DISPUTE

SETTLEMENT
CIA 3B
ARGENTINA AND INDIA

GUDE PARIKSHITH
BBA F&IB B
1523613
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM IN WTO

Dispute settlement is the central pillar of the multilateral trading system, and the WTO’s unique
contribution to the stability of the global economy. Without a means of settling disputes, the rules-
based system would be less effective because the rules could not be enforced. The WTO’s
procedure underscores the rule of law, and it makes the trading system more secure and
predictable. The system is based on clearly-defined rules, with timetables for completing a case.
First rulings are made by a panel and endorsed (or rejected) by the WTO’s full membership.
Appeals based on points of law are possible.

However, the point is not to pass judgement. The priority is to settle disputes, through consultations
if possible. By January 2008, only about 136 of the nearly 369 cases had reached the full panel
process. Most of the rest have either been notified as settled “out of court” or remain in a prolonged
consultation phase — some since 1995.Disputes in the WTO are essentially about broken
promises. WTO members have agreed that if they believe fellow-members are violating trade
rules, they will use the multilateral system of settling disputes instead of taking action unilaterally.
That means abiding by the agreed procedures, and respecting judgements.

A dispute arises when one country adopts a trade policy measure or takes some action that one or
more fellow-WTO members considers to be breaking the WTO agreements, or to be a failure to
live up to obligations. A third group of countries can declare that they have an interest in the case
and enjoy some rights.

A procedure for settling disputes existed under the old GATT, but it had no fixed timetables,
rulings were easier to block, and many cases dragged on for a long time inconclusively. The
Uruguay Round agreement introduced a more structured process with more clearly defined stages
in the procedure. It introduced greater discipline for the length of time a case should take to be
settled, with flexible deadlines set in various stages of the procedure. The agreement emphasizes
that prompt settlement is essential if the WTO is to function effectively. It sets out in considerable
detail the procedures and the timetable to be followed in resolving disputes. If a case runs its full
course to a first ruling, it should not normally take more than about one year — 15 months if the
case is appealed. The agreed time limits are flexible, and if the case is considered urgent (e.g. if
perishable goods are involved), it is accelerated as much as possible.

The Uruguay Round agreement also made it impossible for the country losing a case to block the
adoption of the ruling. Under the previous GATT procedure, rulings could only be adopted by
consensus, meaning that a single objection could block the ruling. Now, rulings are automatically
adopted unless there is a consensus to reject a ruling — any country wanting to block a ruling has
to persuade all other WTO members (including its adversary in the case) to share its view.

Although much of the procedure does resemble a court or tribunal, the preferred solution is for the
countries concerned to discuss their problems and settle the dispute by themselves. The first stage
is therefore consultations between the governments concerned, and even when the case has
progressed to other stages, consultation and mediation are still always possible.

How long to settle a dispute?

These approximate periods for each stage of a dispute settlement procedure are target figures —
the agreement is flexible. In addition, the countries can settle their dispute themselves at any stage.
Totals are also approximate.

60 days Consultations, mediation, etc

45 days Panel set up and panellists appointed

6 months Final panel report to parties

3 weeks Final panel report to WTO members

 60 days Dispute Settlement Body adopts report (if
no appeal)

Total = 1 year (without appeal)

60-90 days Appeals report

30 days Dispute Settlement Body adopts appeals

report

Total = 1y 3m (with appeal)

If the courts find themselves handling an increasing number of criminal cases, does that mean law
and order is breaking down? Not necessarily. Sometimes it means that people have more faith in
the courts and the rule of law. They are turning to the courts instead of taking the law into their
own hands.

For the most part, that is what is happening in the WTO. No one likes to see countries quarrel. But
if there are going to be trade disputes anyway, it is healthier that the cases are handled according
to internationally agreed rules. There are strong grounds for arguing that the increasing number of
disputes is simply the result of expanding world trade and the stricter rules negotiated in the
Uruguay Round; and that the fact that more are coming to the WTO reflects a growing faith in the
system.

How are disputes settled?

Settling disputes is the responsibility of the Dispute Settlement Body (the General Council in
another guise), which consists of all WTO members. The Dispute Settlement Body has the sole
authority to establish “panels” of experts to consider the case, and to accept or reject the panels’
findings or the results of an appeal. It monitors the implementation of the rulings and
recommendations, and has the power to authorize retaliation when a country does not comply with
a ruling.

