the time is ripe. How, where and when to do this is not something we need to decide

now; I believe it will become clearer in the light of the substantive progress in the Negotiating Groups.

Finally, I think we need to plan for the greater involvement of Senior Officials as our work intensifies in

the months ahead. Their role will be a dual one – assisting Ambassadors in the negotiations here in

Geneva and helping Ministers undertake some of the heavy lifting at home.

So, in practical terms, the work programme we propose is as follows:

• During December Negotiating Groups will continue their scheduled activities,

supplemented by informal contacts among participants.

th• From 10 January 2010, the Rules, Trade Facilitation, Trade and Environment, TRIPS [trade-

related intellectual property rights] and Development groups will begin intensive sessions, th

to be joined from 17 January 2010 by Agriculture, NAMA [non-agricultural market access],

Services and Dispute Settlement.

• I would like to stress the importance of Ambassadors remaining fully involved in the

negotiations themselves since they will be central to the final deal;


06

• Our intention is that this intensive negotiation across the board will continue as long as it

takes to build the basis for revised texts. This will be a very demanding process, but there isno

alternative if we are serious about concluding the Round, as I know we all are.

I am well aware of the strain it will put on all delegations but particularly on the smaller ones. You can

be assured that the Negotiating Group Chairs and I will act in full accordance with our established

principles concerning the scheduling of meetings, and we will make every effort to ensure

transparency and full participation. As I have usually done, I shall consult with co-ordinators of

regional and other groups to reinforce these efforts. I shall also keep up chairs meetings, informal TNC

meetings, Green Rooms and all of my other contacts with delegations.

In sum, we have the political signal, we have the technical expertise and we have the work

programme. We now need to translate these into a comprehensive deal which you can all take back

home. The final countdown starts now.

Overview of Negotiating Groups

On Agriculture, work continues on two tracks, templates and on the bracketed or otherwise

annotated issues of the draft modalities. On templates, and on the associated work on base data, Step

2 on drafts of the actual proposed formats for the scheduling process is actively engaged. A number of

drafts, in each of the three pillars

(domestic support, market access

and export competition), have

now been put before the Special

Session, in informal setting, and

are under discussion. Additional

such drafts are being prepared for

the Group's next set of meetings,

in the week of 6 December. Work

on base data is also progressing,

with the Secretariat issuing, on the

basis of data provided by

Members, papers in a number of

areas, inc luding va lue of

production and product-specific

AMS [aggregate measurement of support] and Blue Box in preparation for continuation of the

verification exercise.

On modalities, the Chair has continued his consultations. The Chair has also continued consultations

on clarification of certain technical aspects of the modalities. The Chair will again convene open-ended

informals in the week of 6 December 2010, when the programme of work will continue on both tracks.

And he remains available for “confessionals” on technical ambiguities in the draft modalities.

On NAMA, the Group held dedicated discussions on several of the NTB [non-tariff barriers] areas

under consideration. On the Horizontal Mechanism, a revised contribution by some of the middle-


grounders laid the basis for an exchange. On Remanufacturing, additional explanations were

circulated by the co-sponsors concerning their proposal and this formed part of the input for the

discussion. One Room D session was reserved for an exchange on transparency, conformity

assessment, international standards and good regulatory practice. The discussion on transparency

was lengthy and was based on a Secretariat document which highlighted the “TBT [technical barriers

to trade] plus” elements on transparency. Under conformity assessment, the US introduced its

revised electronics proposal. On international standards, the US circulated some questions regarding

the development and use of relevant international standards which Members found helpful. On

chemicals, the discussion was based largely on a series of answers which had been submitted by the

EU concerning its proposal. On textile labelling, a revised proposal by the co-sponsors sparked a

number of interventions.

Regarding future work, in tandem with the overall change in the dynamics of the negotiations, the

Chairman has indicated that the next step is to move more into a text-based negotiation. This will

happen in the context of NAMA weeks which are supplemented by small-group processes; the latter

clearly being an ongoing process. In this connection, the next NAMA week is scheduled for the week of th

17 January 2010. I understand the Chair has already begun some small-group consultations.

In Services, the positive signals given at the Seoul and Yokohama ministerial meetings have

significantly raised the level of activity in this area. This was evident during last week's cluster of

services meetings, where many heads of mission attended the Special Session and emphasized their

commitment to accelerate and intensify participation in the services negotiations.

On market access, discussion continued on two new negotiating elements. The first is a proposal to

cluster together services that are closely-related to logistics and the supply-chain, in order to add

focus to the request/offer negotiations. The second element is an additional plurilateral request/offer

group, to deal with accounting services.

In the other areas of the services negotiations, further progress on technical issues has been

registered. Recent consultations on the LDC [least-developed countries] waiver text have further

clarified the remaining differences between delegations. On domestic regulation, fruitful discussions

have taken place, based on the Chairman's text. The main topics covered were licensing and

qualification requirements and procedures (including a proposal to streamline disciplines in these two

areas), and technical standards. On subsidies, Members had their first dedicated discussion based on

their submissions. Discussions focused on how services subsidy schemes worked, and what their

distortive effects might be. Important work has also been undertaken in the Committee on Specific

Commitments, on the basis of a Secretariat note laying out alternative scenarios for the verification of

GATS [General Agreement on Trade in Services] Schedules at the end of the Round. Discussions in all

these areas will continue as needed.

