↑
International Trade Law
Topics Covered: Origin & Evolution of GATT & WTO · WTO Dispute Settlement · Non-Discrimination Principles (MFN & National Treatment) · Subsidies & Countervailing Measures · Dumping & Anti-Dumping Duties · GATS, TRIMs & TRIPS · Export Trade & International Contracts (CIF, FOB, FAS) · Letters of Credit · Bills of Lading & Carriage of Goods
📋 Table of Contents
- Origin and Evolution of GATT & WTO
- Dispute Settlement under GATT and WTO
- Principles of Non-Discrimination
- Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
- Dumping and Anti-Dumping Duties
- Services, Investment and Intellectual Property (GATS, TRIMs, TRIPS)
- Export Trade and International Commercial Contracts
- Payments in International Trade — Letters of Credit
- Carriage of Goods — Bills of Lading
- 📝 Important Exam Questions
- ⚡ Quick Revision Summary
1. Origin and Evolution of GATT & WTO
1.1 Background — Protectionism and the Need for Free Trade
After World War II, the international community recognised that the beggar-thy-neighbour protectionist policies (tariffs, quotas, currency manipulation) of the inter-war period had fuelled economic collapse and contributed to the war itself. The response was to create a new multilateral trading framework.
Theories underpinning free trade:
- Comparative Advantage (Ricardo): Countries benefit by specialising in what they produce most efficiently and trading for the rest
- Absolute Advantage (Adam Smith): Countries export goods they can produce at lower absolute cost
- Arguments for protectionism: Infant industry protection, national security, revenue generation, employment protection — these are recognised as exceptions under WTO law (Articles XIX, XX, XXI GATT)
1.2 The Havana Charter and Birth of GATT 1947
In 1944, Bretton Woods established the IMF and World Bank. Plans were made for a third institution — the International Trade Organisation (ITO) — to complete the Bretton Woods trinity. In 1947, 23 countries signed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) as an interim measure pending the ITO’s establishment. However, the US Senate refused to ratify the Havana Charter creating the ITO, so GATT became the de facto framework for international trade law for nearly 50 years.
• A multilateral trade agreement (not a formal international organisation)
• Governed by “contracting parties” — not members
• Focused on trade in goods; tariff reductions through successive rounds
• No formal dispute settlement — relied on diplomatic negotiation
• “Provisional application” — applied without formal ratification
• No binding enforcement mechanism
1.3 GATT Negotiating Rounds
| Round | Year | Location | Key Achievements |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Round | 1947 | Geneva | Signing of GATT; initial tariff concessions |
| 2nd Round | 1949 | Annecy | Tariff reductions |
| 3rd Round | 1950-51 | Torquay | Tariff reductions; Germany’s accession |
| 4th Round | 1956 | Geneva | Tariff reductions |
| Dillon Round | 1960-61 | Geneva | Tariff reductions following EEC formation |
| Kennedy Round | 1962-67 | Geneva | 50% tariff cuts; Anti-Dumping Code introduced |
| Tokyo Round | 1973-79 | Geneva | Non-tariff barriers addressed; plurilateral codes |
| Uruguay Round | 1986-94 | Geneva/Marrakesh | Creation of WTO; GATS, TRIPS, DSU, Agriculture |
1.4 Uruguay Round and WTO (1994)
The Uruguay Round (1986-1994) was the most ambitious round of trade negotiations in history. It resulted in the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, which came into force on 1 January 1995. The WTO subsumed GATT and expanded the multilateral trade regime significantly.
| Basis | GATT 1947 | WTO 1995 |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Status | An Agreement (not an organisation) | Formal International Organisation with legal personality |
| Members | “Contracting Parties” | “Members” — 164 as of 2022 |
| Coverage | Trade in goods only | Goods (GATT), Services (GATS), Intellectual Property (TRIPS), Investment (TRIMs) |
| Dispute Settlement | Diplomatic; any party could block panel reports | Compulsory, time-bound; Appellate Body; reports adopted unless consensus to reject (negative consensus) |
| Application | “Provisional” — legally uncertain | Permanent; formal treaty obligations |
| Transparency | Limited | Enhanced through notification and review requirements |
| Agriculture | Largely excluded | Covered under Agreement on Agriculture |
1.5 Objectives, Structure and Functions of WTO
Raising standards of living and ensuring full employment; expanding production of and trade in goods and services; optimal use of world’s resources for sustainable development; special and differential treatment for developing countries and least-developed countries.