First stage: consultation (up to 60 days). Before taking any other actions the countries in dispute
have to talk to each other to see if they can settle their differences by themselves. If that fails, they
can also ask the WTO director-general to mediate or try to help in any other way.

Second stage: the panel (up to 45 days for a panel to be appointed, plus 6 months for the panel to
conclude). If consultations fail, the complaining country can ask for a panel to be appointed. The
country “in the dock” can block the creation of a panel once, but when the Dispute Settlement
Body meets for a second time, the appointment can no longer be blocked (unless there is a
consensus against appointing the panel).

Officially, the panel is helping the Dispute Settlement Body make rulings or recommendations.
But because the panel’s report can only be rejected by consensus in the Dispute Settlement Body,
its conclusions are difficult to overturn. The panel’s findings have to be based on the agreements
cited.The panel’s final report should normally be given to the parties to the dispute within six
months. In cases of urgency, including those concerning perishable goods, the deadline is
shortened to three months.

The agreement describes in some detail how the panels are to work. The main stages are:

Before the first hearing: each side in the dispute presents its case in writing to the panel.

First hearing: the case for the complaining country and defence: the complaining country (or
countries), the responding country, and those that have announced they have an interest in the
dispute, make their case at the panel’s first hearing.

Rebuttals: the countries involved submit written rebuttals and present oral arguments at the
panel’s second meeting.
Experts: if one side raises scientific or other technical matters, the panel may consult experts or
appoint an expert review group to prepare an advisory report.

First draft: the panel submits the descriptive (factual and argument) sections of its report to the
two sides, giving them two weeks to comment. This report does not include findings and
conclusions.

Interim report: The panel then submits an interim report, including its findings and conclusions,
to the two sides, giving them one week to ask for a review.

Review: The period of review must not exceed two weeks. During that time, the panel may hold
additional meetings with the two sides.

Final report: A final report is submitted to the two sides and three weeks later, it is circulated to
all WTO members. If the panel decides that the disputed trade measure does break a WTO
agreement or an obligation, it recommends that the measure be made to conform with WTO rules.
The panel may suggest how this could be done.

The report becomes a ruling: The report becomes the Dispute Settlement Body’s ruling or
recommendation within 60 days unless a consensus rejects it. Both sides can appeal the report (and
in some cases both sides do).

Panels
Panels are like tribunals. But unlike in a normal tribunal, the panellists are usually chosen in
consultation with the countries in dispute. Only if the two sides cannot agree does the WTO
director-general appoint them. Panels consist of three (possibly five) experts from different
countries who examine the evidence and decide who is right and who is wrong. The panel’s report
is passed to the Dispute Settlement Body, which can only reject the report by consensus.
Panelists for each case may be chosen from an indicative list of well-qualified candidates
nominated by WTO Members, although others may be considered as well, including those who
have formerly served as panelist. Panelists serve in their individual capacities. They cannot receive
instructions from any government. The indicative list is maintained by the Secretariat and
periodically revised according to any modifications or additions submitted by Members.

Appeals
Either side can appeal a panel’s ruling. Sometimes both sides do so. Appeals have to be based on
points of law such as legal interpretation — they cannot reexamine existing evidence or examine
new issues.

Each appeal is heard by three members of a permanent seven-member Appellate Body set up by
the Dispute Settlement Body and broadly representing the range of WTO membership. Members
of the Appellate Body have four-year terms. They have to be individuals with recognized standing
in the field of law and international trade, not affiliated with any government. The appeal can
uphold, modify or reverse the panel’s legal findings and conclusions. Normally appeals should not
last more than 60 days, with an absolute maximum of 90 days. The Dispute Settlement Body has
to accept or reject the appeals report within 30 days — and rejection is only possible by consensus.

The case has been decided: what next?

If a country has done something wrong, it should swiftly correct its fault. And if it continues to
break an agreement, it should offer compensation or face a suitable response that has some bite —
although this is not actually a punishment: it’s a “remedy”, the ultimate goal being for the country
to comply with the ruling.

