<\/p>\n
DS644<\/strong><\/a>:<\/strong>\u00a0India – Measures Concerning Trade in Goods in the Solar Cell, Solar Module, and Information Technology Sectors<\/strong><\/p>\n China submitted its first request for the establishment of a dispute panel to determine whether tariffs applied by India to certain imported high-tech goods, as well as certain incentive measures for solar energy products that China say are contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods, are consistent with India’s WTO commitments.<\/p>\n China said that consultations were held with India with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory solution but that they failed to resolve the dispute, prompting China’s request for the panel.\u00a0 <\/span>China said members should promote their technological and industrial development through cooperation consistent with WTO rules rather than through restrictive and discriminatory measures that disturb competitive opportunities, disrupt supply chains, increase uncertainties for businesses and operators, and negatively affect the healthy development of global renewable energy and technology sectors.<\/p>\n India said it regretted China’s request for a panel and that it was not in a position to accept the request. India noted that it engaged in extensive consultations with the view to reaching a mutually satisfactory resolution and was surprised China has not undertaken an actual consideration of the measures at issue, adding that it believes the measures in question are entirely consistent with WTO law.<\/p>\n India also said it was strange that, despite the importance of a responsible and diversified supply chain, a country that is estimated to control more than 80% of the global value chain for solar module production feels it necessary to take actions to stymie the legitimate growth of this industry in other countries.<\/p>\n The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter, should a requesting member wish to do so.<\/p>\n Colombia, speaking on behalf of 130 members, introduced for the 97th time the group’s proposal to start the selection processes for filling vacancies on the Appellate Body (AB). The extensive number of members submitting the proposal reflects a common interest in the functioning of the Appellate Body and, more generally, in the functioning of the WTO’s dispute settlement system, Colombia said.<\/span><\/p>\n The United States said that it does not support the proposed decision. The US reiterated that it has set out its fundamental concerns on WTO dispute settlement and that the proposal does not address those concerns. The US once again questioned the value of repeating this agenda item and said a more productive approach would be to introduce an item on dispute settlement reform that does not simply call for restoring an Appellate Body with all its fundamental problems.<\/span><\/p>\n Twenty-six members (including the EU-27) then took the floor and reiterated their support for the joint proposal and for the urgent need to restore a fully functioning dispute settlement system. Several members underscored the need for continued engagement on dispute settlement reform in Geneva following the 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14) in Yaound\u00e9 in late March.<\/span><\/p>\n Around a dozen members that took the floor encouraged others to consider taking part in the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), which provides the possibility of resorting to arbitration under\u00a0Article 25 of the Dispute Settlement<\/a> Understanding in case of an appeal in disputes between any two or more participating members. The list of current members of the MPIA is available \u0437\u0434\u0435\u0441\u044c<\/a>.<\/p>\n Colombia, on behalf of the 130 members, said it regretted that for the 97th occasion members have not been able to launch the selection processes. Ongoing conversations about reform of the dispute settlement system should not prevent the Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully, and members shall comply with their obligations under the Dispute Settlement Understanding to fill the vacancies as they arise, Colombia said for the group.<\/p>\n The new DSB Chair, Ambassador Patriota, made a statement on the dispute settlement reform talks<\/a>. He noted that at a meeting on 6-7 May the General Council Chair (and previous DSB Chair) encouraged members to engage, “when the time is right,” towards a fully and well-functioning dispute settlement system, a goal set out and reaffirmed at previous ministerial conferences.<\/p>\n Ambassador Patriota noted it was his duty as DSB Chair to seek members’ views on this important matter and that it was his intention to take stock of members’ current positions on the work done thus far, on how to resume dispute settlement reform discussions as soon as possible and on the basis for further work.