On Rules, the Group has increased the pace of its work significantly, and recently has been meeting

on a monthly basis. The Group held week-long clusters in October (on fisheries subsidies) and on AD

[anti-dumping] and horizontal subsidies (November 2010). Additional meeting clusters are already

scheduled or planned for early December 2010 (on AD and fisheries subsidies), and further meetings

are envisaged from January 2010 onwards on all clusters.

07


On AD and horizontal subsidies, while the Group has considered some new proposals, the focus of the

work has been on the systematic review, in plurilateral sessions, of all the bracketed and un-bracketed

issues in the current Chair texts, as well as a further consideration of certain issues raised by

Participants but not addressed in those texts. In the area of fisheries subsidies, where the Group also

has been meeting principally in a plurilateral context, it is working both on a topical basis (e.g.,

prohibition, special and differential treatment) and on the basis of specific proposals from delegations.

On regional trade agreements, you will recall that at the General Council meeting on 4 May 2010 this

year, Members agreed with a proposal from China, India and Pakistan that consultations should be

held to review the Transparency Mechanism for RTAs [regional trade agreements], with a view to

making it permanent but suggested that it take place in the Negotiating Group on Rules. The Chair of

the NGR has held informal plurilateral consultations on this issue and I understand will be convening a

meeting of the Negotiating Group on 13 December 2010 to begin the process of reviewing the

Transparency Mechanism. Informal discussions have also been held on systemic issues on RTAs,

although discussions remain dependent on the submission of text-based proposals by Members of

which there have been none forthcoming thus far.

In the area of Trade Facilitation, since the beginning of this year, the Negotiating Group has worked

to refine and elaborate on the consolidated text of Members' proposals that is the NGTF's working

document.

The focus of discussions this week is on the GATT Article VIII (fees and charges) and S&D [special and

differential treatment] components of the text. Over the course of this year the Group has been able

to cover all elements of the text in some detail. Negotiations have certainly helped Members to

identify better how the eventual new agreement will benefit their trade and where their main national

interests are. While there has recently been a positive trend to reduce the many square brack ets in the

text, their overall number continues to be way too high. It must be brought down to a much lower level

for serious negotiations on the remaining issues to commence.

As regards Trade and Environment negotiations, the CTE [Committee on Trade and Environment]

in Special Session met informally on 8 November

2010. On DDA [Doha Development Agenda]

paragraph 31(i), Switzerland introduced a new

proposal related to conflict avoidance between

WTO rules and specific trade obligations (STOs)

laid out in MEAs [multilateral environmental

agreements]. Moreover, discussions under

paragraph 31(i) continued as Norway and South

Africa (on behalf of the African Group)

reintroduced their original submissions

continuing the exercise initiated at the 13

September meeting with other submissions. At

08


the 8 November meeting, there was general support to continue discussing all proposals on the table

in preparation for text-based negotiations. The Chair intends to discuss in detail the different aspects

of the proposals on the table, on a cluster by cluster basis, with a view to identify commonalities and

outstanding issues.

On paragraph 31(iii), a recent Secretariat paper on Environmental Services, submitted to the Council

for Trade in Services, was presented to the CTESS [Committee on Trade and Environment in Special

Session] and triggered a lot of interest from Members given the linkages between environmental

goods and services. Moreover, at the meeting, Members were invited to share their views on ways to

move forward on this part of the mandate. Members stressed the need to address cross-cutting

issues such as NTBs, special and differential treatment, technology transfer and capacity building.

Most Members agreed that negotiations on environmental goods needed to change gear. The Chair

therefore intends to intensify work on this part of the mandate with dedicated discussions on both

cross-cutting issues and submissions identifying environmental goods of interest and suggesting

approaches for such identification. The objective of the Chair is for the CTESS to have a more in-

depth understanding of the technical issues that will enable delegations to advance negotiations in a

meaningful way.

On the Work Programme on Special and Differential Treatment, the Chair of the Special Session

of the CTD [Committee on Trade and Development] has been focusing on narrowing the gaps on

different elements of the Monitoring Mechanism. While some progress has been made, the Chair has

also indicated that divergences remain on a number of negotiating elements.

In this context, there have been some positive developments based on the deliberations of the

informal group of Ambassadors on Development Issues. The Ambassador-led informal process has

suggested some 'Guiding Principles on the Monitoring Mechanism' which have been introduced by

some of the Members into the small group consultations that the Chair has been holding. During

these initial consultations, Members have generally felt that the elements of the Guiding Principles

would be helpful in generating further convergence in the work on the Monitoring Mechanism being

carried out in the Special Session. Even though these are, as the name suggests, only 'Guiding

Principles', they provide a useful basis to advance the work in the Special Session.The Chair will

continue with his consultations on the Monitoring Mechanism. At the same time, based on Members'

inputs, he will revert to the remaining Agreement-Specific Proposals, at an appropriate time.

As regards the negotiations on the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and

registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits, the TRIPS Special Session held

its 27th formal meeting on 28 October 2010. Delegations continued their structured and businesslike

exchange of technical information on the basis of two sub-questions the Chairman had posed

regarding current domestic procedures and practices of registration and protection of trademarks and

geographical indications. The objective of the discussions on current domestic procedures and

practices is to identify differences and commonalities. A number of delegations that had hitherto not

taken the floor in these discussions provided responses to the questions, while some others fine-

tuned the responses they had given at previous meetings.