Principal Organs of the WTO:
- Ministerial Conference: Highest decision-making body; meets every 2 years; has authority to take decisions on all WTO matters
- General Council: Conducts business between Ministerial Conferences; also functions as DSB and TPRB
- Dispute Settlement Body (DSB): Administers dispute settlement rules and procedures
- Trade Policy Review Body (TPRB): Reviews trade policies of members
- Council for Trade in Goods: Oversees implementation of GATT and related agreements
- Council for GATS: Oversees trade in services
- Council for TRIPS: Oversees intellectual property issues
- Committees and Working Groups: On specific topics (Agriculture, SPS, TBT, etc.)
- Secretariat: Headed by Director-General; provides administrative and technical support
Decision-Making: WTO operates primarily by consensus. Voting is available but rarely used. One member, one vote. Decisions on amendments, waivers, and accessions follow specific Article procedures.
2. WTO Dispute Settlement System (DSU)
The WTO Dispute Settlement System is widely regarded as the “jewel in the crown” of the WTO — the most sophisticated international dispute resolution mechanism in existence. It replaced the GATT system where panel reports could be blocked by any party (including the losing party).
The dispute settlement system of the WTO is a central element in providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. The Members recognise that it serves to preserve the rights and obligations of Members under the covered agreements and to clarify the existing provisions of those agreements in accordance with customary rules of interpretation of public international law.
2.1 Stages of WTO Dispute Settlement
- Consultations (Article 4 DSU): A member must first request consultations with the respondent. Mandatory 60-day consultation period (20 days for urgent/perishable goods cases). If no satisfactory solution within 60 days, complainant may request panel.
- Good Offices, Conciliation and Mediation (Art. 5): Available at any time if parties agree.
- Panel Establishment (Art. 6): DSB establishes panel on second request. Panel of 3 (exceptionally 5) experts. Panel chosen from WTO’s indicative list; parties may object to panelists.
- Panel Process (Arts. 12-13): Written submissions, rebuttals, panel meetings with parties, expert consultation. Panel report within 6 months (3 for urgency). Panel report circulated to members.
- Adoption of Panel Report (Art. 16): Adopted by DSB within 60 days unless appealed or DSB decides by consensus not to adopt (negative consensus — virtually impossible to block).
- Appellate Body (Art. 17): Either party may appeal on questions of law only. AB has 7 members (3 per case). 60-90 day process. AB report adopted by DSB.
- Implementation (Art. 21): Respondent must implement within reasonable period of time (usually up to 15 months). DSB monitors implementation.
- Compensation and Suspension of Concessions (Art. 22): If implementation fails, complainant may seek compensation (agreement) or request DSB authorisation to suspend concessions (retaliation). Retaliation must be equivalent in value.
Since 2019, the Appellate Body has been non-functional because the US has blocked the appointment of new AB members (currently 0 out of 7). This is a major constitutional crisis for the WTO. Members have developed alternative arrangements (Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement — MPIA) as a workaround.
Facts: The EC gave preferential tariff quotas to ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) country bananas over Latin American bananas (mainly produced by US companies). Latin American countries and the US challenged this as violating MFN and other GATT provisions.
Held: The WTO Appellate Body found the EC’s import regime inconsistent with GATT and GATS obligations. The EC was required to bring its regime into conformity. The case went through multiple compliance panels and arbitrations over several years, illustrating the difficulty of enforcement against major WTO members.
3. Principles of Non-Discrimination in GATT & WTO
Non-discrimination is the cornerstone of the WTO system, embodied in two principles: Most Favoured Nation (MFN) and National Treatment (NT). Together, they prevent discrimination between foreign products and between foreign and domestic products.
3.1 Most Favoured Nation Treatment — Article I GATT
“With respect to customs duties and charges of any kind imposed on or in connection with importation or exportation… any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity granted by any contracting party to any product originating in or destined for any other country shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the like product originating in or destined for the territories of all other contracting parties.”
Key elements of the MFN obligation:
- “Advantage, favour, privilege or immunity”: Very broad — any benefit must be extended to all members
- “Immediately and unconditionally”: Cannot be made conditional on reciprocity from the receiving country
- “Like product”: The comparator is the “like product” — determined by physical characteristics, end-uses, consumer preferences, and tariff classification
- Applies to: Customs duties, charges, levies, administrative requirements, and anything affecting the competitive relationship between imported products
Exceptions to MFN:
- Customs Unions and Free Trade Areas (Art. XXIV): Preferential tariffs within RTAs allowed if they cover substantially all trade and do not raise external barriers
- Generalised System of Preferences (GSP): Developed countries may grant preferential tariffs to developing countries under the 1971 Waiver and 1979 Enabling Clause
- Article XX: General exceptions (health, environment, public morals, etc.)