<\/p>\n The Chair said that developments in the international trading environment since late 2024 may warrant renewed reflection on whether some of the elements explored in the earlier discussions still command convergence among members. The earlier discussions generated a certain number of options which would need to be reconfirmed and, if possible, narrowed down, he said. Against this backdrop, it may be useful to hear members’ views on whether aspects of the technical work previously undertaken could provide useful starting points for future engagement.<\/p>\n An informal plenary meeting dedicated to dispute settlement reform would be convened soon, with the idea of holding it immediately after the next DSB meeting on 23 June, the Chair said.<\/p>\n \u0421\u0428\u0410 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u0438\u043b\u0438 \u043e\u0442\u0447\u0435\u0442\u044b \u043e \u0441\u043e\u0441\u0442\u043e\u044f\u043d\u0438\u0438 \u0434\u0435\u043b \u0414\u0421184<\/a>, “US – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan”;\u00a0 \u0414\u0421160<\/a>, “United States – Section 110(5) of US Copyright Act”; \u0414\u0421464<\/a>, “United States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Large Residential Washers from Korea”; and \u0414\u0421471<\/a>, \u00ab\u0421\u043e\u0435\u0434\u0438\u043d\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0435 \u0428\u0442\u0430\u0442\u044b \u2013 \u043d\u0435\u043a\u043e\u0442\u043e\u0440\u044b\u0435 \u043c\u0435\u0442\u043e\u0434\u043e\u043b\u043e\u0433\u0438\u0438 \u0438 \u0438\u0445 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u043a \u0430\u043d\u0442\u0438\u0434\u0435\u043c\u043f\u0438\u043d\u0433\u043e\u0432\u044b\u043c \u0440\u0430\u0437\u0431\u0438\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0430\u043c \u0441 \u0443\u0447\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0438\u0435\u043c \u041a\u0438\u0442\u0430\u044f\u00bb.<\/p>\n The EU presented it status report with regard to \u0414\u0421600<\/a> “European Union and Certain Member States – Certain Measures Concerning Palm Oil and Oil Palm Crop-Based Biofuels”; \u0414\u0421291<\/a>, “EC – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products”; and\u00a0\u0414\u0421593<\/a>, \u00ab\u0415\u0432\u0440\u043e\u043f\u0435\u0439\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u0421\u043e\u044e\u0437 \u2013 \u041e\u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0435\u043b\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0435 \u043c\u0435\u0440\u044b \u0432 \u043e\u0442\u043d\u043e\u0448\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0438 \u043f\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043c\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043c\u0430\u0441\u043b\u0430 \u0438 \u0431\u0438\u043e\u0442\u043e\u043f\u043b\u0438\u0432\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u043e\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0435 \u043c\u0430\u0441\u043b\u0438\u0447\u043d\u044b\u0445 \u043f\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043c\u00bb.<\/p>\n \u0418\u043d\u0434\u043e\u043d\u0435\u0437\u0438\u044f \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u0438\u043b\u0430 \u0441\u0432\u043e\u0438 \u043e\u0442\u0447\u0435\u0442\u044b \u043e \u0441\u043e\u0441\u0442\u043e\u044f\u043d\u0438\u0438 \u0434\u0435\u043b \u0432 \u0414\u0421477<\/a> \u0438 \u0414\u0421478<\/a>, \u00ab\u0418\u043d\u0434\u043e\u043d\u0435\u0437\u0438\u044f \u2013 \u0418\u043c\u043f\u043e\u0440\u0442 \u0441\u0430\u0434\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0434\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0443\u043a\u0446\u0438\u0438, \u0436\u0438\u0432\u043e\u0442\u043d\u044b\u0445 \u0438 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0443\u043a\u0442\u043e\u0432 \u0436\u0438\u0432\u043e\u0442\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0438\u0441\u0445\u043e\u0436\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\u00bb.\u00a0<\/p>\n The next regular DSB meeting will take place on 23 June 2026.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n #WTO #News #items<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" DS644:\u00a0India – Measures Concerning Trade in Goods in the Solar Cell, Solar Module, and Information Technology Sectors China submitted its first request for the establishment of a dispute panel to determine whether tariffs applied by India to certain imported high-tech goods, as well as certain incentive measures for solar energy products that China say are […]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":7515,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7514","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-global-news"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nAppellate Body appointments proposal<\/h2>\n
Dispute settlement reform<\/h2>\n
\u041d\u0430\u0434\u0437\u043e\u0440 \u0437\u0430 \u0432\u044b\u043f\u043e\u043b\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435\u043c<\/h2>\n
\u0421\u043b\u0435\u0434\u0443\u044e\u0449\u0430\u044f \u0432\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0435\u0447\u0430<\/h2>\n