09


Pursuant to the working schedule for the overall process, the Chairman will, in the first four months of

2011, intensify the work of the Special Session, building on the work done. In view of this

intensification, he will hold informal consultations on 1 and 6 December and convene an open-ended

informal meeting on 10 December 2010.

On Dispute Settlement, work continues to be conducted on the basis of consultations in groups of

variable geometry, with regular reporting to the Membership. The Chairman held a series of

consultations in the week of 1 November 2010. Discussions focused on effective compliance and

sequencing. The next set of meetings is foreseen for the week of 17 January 2010, and will focus on

outstanding issues on effective compliance and sequencing, as well as timeframes and post-

retaliation.

That concludes my overview of the recent and envisaged activities of the negotiating bodies.

Finally, with respect to the two TRIPS implementation issues of GI [geographical indications]

extension and the relationship between TRIPS — CBD [Convention on Biological

Diversity] on which I have been undertaking consultations on in my capacity as Director-General and

not as TNC [Trade Negotiations Committee] Chair, I understand that the recent small group

brainstorming sessions have been exploring these issues as well. Bearing this in mind, I will continue

to follow up with Members on how to best proceed with the consultative process. Transparency with

the broader membership has been a watchword throughout the consultations and I will, of course,

keep you posted on developments.

��

10


The value of world merchandise trade was 18% higher in the third quarter of 2010 than in the same

period of 2009, according to the latest WTO quarterly figures released on 1 December 2010. This

marks a slowdown in comparison with the 26% increase registered in the second quarter of 2010.

From January to September trade expanded by 23%, continuing the recovery that began in the

second quarter of 2009. Despite this positive trend, the value of world trade remains below its peak

level from before the present financial crisis. These short-term “value” figures should not be confused

with the annual trade growth figures, which are “volume” data using “constant dollars” with inflation

taken into account.

The latest projection of 13.5% merchandise trade volume growth for 2010, released on 20 September

2010, remains unchanged for the time being.

WTO short-term merchandise trade values are expressed in “current” US dollars, i.e, they are not

adjusted for changes in prices. Nor are they seasonally adjusted. Seasonal patterns therefore

considerably affect the quarter on quarter (Q-o-Q) and month on month (M-o-M) developments in

world trade, and this in turn affects comparisons between the trade developments in individual

regions and economies.

Chart 1: World merchandise exports, first quarter 2007 to third quarter 2010

Indices, first quarter 2005=100

In the third quarter of 2010, world merchandise exports were about 3% higher than in the second

quarter (“quarter on quarter”).

07Q

1

08Q

1

09Q

1

10Q

1

10Q

3

0

50

100

150

200

WORLD TRADE

ORGANIZATION

SHORT-TERM MERCHANDISE TRADE STATISTICS

Trade value growth slows in the third quarter of 2010

11


Within that period, available monthly statistics for about 70 economies representing some 90% of

world trade show that merchandise trade stagnated in July, decreased in August and bounced back in

September 2010.

This pattern is similar, albeit less pronounced, to what had already been observed in 2009 and reflects

in good part seasonal variations of demand.

Overview of regional trade flows

Extra-EU trade (external trade between the EU and the rest of the world) rose considerably faster than

trade within the EU, which remained constrained by low economic activity. Asian exports rose by about

30% in the third quarter of 2010, as compared to the corresponding period of 2009.

Exports from Africa and the Middle East were 22% higher than in the corresponding period of 2009

mainly due to the rebound of commodity prices after the crisis.

Table 1: World merchandise trade by region and selected economies, July-Sept 2010

Percentage change in current US dollars, year-on-year (Y-o-Y) and quarter-on-quarter

(Q-o-Q)

a. Includes significant re-exports or imports for re-exports.

b. “Intra EU” is trade within the EU; “extra EU” is trade between the EU and non-EU economies.

c. Hong Kong, China (excluding re-export trade); Republic of Korea; Malaysia; Singapore; Taipei,

Chinese and Thailand.

Exports Imports

Y-o-Y Q-o-Q Y-o-Y Q-o-Q

18 3 World (a) 18 4

21 0 North America 23 4

20 1 United States 23 5

16 -5 Canada 20 1

22 4 South and Central America 34 12

33 12 Brazil 49 18

7 2 Europe 9 2

8 2 European Union (27) (b) 9 2

4 0 -intra EU 4 0

14 6 -extra EU 17 6

18 -1 Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) 29 13

18 0 Russian Federation 39 17

22 3 Africa and the Middle East 10 5

29 6 Asia (a) 26 5

32 11 China 27 5

20 2 India 31 4

28 7 Japan 25 7

25 2 Six East Asian traders (c) 26 2

12


In a speech he delivered at the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the World Trade Institute in Bern,

on 1 October 2010, Director-General Pascal Lamy outlined the profound changes which have occurred

in the last decades in the patterns of world trade, as well as the challenges this dramatic reshaping

pose to the governance of multilateral trade. This is what he said:

“My congratulations to the World Trade Institute on your 10th birthday — and my thanks for this

invitation. It is customary on anniversaries like this to say “After all these years, you haven't changed a

bit”. I somehow doubt this is true for the Institute, and I know it is not true for the subjects you

research and teach.

