Ultimately, it went along expected lines.
India and a handful of other nations held trade dispute settlement consultations with the United States over its steel and aluminum tariffs in Geneva, but got absolutely no concession from the latter, according to reports coming out of the meetings.
India, Canada and Mexico confabulated with the U.S. on the issue of the latter imposing additional duties of 25% & 10% on steel and aluminum imports.
Earlier this month, China, Norway and the European Union also held similar talks with the U.S., under the aegis of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Geneva. Almost all such disputes are held under Article 4 dispute settlement consultations. MetalMiner previously reported about the Geneva meeting and its attempt to try and break the trade tariff imbroglio.
The U.S., as many had expected, stuck to its guns that no law required it to provide any reason for the Section 232 measures on steel and aluminum, since they remain “sovereign determinations” that fall under Article 21 of the GATT 1994, according to media reports.
Apparently, in an earlier meeting, the U.S. told the representative of another country in such a meeting that Section 232 revolved around issues of national security, and was thus not available for review or capable of resolution by WTO dispute settlement.
Representatives of India and other nations raised several questions around the proposed tariffs. They claimed the additional duties constituted a “disguised safeguard” measure, as the U.S. Department of Defense had said that there was no threat to the country’s national security from steel and aluminum imports.
The U.S. delegation, on the other hand, maintained it was unable to share the reasons for the decisions under the Section 232 provisions. Delegates also wondered how countries such as Australia, Brazil, Korea and Argentina had been exempted from similar additional duties, and why these imports did not pose a national security threat to the U.S.
Clearly, unable to get much from the U.S. at this meeting, the only recourse the six nations may have is to approach the WTO with a request to establish a disputes settlement panel to rule against the U.S. measures.
In March this year, the U.S. had also launched a challenge at the WTO against India’s export subsidies, arguing the programs give Indian companies an unfair advantage. The U.S. claimed these export subsidy programs harmed American workers by creating an uneven playing field on which they must compete.