On January 11, 2010, India launched its national solar policy, the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (JNNSM).
Phase I of that national policy is composed of two parts: Batch 1 and Batch 2.
Under Batch 1, India required developers of solar photovoltaic (“PV”) projects employing crystalline silicon technology to use solar modules manufactured in India.
Subsequently, under Batch 2, India expanded this domestic sourcing requirement to crystalline silicon solar cells as well.
In its draft policy for Phase II of the JNNSM, India has stated that it is considering expanding the scope of the domestic content requirements further to include solar thin film technologies, which currently comprise the majority of U.S. solar exports to India.
India also offers solar energy developers participating in the JNNSM a guarantee that the government will purchase a certain amount of solar power at a highly subsidized tariff rate, provided that they use domestically manufactured solar equipment instead of imports.
Contentions of US's complaint against India
India's measures appear to be inconsistent with:
• Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 because the measures appear to provide less favorable
treatment to imported solar cells and solar modules than that accorded to like products
originating in India;
• Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement because the measures appear to be trade-related
investment measures inconsistent with Article III of the GATT 1994;
• Articles 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement because the measures appear to provide a
subsidy contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods; and
• Articles 5(c), 6.3(a), and 6.3(c) of the SCM Agreement because the measures appear to
cause serious prejudice to the interests of the United States through displacement or
impedance of imports of U.S. solar cells and solar modules into India and through lost
sales of U.S. solar cells and solar modules in India.
As India has not appropriately notified these measures, India appears to have failed to
comply with Article 25 of the SCM Agreement.
India's measures also appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to the United States
directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.
Phase I of that national policy is composed of two parts: Batch 1 and Batch 2.
Under Batch 1, India required developers of solar photovoltaic (“PV”) projects employing crystalline silicon technology to use solar modules manufactured in India.
Subsequently, under Batch 2, India expanded this domestic sourcing requirement to crystalline silicon solar cells as well.
In its draft policy for Phase II of the JNNSM, India has stated that it is considering expanding the scope of the domestic content requirements further to include solar thin film technologies, which currently comprise the majority of U.S. solar exports to India.
India also offers solar energy developers participating in the JNNSM a guarantee that the government will purchase a certain amount of solar power at a highly subsidized tariff rate, provided that they use domestically manufactured solar equipment instead of imports.
Contentions of US's complaint against India
India's measures appear to be inconsistent with:
• Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 because the measures appear to provide less favorable
treatment to imported solar cells and solar modules than that accorded to like products
originating in India;
• Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement because the measures appear to be trade-related
investment measures inconsistent with Article III of the GATT 1994;
• Articles 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement because the measures appear to provide a
subsidy contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods; and
• Articles 5(c), 6.3(a), and 6.3(c) of the SCM Agreement because the measures appear to
cause serious prejudice to the interests of the United States through displacement or
impedance of imports of U.S. solar cells and solar modules into India and through lost
sales of U.S. solar cells and solar modules in India.
As India has not appropriately notified these measures, India appears to have failed to
comply with Article 25 of the SCM Agreement.
India's measures also appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to the United States
directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.