The priority is for the losing “defendant” to bring its policy into line with the ruling or
recommendations, and it is given time to do this. The dispute settlement agreement stresses that
“prompt compliance with recommendations or rulings of the DSB [Dispute Settlement Body] is
essential in order to ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members”.
If the country that is the target of the complaint loses, it must follow the recommendations of the
panel report or the appeals report. It must state its intention to do so at a Dispute Settlement Body
meeting held within 30 days of the report’s adoption. If complying with the recommendation
immediately proves impractical, the member will be given a “reasonable period of time” to do so.
If it fails to act within this period, it has to enter into negotiations with the complaining country
(or countries) in order to determine mutually-acceptable compensation — for instance, tariff
reductions in areas of particular interest to the complaining side.

If after 20 days, no satisfactory compensation is agreed, the complaining side may ask the Dispute
Settlement Body for permission to retaliate (to “suspend concessions or other obligations”). This
is intended to be temporary, to encourage the other country to comply. It could for example take
the form of blocking imports by raising import duties on products from the other country above
agreed limits to levels so high that the imports are too expensive to sell — within certain limits.
The Dispute Settlement Body must authorize this within 30 days after the “reasonable period of
time” expires unless there is a consensus against the request.

In principle, the retaliation should be in the same sector as the dispute. If this is not practical or if
it would not be effective, it can be in a different sector of the same agreement. In turn, if this is not
effective or practicable and if the circumstances are serious enough, the action can be taken under
another agreement. The objective is to minimize the chances of actions spilling over into unrelated
sectors while at the same time allowing the actions to be effective.

In any case, the Dispute Settlement Body monitors how adopted rulings are implemented. Any
outstanding case remains on its agenda until the issue is resolved.
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM INDIA

International Dispute Settlement

India has been a founding member of both General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and
WTO and is strictly adhering to WTO rules while conducting international trade. When most of
the developing countries were diffident to approach Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to ascertain
their rights due to the huge expenses involved and lack of technical and related competence, India
from the beginning was an active user of the DSU at both the GATT and the WTO. In GATT
Disputes India was a frequent user of the GATT dispute settlement system. It got engaged in
disputes as early as 1948 (India – Tax rebates on exports, GATT/CP.2/SR.11) and filed its first
complaint against Pakistan at the GATT in 1952 on matter relating to export fees on Jute
(GATT/L/41). However, in the later case, the chairman of the contracting parties successfully
made the parties to agree on a basis for negotiation, which ultimately culminated in the signing of
a long term agreement on jute exports to India in the year 1953. Then after a long period of absence
from the scene, the country became actively engaged in GATT dispute settlement in the 1980s.
During that period, it brought four complaints against Japan, US and the European Communities
(EC) and answered two complaints brought against it by the US. Still, in the entire history of
GATT, i.e. from 1947 to 1994, only one panel report was adopted on August 24, 1948 involving
India. This happened in the India – Tax Rebates case, which was not only the first case in GATT
in which India was involved but also the first GATT case to deal with the reference in Art 1:1 to
Art III, paragraphs 2 and 4. In this case Pakistan initiated the dispute by complaining that India
violated Article 1:1 by denying tax rebates on exports to Pakistan. The Chairman while ruling in
Pakistan’s favour asserted that the most-favoured-nation (MFN) principle contained in Article 1:1
is applicable to any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity granted with respect to internal taxes.
In WTO Disputes India is one among the most active developing country users of the WTO dispute
settlement system. Cases brought by and against India are almost equal in numbers till date (as of
September 2010) given that it participated in the dispute settlement mechanism (DSM) 19 times
as complainant and 20 times as respondent. All the more it has participated as a third party in 63
disputes, thereby gaining useful experience in WTO dispute settlement as well as getting an
opportunity to influence the WTO jurisprudence in ways that protect its trade interests and
support its interpretation of the WTO rules. As a complainant, India had 7 cases under
consultations,
lost one case, obtained mutually agreed solutions in three cases, compliance proceeding completed
in two cases, authorisation to retaliate granted in one case, implementation notified by respondent
in 3 cases and in 2 cases mutually acceptable solution on implementation was reached.
As a respondent, out of 20, India won one case, lost 5 cases, got mutually agreed solutions in 6
cases and one case is suspended, while the rest are in limbo. Interestingly, a major chunk of the
disputes in which India was involved relates to challenges concerning measures restricting exports
of products like textiles & clothing, shrimps and steel, which are some of the country’s major
exports.

India has joined as Third Party in over 90 cases of the total 480 cases of the WTO since its
inception.

