Poultry Imports case

The verdict has finally come on the "India — Agricultural Products" case with US as complainant and India as the defendent.
Third Parties to the case are: China; Colombia; Ecuador; European Union; Guatemala; Japan; Vietnam; Argentina; Australia; Brazil 

Brief history of case:   

• India had banned imports of various agricultural products from the US in 2007, as a precautionary measure to prevent outbreaks of avian influenza in the country. 
• This dispute concerns India's import prohibition affecting certain agricultural products from countries reporting Notifiable Avian Influenza (NAI) to the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). 
•  This import prohibition is maintained through India's Avian Influenza (AI) measures, namely:
• the Livestock Importation Act 1898 as amended by the Livestock Importation (Amendment) Act 2001  
• Statutory Order (S.O.) 1663(E) issued by India's Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying, and Fisheries on 19 July 2011.

 India's stand:-

• India's main argument in response was that its AI measures “conform to” an international standard (OIE Terrestrial Code), pursuant to Article 3.2 of the SPS Agreement, and that consequently, compliance with other provisions of the SPS Agreement (including those requiring that SPS measures have a scientific foundation) and the GATT 1994 must be presumed. 
• India maintained that it was not under an obligation to provide to the Panel the scientific risk assessment conducted pursuant to Articles 5.1 and 5.2 for its AI measures
• India's AI measures were based on scientific principles and evidence in accordance with Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.

Judgment:-
India had claimed its import restrictions were justified by international rules on animal health, but the panel agreed with the United States and found that India's measures were not based on international standards and were discriminatory. Specifically the judgment said:-

• India's AI measures are inconsistent with Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement because they are not “based on” the relevant international standard. Furthermore, India's AI measures do not “conform to” the relevant international standard within the meaning of Article 3.2 of the SPS Agreement;
   
• India's AI measures are inconsistent with Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement because they are not based on a risk assessment;
   
• India's AI measures are inconsistent with Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement because they arbitrarily and unjustifiably discriminate between Members where identical or similar conditions prevail and are applied in a manner which constitutes a disguised restriction on international trade;
   
• India's AI measures are inconsistent with Articles 5.6 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement because they are significantly more trade-restrictive than required to achieve India's appropriate level of protection (ALOP) with respect to the products covered by Chapter 10.4 of the OIE Terrestrial Code, and therefore are also applied beyond the extent necessary to protect human and animal life or health;
   
• India's AI measures are inconsistent with Articles 6.2 and 6.1 of the SPS Agreement because they do not recognize the concept of disease-free areas and areas of low disease prevalence, and because they are not adapted to the SPS characteristics of these areas;
   
• India acted inconsistently with Article 7, Annex B(2) and Annex B(5)(a), (b) and (d) of the SPS Agreement because it failed to comply with a number of notification and publication requirements therein.

 
 After-effects:-
a) India can appeal the ruling within 60 days
b) The ruling could increase imports of poultry and eggs from the US