The global trade landscape has changed profoundly in the past decade — more profoundly, I suspect,

than we fully understand. These changes are being driven partly by market opening, but mainly by

transport, communications and information technologies. It now costs less to ship a container from

Marseille to Shanghai — half way around the world — than to move it from Marseille to Avignon — 100

kilometres away. A phone call to Los Angles is as inexpensive as a phone call next door. Multinationals

routinely organize their activity around three “shifts” corresponding to the three main times zones —

Europe, North America and Asia — and deliver on-line services —

data inputting, software writing, help-lines — from practically

anywhere in the world.

One result of these changes is the continuing globalization of trade.

Despite the recent crisis, world exports were 30 percent higher in

2009 than in 2000 and 150 percent higher than in 1990. Not all

sectors are expanding at the same pace: manufactured exports are surging; raw material exports are

growing steadily; and agriculture exports are largely static. But overall the trend is towards

accelerating growth. And with the exception of East Asia, trade between regions is growing faster

than trade within regions. Never before has the world economy been as inter-linked by trade as it is

today.

Another result is the rapid shift in economic power East and South, as developing countries harness

globalization to “catch-up” to the industrialized West. Developing countries' share of world trade has

grown from a third to over half in just fifteen years and China has just passed Japan as the world's

second biggest national economy, and Germany as the world's top exporter. In 1990, less than a third

of developing-country trade was with other developing countries; today over half of their trade is

13

WORLD TRADE

ORGANIZATION

Lamy: “The Doha Round marks a transition from the Governance of the

old gold trade order to the new governance of a old trade order


South-South. Not all developing countries are sharing in this growth, and for too many Raul Prebisch's

concerns about dependency and an uneven trade playing field remain true. But for export

powerhouses like China, India, Brazil and others — growing at historically unprecedented rates —

Prebisch is being turned on his head.

A third result is the spread of globally-integrated production chains — in effect, global factories — as

companies locate various stages of the production process in the most cost-efficient markets. In this

process, expanding trade links with emerging economies are mirrored by expanding FDI links — as

trade growth fuels investment and investment growth fuels trade. We still think in terms of Adam

Smith's world of trade between nations, but in reality most trade now takes place within globe-

spanning multinational companies and their suppliers. It is not competition between China and the US

that is relevant, so much as competition between Nokia's and Samsung's value chains. Instead of

“Made in China” on the back of an iPhone, the label should read “Made in the World”, reflecting

Japanese microchips, US design, Korean flat-screens and Chinese

assembly.

These new global realities also force us to re-examine how we

analyze and measure the whole concept of “international trade”.

With so much trade now involving foreign companies operating

within national jurisdictions — and with so many components now

criss-crossing the same border multiple times — we need a new approach to trade statistics which

measures the value-added at each stage in the production chain, and not just the last place from

which a product was shipped. Here is the paradox: Open trade is more central than ever to the world

economy — and a rule-based multilateral trade system has never been more critical to global

prosperity and peace. Yet this system is struggling to cope with the fast-globalizing world it has

helped to create. Even with the major changes to the WTO in recent years — its new Members,

expanded scope, and more effective dispute settlement — there is a palpable need to factor in new

realities.

This is not easy. The trading system has become more complex to manage as it has become more

important. The dramatic reduction in border barriers has exposed deeper structural differences

between economies — in standards, regulations or legal systems — that are generating new “systems

frictions” because they are more tied up with values-based domestic objectives, are proving harder to

resolve. Subjects that were never given much consideration when the GATT was first created — such

as technology protection, environmental sustainability, or resource scarcity — have become more

pressing. Because trade has become so important to development strategies, development issues

have become increasingly important for the system — indeed, development is centre stage in the

current Doha negotiations. And overall the system's rules have had to become more technical, more

14


intrusive and more binding in order to remain relevant to economies that are still diverse, but far more

interdependent.

As the system becomes more important, it also exerts a huge gravitational pull on countries to join and

participate. The WTO has expanded to 153 Members — up from just 23 in 1947 — and this number

could easily grow to 180 within a decade. US, EU and Japan remain key players but they are no longer

dominant. Fast-emerging powers, like China, India and Brazil, play a role that was unimaginable even

twenty years ago — while smaller developing countries naturally want a say in a system in which they

have a growing stake. As recently as 1997, some four-fifths of WTO disputes were initiated by

industrialized countries; this year almost two-thirds were initiated by developing countries. For anti-

dumping alone, developing countries initiated almost 70 percent of actions since 1995 — and three

quarter of these were directed at other developing countries, further underlining their increasing use

of, and reliance on, the system. But as the number of players grows and their participation increases,

cooperation becomes more difficult — especially when interests diverge.

But this is not the full story. The bigger challenge — I suspect — is that we have not yet figured out how

to deal with the interdependent world economy we have created. This system was initially designed to

tackle problems specific to the mid-twentieth century — exclusionary trade blocs and tit-for-tat tariff

wars — that preceded the Second World War. The basic architecture of the system reflected its origins

in an Atlantic-centric world of shallow integration. The question now is what is needed to manage a

globalized world of deep integration and multiple powers. How to adapt?

Let me give some examples:

Previous negotiations were driven by the exchange of market access — and the trading of one tariff

concession for another. But tariff bargaining has less traction in an era when over half of world trade is

MFN duty free — and another quarter is covered by free-trade agreements and other preferences.