Under the Indian Free Trade Agreement, provisions relating to dispute settlement mechanism state
that the parties shall resolve dispute through consultations and negotiations failing which they may
resort to an arbitral panel, which shall consist of three members. Each party to the dispute shall
appoint a member and the third member who would be the Chair of the panel, shall be appointed
by mutual agreement.

Under the Chapter of Dispute Settlement Mechanism, the Parties shall resolve the disputes, if any,
through consultations and negotiations, failing which they may resort to an arbitral tribunal,
consisting of
three members. Each Party to the dispute shall appoint a member and the third member, who would
be the
Chair of the panel, shall be appointed by mutual agreement. The CECA provide for:
(i) reviewing the implementation and operation of the Agreement
(ii) consider any matters relating to the implementation of the Agreement
(iii) supervise and coordinate the work of all Sub-Committees established under this Agreement
(iv) adopt any decisions and recommendations of the Sub-Committees

Domestic Dispute Settlement

After Independence, Government of India passed the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, under which
machinery for the prevention and settlement of disputes has been outlined. These provisions are
as under:

(A) Machinery for Prevention of Industrial Disputes— Prevention is better than cure. The
Government has incorporated in the Act for preventing the disputes. The main purpose of such
measures is to prevent the disputes before they arise.
(B) Machinery for Settlement of Disputes—If-the dispute could not be prevented on
voluntary basis and do arise, the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 provides several provisions for
settling the disputes, such provisions arc:

(1) Conciliation Officer—'The appointment of conciliation officer is made by the State

Government for a particular region or industries in the state. The main duly of these officers is to
bring the two parties together and help them resolve their differences. They can do everything to
settle the dispute between the two parties amicably. He is bound to lake decision within 14 days
or such period as extended by the state Government from the date of registration of dispute. If the
dispute is settled through his good offers and an agreement is reached, he should send a report to
the government along with a memorandum of settlement' signed by the parties to the dispute. In
case, the dispute is not settled he should inform the Government about his failure, steps taken and
the reasons for not being successful.

(2) Conciliation Board—In case, the conciliation officer fails to resolve the dispute, the
Government appoints a board of conciliation on ad hoc basis for a particular dispute consisting of
a chairman and two to four persons representing the Employer and the employees lo bring the
parties to disputes to sit together and thrash out their differences as referred to by the Government.
The board reports the Government about the success or failure to bring about a settlement within
2 months from the date of reference of the dispute.
(3) Court of Inquiry—Whenever an industrial dispute remains unresolved by the conciliation
officer and the board of conciliation, the matter is referred to a court of inquiry. The court may
consist of one 01 more independent persons. It will investigate the whole dispute and submits its
report to the Government on the matters referred to it ordinarily within 6 months from the date of
commencement of inquiry.
If settlement is not arrived at by the efforts of the above machinery, a three-tier machinery for
compulsory adjudication is provided under the act. These are three types of semi-judicial bodies,
i.e., labour courts, industrial tribunals and National Tribunals.

(4) Labour Courts—Such courts have been set up by the state Governments to go into the
disputed orders of the employer’s dismissal, discharge and suspensions of employees by the
management, legality or otherwise of any order passed by an employer under the standing order,
withdrawal of any concession or privilege, legality or otherwise of any strike or lockout etc. These
courts will award decision and send report to the Government.

(5) Industrial Tribunals—The state Government has been empowered to appoint as many
industrial tribunals as it thinks proper, for the adjudication of disputes selecting to wages, hours of
work and rest, intervals, leave with pay, holidays, compensatory discipline, retrenchment, Closure
of establishment etc. The tribunal will consist of a person of rank of a high court judge. The
adjudication of these tribunals is binding on both the parties.

(6) National Tribunal—Such tribunals are set up by the Central Government for the
adjudication of industrial disputes which involves questions of national importance or which affect
industrial establishments situated in more than one state. It gives decisions on matters referred to
it by the Central Government. If any matter is referred to the National Tribunal by the Central
Government, the labour courts and industrial courts are barred from entertaining such disputes and
if any such dispute is pending before labour courts or tribunals, shall be deemed to be quashed.





DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM IN ARGENTINA

The Argentine Republic has a federalist government system: the country is divided into several
provinces and the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, which all have the power to approve their
own constitutions and legislate, within their territories, on matters not delegated to the National
Government. At the same time, the provinces have also granted certain specific powers to
municipalities. Provinces, the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires and municipalities establish their
own public procurement regulations. However, they are usually similar to those established at the
national level. As a general rule, the following legislation (jointly, the “Public Procurement
Regime”) applies, at the national level, to all procurement procedures:

(i) “Contracting Regime for the National Public Administration” (Régimen de

Contrataciones de la Administración Pública Nacional), approved by Executive Order
No. 1023/2001

(ii) “Rules of the Contracting Regime for the National Public Administration”
(Reglamento del Régimen de Contrataciones de la Administración Pública Nacional),
approved by Executive Order No. 1030/2016

(iii) The General Terms and Conditions, approved by National Contracting Office’s
Disposition No. 63/2016. Besides, a particular governmental contract is also regulated
by specific and ad hoc rules

(iv) The Specific Terms and Conditions

(v) The winning bidder’s offer

(vi) The governmental decision awarding the contract (adjudicación)

(vii) The terms of the contract or the purchase order.

In addition, the National Buy Regime (Law No. 25,551) applies to all public contracting
procedures, and obliges specific authorities and entities to, under certain conditions, grant
preference to the acquisition or hiring of national goods and services. The Public Procurement
Regime applies, as a general rule, to all types of contracts. However, there is specific legislation
for certain contracts, such as concession agreements (Law No. 17,520), public-private partnerships
(Law No. 27,328) and contracts for the construction of public works and infrastructure (Law No.
13,064). The Public Procurement Regime applies to the centralized and decentralized National
Public Administration –i.e., the Executive Power, Ministries, Secretariats, and other lower rank
offices, and regulatory agencies and other governmental entities–. It does not apply, in principle,
to state-owned companies –unless it is expressly stated in their bylaws or other specific legislation–
, non-state public entities, state trust funds, and any other agencies which is not included in the
centralized or decentralized National Public Administration Domestic dispute settlement.

Since the Argentine Republic has a federalist government system, there is a Federal Judiciary and
also a provincial Doing Business in judiciary for each of the several provinces and the Autonomous
City of Buenos Aires. The head of the Federal Judiciary is the Supreme Court of Justice. The
intervention of the Supreme Court of Justice is only reserved to exceptional federal cases. The
Supreme Court might deny certiorari at its sole discretion and without expressing cause. The lower
federal courts usually comprise a first instance court and a chamber of appeals (in some matters, a
Court of Cassation could also intervene). They are also separated in several territorial districts
across the country and according to their subject matters (e.g., criminal courts, civil and
commercial courts, administrative litigation courts). Provincial judiciaries tend to follow a similar
pattern. Federal subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, but when applicable parties may
waive territorial jurisdiction in favour of another federal court.

Procurement Procedures
All contracts, as a general rule, must be the result or consequence of a previous public bid, i.e., a
call for tenders open to the public. However, other procurement procedures, such as private bids
and even direct contracting, can be exceptionally implemented under specific circumstances Doing
Business in expressly regulated (e.g., amount of the purchase, urgency, existence of a single
provider, etc.). Foreign legal entities may contract with the Public Administration if they comply
with applicable rules and requirements set forth by the Public Procurement Regime. International
tenders allow the participation of bidders that have their principal place of business located abroad
or do not have branch registered in Argentina. Bidders can also use different associative contracts
(usually, joint ventures or cooperation consortiums), which have the advantage of integrating the
know-how and technical and financial capabilities of all of its members. The existence of this
associative contract may be proved together with the submission of the bid or even in a subsequent
stage, signing a commitment to execute it in case the award is finally issued. Foreign legal entities
that do not have a local presence in Argentina are not required to be registered at the Public
Administration’s providers database known as Suppliers’ Information System (“SIPRO”; Sistema
de Información de Proveedores), but only “pre-registered” at it –this is, they must have uploaded
their information to SIPRO without having to submit any documents to it–. However, some
exceptions may apply exempting them from “pre-registering” also. Foreign legal entities that do
not have a local presence in Argentina shall file documentation referred to the registration of the
company abroad, tax information, and documentation to prove the powers of its representatives.
Each document needs to be translated, notarized and apostilled.

