India: Effects of Tariffs and Nontariff Measures on U.S. ... - USITC

transparent sanitary regulations that are based on a sound scientific basis <strong>and</strong> lower its
bound <strong>and</strong> applied tariff rates on pork.
The NPPC indicated that numerous requirements <strong>of</strong> <strong>India</strong>’s import permit system for
pork are not supported by science. These requirements include that the originating
country be free <strong>of</strong> diseases <strong>and</strong> parasites such as porcine reproductive <strong>and</strong> respiratory
syndrome (PRRS), anthrax, <strong>and</strong> trichinae. Another requirement is that the originating
country be free <strong>of</strong> high pathogenic avian influenza, although influenza is not spread
through the h<strong>and</strong>ling or consumption <strong>of</strong> pork. The NPPC noted that the permit system
requires plant-by-plant inspection <strong>of</strong> U.S. pork processors, rather than adhering to the
principle <strong>of</strong> equivalence required by the WTO SPS Agreement <strong>and</strong>, further, that the
import permit specifies feeding requirements, slaughter plant requirements, <strong>and</strong>
packaging material requirements that are not based on food safety.
Other requirements <strong>of</strong> <strong>India</strong>’s import permit system were reported to be vague <strong>and</strong>
nontransparent. Among these are the requirement that imported pork “not have any
residues <strong>of</strong> pesticides, drugs, mycotoxins, or chemicals above the maximum residue
limits (MRLs) prescribed internationally” 19 without specifying either the substances
subject to these requirements or the respective MRLs. The NPPC urged that these
requirements be replaced with MRLs based on a scientific assessment <strong>of</strong> risk.
The NPPC further noted that <strong>India</strong>’s bound tariff on pork is 100 percent, <strong>and</strong> its applied
tariff is 30 percent. A tariff rate <strong>of</strong> 30 percent is a significant barrier to imports. The
NPPC argues that one goal <strong>of</strong> the current WTO Doha Round negotiations should be the
lowering <strong>of</strong> <strong>India</strong>’s tariff on pork to below its current applied rate.
Northwest Fruit Exporters 20
In its written submission, the Northwest Fruit Exporters (NFE), a nonpr<strong>of</strong>it organization
that coordinates activities <strong>of</strong> growers, packers, <strong>and</strong> exporters <strong>of</strong> fresh apples <strong>and</strong> sweet
cherries in the Pacific Northwest, stated that the highly restrictive tariff on apples has
prevented the full development <strong>of</strong> the <strong>India</strong>n market for U.S. exporters. In addition to the
high tariff, the NFE noted that a number <strong>of</strong> additional national, state, <strong>and</strong> local taxes are
assessed on imports that may or may not be imposed on domestic products, further
restricting Pacific Northwest apple exports. The NFE explained that if the high tariff <strong>and</strong>
additional taxes were reduced, annual U.S. exports <strong>of</strong> apples to the <strong>India</strong>n market would
grow to approximately $50 million.
Northwest Horticulture Council 21
In its written submission, the Northwest Horticulture Council, which represents growers,
packers, <strong>and</strong> shippers in the Pacific Northwest on national <strong>and</strong> international policy issues,
stated that U.S. apple <strong>and</strong> pear exports to <strong>India</strong> are restricted by high tariffs that do little
to protect domestic producers. The council indicated that U.S. exports do not compete
directly with <strong>India</strong>n domestic production because U.S. apples <strong>and</strong> pears are differentiated
by their higher quality <strong>and</strong> a disparity in the season <strong>of</strong> fruit availability. The council
19 National Pork Producers Council, written submission to the USITC, June 25, 2009, 2.
20 Northwest Fruit Exporters, written submission to the USITC, June 22, 2009.
21 Northwest Horticulture Council, written submission to the USITC, June 24, 2009.
D-11