Reciprocity also makes less sense in a world of integrated production chains — where “imports” are

key to “exports”, and where connectivity determines whether an economy becomes a link in the chain

or not. It is also difficult to make reciprocity operational in areas like services where the challenge is to

make whole national systems more open and compatible. How, for example, to trade one country's

banking regulations for another's telecoms rules?

Previous negotiations have also attempted to deal with a lengthening list of issues in a single

“package” — with the aim of giving every Member an interest in its overall success. That is why the

Uruguay and Doha rounds have been “single undertakings” — where nothing is agreed until

everything is agreed. But this approach can also complicate negotiations — especially for poorer,

capacity-constrained countries. And it can mean that progress on uncontroversial and solvable issues

is held hostage to progress on more difficult and intractable ones. Finally, in the past, transatlantic

15


leadership was central to moving negotiations forward. But trade power is shifting, and the days — last

seen during the Uruguay Round — when the US and Europe could essentially strike a deal on behalf of

the entire Membership are long gone. It is not just that established powers need to accept to share

the centre stage; emerging powers also need to recognize their responsibility for a system in which

they now have a major (and growing) interest. The old North-South divide seems increasingly

outdated when so much of the future trade agenda will be played out among developing countries.

It is not just the composition of leadership that needs to evolve. The WTO's impact now goes far

beyond the traditional scope of trade policy touching on core national and international interests. Yet

despite repeated statements of support and of engagement, world governments seem incapable of

marshalling the policies and political will needed to move the multilateral agenda forward. A worrying

leadership vacuum has opened that has — so far — proved difficult to fill. Let's hope that the G-20 can

help provide an answer. This is not the occasion to find answers to these questions — and even if it

were, no one should pretend that the solutions are obvious or easy.

One approach would be to explore the scope for more plurilateral agreements — allowing smaller

groups of Members to move forward, outside the single undertaking, on issues important to them. The

1996 Information Technology Agreement is a recent example successful plurilateral undertaking —

dependent on a critical (but not universal) mass of signatories. And one of the most relevant

agreements in the WTO today — with potential for expansion — is the plurilateral Government

Procurement Agreement. With the procurement market representing upwards of a fifth of GDP in

advanced economies (may be more in developing), nine Members, including China, have signalled a

clear interest in joining. Government procurement offers are a mine for efficiency gains which remain

largely unexploited.

Another approach — which I am acting upon — is to fill in the WTO's “missing middle” by scaling up our

surveillance activities, capacity building, and the day-to-day technical work that is critical to

strengthening the system's foundations. By shining a spotlight on protectionism during the recent

financial crisis, the WTO provided important intellectual ammunition for keeping markets open — and

a good example of the progress that can be made through more information sharing, transparency,

and peer pressure. The growing importance of WTO dispute settlement is also relevant, not just for

conflict resolution, but for pointing out possible future directions for policy-makers. Another priority

for the institution is capacity building for developing countries — captured in the “aid for trade”

initiative. The basic idea is that more resources — and more policy attention — needs to be focused on

helping developing countries to “connect” with the world economy — and with the global production

chains that are its arteries. I agree with Bob Zoellick when he suggested earlier this week that

“development economics must broaden the scope of the questions it asks”. Part of that broadening

16


involves asking how trade can be better harnessed for the developing countries that are still left

behind. All of these initiatives are in keeping with the original intent of the WTO which was to move

towards more continuous work, negotiations, and rule-making.

But the central priority remains concluding the Doha Round — and here too we need to be realistic

about the magnitude both of the challenge and of what is at stake. Early GATT rounds which focused

on tariff cutting among a small group of countries, could be wrapped up in a matter of months. But

with expanding issues and participants, and more effective and active dispute settlement, trade

rounds have inevitably become more difficult and drawn-out. The Kennedy Round — which started

grappling with development issues and involved 60 countries — took three years to complete. The

Tokyo Round — which addressed “non-tariff” barriers and involved 102 countries — lasted six years,

twice as long. And the Uruguay Round — which created the WTO and involved 133 countries —

turned into a negotiating marathon lasting eight years.

With 153 Members now at the table and the most ambitious negotiating agenda yet, the only thing

surprising about the length of the Doha Round is that anyone is really surprised. Not without reason

does the term “trade round” takes its inspiration from the boxing ring! What is at stake is more than

the economic benefits that would flow from a successful Doha deal. The real issue is the relevance of

the multilateral trading system itself. With its global Membership, comprehensive rules and “world

trade court”, the WTO is more central than ever to international economic relations. But this also

means that the costs of failure are higher — with ramifications that could be felt more widely. Bringing

the Doha Round to a successful conclusion would send the strongest possible signal that the WTO is

relevant to today's new world economy, that it remains the focal point for global trade negotiations,

and that it will be a key forum for international economic cooperation into the future. But if Doha

stumbles, then doubts will grow, not just about the WTO, but about the future of multilateralism in

trade.

In many ways, the Doha Round marks a transition from the old governance of the old trade order to

the new governance of a new trade order. Covering classic trade issues such as the reduction of

import tariffs and subsidies, as well as innovative new chapters on trade facilitation and fisheries

subsidies, the Doha Round is a turning point for the system.

The politics of this Round have had to adjust to the changes that happened since it was launched in

2001. And we all know we need to conclude it in order to address tomorrow's challenge. Let me end by

saying that I am optimistic we will find a way forward. The multilateral trading system remains the

most successful example of international economic cooperation in history despite repeated

predictions of an imminent death, it has shown a remarkable ability to grow, adapt and rejuvenate

itself over the years. The GATT's transformation into the WTO in 1995 proves that reform is possible.