Contractual Performance
Both parties have the rights and duties agreed upon under the specific contract. Additionally, the
contracting authority has the powers to (i) unilaterally increase or decrease up to 20% Doing
Business in the total amount of the contract; (ii) revoke, amend or replace the contract for reasons
of convenience; (iii) control and supervise the contract performance; and (iv) impose penalties.
The private party is required to perform the contract by itself and under all circumstances, even if
the contracting authority breaches its own obligations, unless performance becomes impossible. It
also has the right to be compensated for any disruptions of the economics of the contract so that
they remain the same as of the moment of execution. Conventional limitation of liability is not
allowed in administrative contracts.

Dispute Resolution Methods

At the national level, as a general rule, judicial disputes regarding public procurements must be
heard by the federal courts having jurisdiction over administrative law matters, unless the contract
is not a typical administrative contract, in which case the federal civil and commercial courts would
have jurisdiction over the matter. At the provincial level, these kinds of disputes are usually heard
by courts having jurisdiction over administrative law matters. An arbitration clause, usually agreed
to in contracts between private parties, has specific characteristics in public contracts. In this
regard, it will be valid to submit the controversy to arbitration only if a legal rule allows it.

Main Guidelines and Rules

Before filing for a lawsuit, there is a mandatory mediation procedure that must previously take
place; in case it does not lead to a settlement, parties may then file the complaint. Procedural rules
allow the plaintiff or the defendant to request in Court preliminary measures to obtain information
indispensable to the complaint or to secure evidence that could be destroyed or misplaced before
trial. In contrast to discovery, preliminary measures cannot be conducted privately by the parties
themselves, like in discovery. Therefore, a party is not obligated to answer a request for
information not made or ruled by the court. Upon filing the claim, the plaintiff must pay a ocurt
tax (3% of the amount claimed). The court tax may be recovered from the defendant if the plaintiff
succeeds in the lawsuit and the court orders the losing party to bear the legal fees and costs (the
latter is the rule under Procedural Rules). The complaint must be filed with the court and it must
contain, as a general rule, all documents and include all the non-documentary evidence to be
produced on which the plaintiff grounds the petition. Documents in foreign languages must be
translated into Spanish by an Argentine certified translator. Foreign plaintiffs non-domiciled in
Argentina may be requested to post a foreign plaintiff litigation bond. Under certain international
treaties signed by Argentina, residents of various foreign countries are exempted of it. When
foreign companies are being sued in Argentina, they should be served notice of the complaint, in
principle, in their corporate domicile. Therefore, the intervening judge should issue rogatory letters
for that purpose. Usually, the service of the complaint is conducted according to the provisions of
the Hague Conventions, especially the one of 15 November 1965 about Service Abroad of Judicial
and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. Parties may also agree to choice of
law and arbitration clauses unless they violate public policy. In case the arbitral tribunal issues a
favourable award, the awardee must initiate a judicial procedure to enforce it in local courts.
Trade Agreements

ALADI
Argentina is a founding member of the Association for Latin American Integration (ALADI-
Asociación Latinoamericana de Integración), which was created with the long-term goal of
establishing a Latin American Common Market. Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador,
Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela are also founding members; Cuba attained full
membership in 1999. Under the ALADI, member countries sign regional and bilateral agreements
that allow partial trade liberalization that can then be extended to other members. In the 25 years
since its creation, Argentina has signed several regional, multilateral and bilateral arrangements.

MERCOSUR

Argentina is a member of the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR- Mercado Común del
Sur), which entered into force in January 1991. MERCOSUR members originally included
Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and
Venezuela joined the pact as associate members. By 1995, about 75 percent of tariff categories
were included in the Common External Tariff (CET) and the remaining categories will be phased-
in by 2015. MERCOSUR represents 72 percent of the South American territory and 70 percent of
its population.
References
B. (2017). Doing Business in Argentina. Retrieved from https://www.bakermckenzie.com/-
/media/files/insight/publications/2017/04/bk_dbi_argentina_2017.pdf?la=en.

TB, S. (2017). India at Dispute Settlement Understanding. Retrieved from http://www.cuts-

citee.org/pdf/Trade_law_Brief10-India_at_Dispute_Settlement_Understanding.pdf

Trade wars and the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.forbesindia.com/blog/health/trade-wars-and-the-wto-dispute-settlement-mechanism/

Retrieved from https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm