New Delhi: The United States has told the World Trade Organization (WTO) that its decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports was taken on national security basis, not as a safety measure, a significant difference that challenges India’s formal complaint earlier this month.
In a communication on 17 April, the US stated that tariffs were imposed under Section 232 of the US Trade Act, which authorizes the President to restrict imports that threatens to disturb national security. “The US note is that the basis of India’s request for consultation under Article 12.3 of the agreement on security measures on security measures is that tariff safety measures are there.” “The President imposed tariffs according to steel and aluminum for Section 232, under which the President determined that tariffs are required to adjust the imports of steel and aluminum articles that threaten to spoil the US national security.,
India received a reaction after requesting consultation with the US under the WTO agreement on security measures on 11 April. India has argued that the tariff, regardless of how the US labels them, is in safety measures, which come up with obvious obligations under the WTO rules, including formal information and counseling.
India said, “Despite the characterization of the USA about these measures as security measures, they are in essence safety measures,” India said, “accusing the US of failing to inform the WTO Committee under security measures (AOS) under security measures (AOS).”
In its north, the US stated that Section 232 is not a safety tool, but a national security law, and thus the security exception to the general agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT) 1994. This section allows the WTO members to take measures “necessary for safety of essential security interests”.
The US tariff on steel and aluminum, originally imposed in 2018, has faced long criticism and legal challenges from many countries. By preparing action under national security instead of safety measures, Washington aims to mold the move by investigation by WTO.
India’s move to initiate counseling gives a push to bring more transparency and accountability to such business measures. If the issue is not resolved through dialogue, India may explore the establishment of a dispute settlement panel in the WTO.