The ease with which the old Quad leadership has made way for a new G-5 — including rising powers

such as India and Brazil — underlines the system's pragmatism and flexibility.

17


��

Besides, what is the alternative? Multilateralism may be complex, messy, and even “medieval” but the

reality is that none of the big trade challenges facing the world — from imbalances, to climate change,

to resource scarcity — can be solved without it. The biggest reason why Doha is proving so difficult is

precisely because it is tackling the tough problems that cannot be solved anywhere else. Certainly the

current patchwork of bilateral and regional deals offers no substitute for global rule-making — and for

coherent governance of a fast globalizing economy. Nor can regional deals — even dozens of them —

come close to matching the economic impact of agreeing to global trade liberalization among 153

countries. Bilateral and regional deals can be a complement to the multilateral system, but they can

never be an alternative.

In a world of interdependence, multilateralism matters. The global trade landscape may look

dramatically different today, but some things have not changed — especially trade's capacity to

generate huge international tensions and the importance of rules for managing disputes among the

great powers. Economists will agree that current global imbalances have macro-economic and

structural — not trade — causes. And they are proven right, if one looks at what has not changed in the

patterns of world trade for the last 25 years, which is a structural deficit between North- America and

Asia of a stubbornly persistent magnitude. But no one should underestimate the potential of this issue

to spill-over into escalating trade tensions. We are seeing it already. Just as a strong WTO provided a

critical bulwark against protectionism during the recent financial crisis — and a valuable forum for

international cooperation — so too does it provide an indispensable foundation for economic stability

in the time ahead, provided we understand what world trade is about today as opposed to yesterday.

As we see the Doha round finish line, we will have to put on our thinking cap and seriously look at the

challenges that await us. We already have a lot of good ideas on the table from the Sutherland

Commission and from the Warwick Commission. And I am sure we will have more to come when the

space for thinking opens.

This is where the work of the World Trade Institute is so important and why the Secretariat and I value

the high quality of research and capacity building you provide. History reminds us that today's

international order grew out of the disastrous failure of a previous system — the ill-fated League of

Nations. History also shows that it was the power of an idea — that open trade and economic

prosperity could secure world peace — which underpinned the success of today's globalization.”

18


SUBSIDY FOR FISHERIES

Under the work programme of Doha Round of WTO Negotiation, Member are also discussing framing

of new disciplines for fisheries subsidies. As per the Ministerial mandate, appropriate and effective

Special and Differential (S&D) treatment for Developing and least Developed Countries should be an

integral part of the fisheries subsidies negotiations, taking into account the importance of this sector to

poverty reduction and livelihood and food security concerns. Member's proposals are currently under

negotiations.

IMPACT OF PROTECTIONISM ADOPTED BY VARIOUS COUNTRIES

Protectionism can take various forms, including tread protectionism. Government has, from time to

time, taken steps to help industry copy with protectionist measures by other countries. These issues

are examined thereafter taken up in the appropriate bilateral or multilateral forum. For example, the

US Government's recent decision to raise fees for H1B and L1 visas and the ban by the Ohio State on

offshore outsourcing of government business to overseas companies etc. were taken up bilaterally

under the US-India Trade Policy Forum.

Other matters taken up by India in the relevant forum include: various instances of stricter applications

of regulations on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT);

seizure of consignments of India generic drugs, bound for Latin America and Africa, by the customs

authorities of the European Union (EU) and the Government of Netherlands; an EU Regulation for the

Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical Substances; an EU Directive

regarding the registration procedure of 'traditional' herbal medicinal product (THMP); the proposed

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) being discussed largely amongst the developed

countries etc. India has strongly raised its voice against protectionism at various bilateral and major

international meetings, including the recently concluded G-20 leaders Summit help in Seoul in

November 2010.

PARLIAMENT BRIEFS

19


PROTECTIONIST MEASURES FOR INDUSTRY

Government has, from time to time, taken steps to help industry cope with protectionist measures by

other countries, both of its own accord as well as on the basis of representations received from

industry. These issues are examined and thereafter take up in the appropriate bilateral or multilateral

forum. For example, the US Government's recent decision to raise fees for H1B and L1 visas and the

ban by the Ohio State on offshore outsourcing of government business to overseas, etc. were taken

up bilaterally under the US-India Trade Policy Forum.

Other matters taken up by India in the relevant forum include: various instances of stricter

applications of regulations on Sanitary and Phytosanitray (SPS) measures and technical Barriers to

Trade (TBT); seizure of consignments of India generic drugs, bound for Latin American and African,

by the customs authorities of the European Union (EU) and the Government of Netherland; an EU

Regulation for the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical Substances; an

EU Directive regarding the registration procedure of 'Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products (THMP);

the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) being discussed largely amongst the

developed countries etc.

India has strongly raised its voice against protectionism at all major international meetings including

the recently concluded Summit of G-20 leaders in Seoul.

INDIA’S CONCERNS WITH DEVELOPED COUNTRIES IN WTO

The United States has been seeking greater access into India markets for various products and has

been raising the issue in both multilateral and bilateral fora. In agriculture, these include milk and milk

products, poultry, port, pet food, etc.

During negotiations in the World Trade Organisation (WTO), India, together with her partner in

various developing country coalitions has been urging rich developing countries, including the US, to

effectively reduce the subsidies provided to their farmers, as these have the effect of distorting

production and trade. As per the draft modalities being negotiated in the Doha Round of trade

negotiations, all trade-distorting domestic support to the agriculture sector would have to be

substantially reduced.

There are several unresolved issues in the Doha Round of trade talks, not only in agriculture but also

in other areas of the negotiations. These include educations in subsidies to farmers, flexibilities

proposed for developed and developing member countries, additional tariff reductions on industrial

goods, liberalization of services sectors, disciplines on fisheries subsidies etc. India has been working

closely with her partners in various developing country coalitions to ensure an outcome that will

safeguard the interests of developing countries, particularly those of small and marginal framers and

vulnerable industries.

20


IMPORT OF CHEAP PRODUCTS

Trade defence measures are available to the domestic industry to counter unfair trade practices followed by exporters of goods from other countries. In case a product is imported into the country at less than its normal value, and it causes injury to the domestic industry, the domestic industry can make an application to Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties (DGAD) in the Department of Commerce for imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty. Similarly the domestic industry can also make an application to DGAD under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures in cases of subsidization of exports which causes injury to them. The Customs Tariff Act, 1975 includes provisions for providing relief to the domestic producers against injury caused to them by imports, in accordance with the WTO Agreement on Anti-Dumping (i.e. the Agreement on the implementation of Article VI of GATT, 1995,) the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures as well as the Agreement on Safeguards. These provisions are aimed at offsetting the adverse effects of 'dumped' imports, 'subsidized' imports or 'increased' imports.

During the period 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 (upto 20.07.2010) anti dumping duty was imposed in 27 cases by DGAD.

21

��


WORLD TRADE

ORGANIZATIONWTO NEWS

Trade Policy Review: Belize

The first review of the trade policies and practices of Belize takes place on 3 and 5 November 2010.

The basis for the review is a report by the WTO Secretariat and a report by the Government of Belize.

Trade Policy Review: Sri Lanka

The first review of the trade policies and practices of Sri Lanka takes place on 4 and 5 November 2010.

The basis for the review is a report by the WTO Secretariat and a report by the Government of Sri

Lanka.

Trade Policy Review: Papua New Guinea

The first review of the trade policies and practices of Papua New Guinea takes place on 16 and 18

November 2010. The basis for the review is a report by the WTO Secretariat and a report by the

Government of Papua New Guinea.

Trade Policy Review: Democratic Republic of the Congo

The first review of the trade policies and practices of the Democratic Republic of the Congo takes place

on 24 and 26 November 2010. The basis for the review is a report by the WTO Secretariat and a report

by the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Trade Policy Review: Hong Kong, China

The sixth review of the trade policies and practices of Hong Kong, China takes place on 1 and 3

December 2010. The basis for the review is a report by the WTO Secretariat and a report by the

Government of Hong Kong, China.

Seychelles resumes membership negotiations

On 22 November 2010, at the second meeting of the Working Party on the Accession of Seychelles,

WTO members examined the Seychelles' economic and trade regime.

Members supported a rapid accession of Seychelles taking into account the economic situation of the

country and its status as a Small and Vulnerable Economy. During the examination, Members raised

specific questions and requested further clarification on a number of areas: pricing policy, investment

regime, state ownership, privatisation, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to

trade, intellectual property, export subsidies, customs, import regulation and licensing.

Working Party Chair Hilda Ali Al-Hinai (Oman) stated that there was a sense of political commitment

for WTO membership at the highest level of the Seychelles' Government. She added that there was

considerable work ahead. She stressed the critical importance of technical assistance and urged

22


members to continue providing such assistance for Seychelles' accession to the WTO. In that regard,

the EU announced it will continue dispensing technical assistance to Seychelles.

“We remain fully engaged in the accession negotiations and committed to accelerate the process”

stated the Seychelles Vice President Danny Faure. He added that the government was committed to

change and was determined to be part of the global economy. He also said that Seychelles faced

numerous obstacles, among them isolation and piracy, which had significant impact on its GDP.

Bilateral negotiations

Bilateral market access negotiations have resumed with interested Members on the basis of updated

offers circulated in October 2010.

Seychelles signed its first bilateral agreement on market access for goods and services with Oman.

Meetings were held with the EU and the US. Seychelles Vice President expressed readiness to meet

with other interested Members.

WORLD TRADE REPORT - WTO launches discussion forum for World Trade

Report 2011

The WTO launched on 11 November 2010 a new discussion forum devoted to next year’s World Trade

Report. The subject of the report is “new era preferential trade agreements”.

To stimulate debate, the WTO has created a specific web page where individuals can express their

views on the role of production sharing networks in spurring bilateral and regional trade agreements

and the nature of the challenge they pose to the WTO. The aim is to encourage discussion among WTO

delegates, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), academic experts, WTO staff members and all

those with an active interest in preferential trade agreements.

In the months leading up to publication of the Report in July 2011, short articles concerning such

agreements will be posted on the web page. Members of the research and policy community can

contribute to this discussion by submitting papers of their own or by commenting on the papers

already submitted. Comments are also sought from any individuals with an interest in this topic. All

contributions will be taken into consideration by the authors of the World Trade Report 2011.

“New era” preferential trade agreements are less about preferential tariffs and more about trade

provisions that are crucial to the success of production sharing networks, such as establishment

rights, repatriation of profits, temporary movement of personnel, infrastructure services, trade

facilitation, rules of origin, and dispute settlement mechanisms accessible to private agents.

“Preferential trade agreements” is used in academic literature to refer to reciprocal free trade

agreements and regional trade agreements. This term will be used throughout the report.

Armenia to accede to the WTO Government Procurement Agreement

The WTO Committee on Government Procurement, on 7 December 2010, adopted a decision that

invites Armenia to accede to the Agreement on Government Procurement on the basis of a final

23


thcoverage offer that was circulated to the Committee on 8 November together with Armenia’s draft

Procurement Law. Director-General Pascal Lamy welcomed the decision as “good for Armenia, good

for the Agreement on Government Procurement and good for the WTO system”.

Armenia's accession to the Agreement will take effect thirty days after the deposit of its instrument of

accession with the Director-General, and following adoption of the draft law.

The decision today completes a process of negotiations that began with Armenia's application for th

accession to the Agreement just over a year ago, on 4 September 2009.

Director-General Pascal Lamy welcomed the decision as “good for Armenia, good for the Agreement

on Government Procurement and good for the WTO system.” He said that “Participation in the GPA

brings real benefits not only in terms of access to other Parties' markets for procurement of goods,

services and construction services, but also in the form of enhanced competition and transparency in

the Party's internal markets. It embodies a political and legal commitment to good governance

principles that reflects very positively on the acceding government and on its leaders.” “In applying for

GPA accession and then completing the related negotiations in a little over a year, Armenia has

effectively demonstrated to the world its commitment to these principles” Mr. Lamy said.

The Chairman of the Committee on Government Procurement, Mr. Nicholas Niggli of Switzerland,

congratulated Armenia and said that in applying for GPA accession and in completing the process in

such a timely fashion, it had shown courage, fortitude and wisdom. “You have made a commitment to

good governance that will be noted around the world, and that has made you a leader in your region”

he added.

Government procurement accounts for in the range of 15-20 % of gross domestic product (GDP), on

average, in developed countries. Only a part of this is currently covered by the Agreement on

Government Procurement.

The aim of the Agreement is to open up as much of government procurement as possible to

international competition. It is designed to make laws, regulations, procedures and practices

regarding government procurement that is covered by the Agreement more transparent and to ensure

they do not discriminate against the products or suppliers of other GPA Parties.

Currently, the Agreement covers forty-one WTO Members, namely: Canada; the European Union, with

its 27 member States; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Israel; Japan; Korea; Liechtenstein; the Kingdom of

the Netherlands with respect to Aruba; Norway; Singapore; Switzerland; Chinese Taipei and the

United States.

Other WTO Members that are in the process of negotiating their accession to the Agreement on

Government Procurement are Albania, China, Georgia, Jordan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Oman

and Panama. A further five WTO Members, namely Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia, Mongolia, Saudi Arabia and the Ukraine, have provisions regarding accession to the

Agreement in their respective Protocols of Accession to the WTO.

��

24


PRESS CLIPINGSaa aa

25

The Asian Age 2-12-10

The Indian Express 12-9-10

The Free Press Journal 11-12-10


PRESS CLIPINGSaa aa

26

Deccan Herald 29-12-10

Financial Chronicle 29-12-10

Business Standard 29-12-10


PRESS CLIPINGSaa aa

27

MINT 27-12-10


aa aaizsl fDyfiax

28

tulRrk 29&12&10


PRESS CLIPINGSaa aa

29

MINT 29-12-10

The Sentinel 21-12-10


PRESS CLIPINGSaa aa

30

DNA 2-12-10

The Economic Times 4-12-10


PRESS CLIPINGSaa aa

31

The Indian Express-3-11-10

India && The WTO

Published by

Ministry of Commerce & IndustryGovernment of India

Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011Telefax : 23063622, E-mail : [email protected]

EARLY CONCLUSION OF INDIA-EU FTA: ANAND SHARMA

Shri Anand Sharma, Union Minister of Commerce and Industry met with EU Trade Commissioner Mr. Karel de Gucht in Brussels on 29th November, 2010 to review India EU economic engagement and specifically take stock of the progress of India EU Broad Based Trade and Investment negotiations. Both Ministers expressed satisfaction on the status of on going negotiations and agreed on a roadmap which will enable early conclusion of negotiations. A joint Ministerial statement will be presented to the leaders at the India EU Summit to be held in Brussels on 10th December, 2010.

Shri Sharma expressed optimism for an early conclusion with balanced gains for both India and EU. Mr. Sharma and Mr. Karel de Gucht agreed that a conclusion of this agreement would send a strong message to the global community and would also give an impetus to the Doha round of WTO. Bilateral trade touching $70 billion last year and a conclusion of this agreement will catalyze greater trade and investment flows. Mr. Sharma observed that there has been a considerable enhancement in India's investments in EU and at the same time the Indian economy is ready to absorb much greater investment flows from Europe in all areas including infrastructure, energy, renewables and manufacturing.

During the meeting Shri Sharma raised the issue of consignments of Indian generics transiting through Europe. He said this have faced difficulties in the past in context of seizures by EU authorities. EU Trade Commissioner assured Mr Sharma that a solution will be found to the satisfaction of India, and the required statutory changes in European regulations would be made.

october - december, 2010 india the wto · october - december, 2010 shri anand sharma, union...

Documents