- Article XXI: Security exceptions
- GATS Annex on MFN Exemptions: Countries could list specific exemptions when GATS was adopted
3.2 National Treatment — Article III GATT
The contracting parties recognise that internal taxes and other internal charges, and laws, regulations and requirements affecting the internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use of products… should not be applied to imported or domestic products so as to afford protection to domestic production.
National Treatment prohibits discrimination between imported and “like” domestic products after entry. It applies to:
- Internal taxes and charges (Art. III:2)
- Regulatory measures: laws, regulations, requirements affecting internal sale, distribution, etc. (Art. III:4)
- The key question is whether imported products are treated “no less favourably” than like domestic products
“Like product” test under NT: The AB has emphasised that likeness is a “marketplace” question — looking at physical characteristics, end-uses, consumer tastes and habits, and tariff classification. The competitive relationship between the products is central.
Facts: Japan taxed shochu (domestic spirit) at much lower rates than imported spirits like vodka, whisky, gin. Complainants (EU, Canada, US) argued this violated Art. III:2 because shochu and the imported spirits were “like products” or at least “directly competitive or substitutable.”
Held: Shochu and vodka are “like products” under Art. III:2 first sentence — Japan’s differential taxation violated NT. Shochu, whisky, brandy, cognac, etc. are at minimum “directly competitive or substitutable products” under Art. III:2 second sentence, and Japan’s tax structure protected domestic production.
Facts: India required automotive manufacturers to use a minimum percentage of locally sourced parts (local content requirement) as a condition of import licences for automotive parts. US and EU challenged this under Art. III:4 GATT and TRIMs Agreement.
Held: India’s local content requirement violated Art. III:4 GATT (national treatment — less favourable treatment of imported parts) and was also inconsistent with the TRIMs Agreement (which prohibits local content requirements). India could not justify the measure under Art. XX exceptions.
Facts: The EU banned the import and marketing of seal products (primarily from Canada and Norway) on the ground of public morals (animal welfare concerns). Exceptions were made for seal products from hunts by indigenous communities (IC exception).
Held: The AB found the EU measure violated Art. I:1 (MFN) and Art. III:4 (NT) because the IC exception was not evenly applied to all countries with indigenous communities (Norway’s indigenous hunts were not exempt). However, the measure was found to be provisionally justified under Art. XX(a) (public morals). The IC exception failed the Art. XX chapeau test (arbitrary discrimination).
3.3 Exceptions — Article XX General Exceptions
Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on international trade, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any contracting party of measures:
(a) necessary to protect public morals;
(b) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health;
(d) necessary to secure compliance with laws or regulations;
(g) relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources if such measures are made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption.
4. Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement)
4.1 Definition of Subsidy
A subsidy shall be deemed to exist if: (a)(1) there is a financial contribution by a government or public body… i.e. where a government practice involves a direct transfer of funds (e.g. grants, loans, equity infusion), potential direct transfers of funds or liabilities (e.g. loan guarantees); government revenue otherwise due is foregone or not collected (e.g. fiscal incentives such as tax credits); a government provides goods or services other than general infrastructure; OR a government makes payments to a funding mechanism…; AND (b) a benefit is thereby conferred.
Three elements for a subsidy to exist:
- A financial contribution or income/price support
- By a government or public body
- Conferring a benefit on the recipient (benefit = the recipient is better off than without the subsidy)
4.2 Specificity
Only specific subsidies are subject to the disciplines of the SCM Agreement. Specificity means the subsidy is targeted at a specific enterprise, industry, group of enterprises, or region, rather than being broadly available. Types of specificity:
- Enterprise-specific: Subsidy limited to a particular enterprise
- Industry-specific: Subsidy limited to certain sectors
- Regional: Subsidy limited to enterprises in a designated geographic region
- De jure specificity: Explicit limitation in law or regulation
- De facto specificity: In practice, only certain enterprises use the subsidy despite formal availability
4.3 Types of Subsidies under SCM Agreement
| Type | Description | Challenge Available? |
|---|---|---|
| Prohibited (Red Box) | Export subsidies (contingent on export performance) and Local content subsidies (contingent on use of domestic over imported goods) | Yes — per se violation; no need to prove adverse effects; automatic remedy (withdraw within 90 days) |
| Actionable (Yellow Box) | Specific subsidies causing adverse effects (injury, nullification/impairment, or serious prejudice to another member’s interests) | Yes — but must prove adverse effects |
| Non-Actionable (Green Box) | Non-specific subsidies; R&D assistance; regional development subsidies; environmental adaptation — but this category lapsed in 2000 and is no longer operative | Not challengeable (but category effectively defunct) |
Facts: The US imposed countervailing duties (CVDs) on imports of Indian hot-rolled carbon steel flat products, alleging Indian government subsidies. India challenged the US methodology for determining benefit and specificity.
Held: The AB upheld some US findings but rejected the US’s benchmarks for calculating benefit, particularly finding that the US erred in not using Indian government loan rates as a legitimate benchmark. The AB also found errors in the US’s specificity determination. India partially succeeded.
5. Dumping and Anti-Dumping Duties
5.1 What is Dumping — Article VI GATT
Dumping occurs when products of one country are introduced into the commerce of another country at less than the normal value of the products, i.e. when the price of the product exported from one country to another is less than the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like product when destined for consumption in the exporting country.
Three ways to establish “normal value” (Anti-Dumping Agreement Art. 2):
- Home market price: Price of like product in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic market of the exporting country (primary method)
- Third country price: Price of like product sold for export to an appropriate third country (if home market sales are below cost or insufficient)
- Constructed value: Cost of production + reasonable amounts for administrative, selling and general costs + profit
Dumping Margin: Normal Value minus Export Price. If positive, dumping exists. Anti-dumping duties cannot exceed the dumping margin.
5.2 Anti-Dumping Investigation
Three conditions must be met to impose anti-dumping (AD) measures:
- Dumping: The product is being dumped (NV > EP)
- Material Injury (or threat thereof): The domestic industry is suffering material injury, or there is a threat of material injury, or material retardation of establishment of a domestic industry
- Causal Link: The dumped imports are causing the material injury
Investigation procedure: Must be initiated on written application by domestic industry. Sufficient evidence required. Must notify exporting country’s government. Investigation typically takes 1 year (max 18 months). Right of all interested parties to present evidence and submit comments.
5.3 Anti-Dumping Measures
- Provisional measures: Preliminary duties imposed for up to 4 months pending final determination
- Price undertakings: Exporters may revise prices voluntarily — if accepted, investigation suspended
- Definitive anti-dumping duties: Imposed for maximum 5 years, subject to Sunset Review
- Sunset Review: Must be reviewed within 5 years — duties continue only if their expiry would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury
Facts: Anti-dumping investigation by India’s Designated Authority against Korean exporters of polybutadiene rubber. Exporter challenged the determination of dumping margin and injury.
Held: The Supreme Court held that Designated Authority’s calculations were consistent with Indian anti-dumping rules and WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. Courts must exercise judicial restraint in reviewing technical trade remedy determinations; they are not de novo tribunals.
Facts: Anti-dumping duty was imposed on imports of dry cell batteries from China. Eveready challenged the final findings of the Designated Authority and the consequent customs notification.
Held: The Delhi High Court upheld the anti-dumping investigation procedure. The Court clarified that once the Designated Authority makes its recommendation, the Central Government has discretion whether to impose duties — it is not bound to impose duties equal to the full dumping margin.
6. Services, Investment and Intellectual Property (GATS, TRIMs, TRIPS)
6.1 General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)
Mode 1 — Cross-border supply: Service supplied from the territory of one Member into the territory of another (e.g., banking services provided online)
Mode 2 — Consumption abroad: Consumer travels to the country of the supplier (e.g., medical tourism, education abroad)
Mode 3 — Commercial presence: Service supplier of one Member establishes commercial presence in another Member’s territory (e.g., foreign bank subsidiary)
Mode 4 — Presence of natural persons: Service supplier is a natural person who enters another Member’s territory to supply the service (e.g., IT professionals, doctors)
GATS obligations:
- General obligations (apply to all services): MFN (Art. II), transparency (Art. III), domestic regulation (Art. VI)
- Specific commitments (apply only to sectors scheduled by each Member): Market access (Art. XVI) — no restrictions on number of suppliers, total value of transactions, total operations, total number of natural persons, types of legal entity; National treatment (Art. XVII) — no less favourable treatment than domestic services
- Members schedule sectors they open; all others remain uncommitted
6.2 Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs Agreement)
The TRIMs Agreement prohibits investment measures that are inconsistent with GATT Art. III (national treatment) or Art. XI (elimination of quantitative restrictions). The Illustrative List annexed to TRIMs Agreement includes: local content requirements (must use domestic goods), trade balancing requirements (imports tied to export volume), foreign exchange balancing requirements, domestic sales requirements.
6.3 Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement)
TRIPS is the most comprehensive multilateral agreement on intellectual property. Key features:
- Sets minimum standards for: copyright, trademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs, patents, layout-designs of integrated circuits, undisclosed information, and anti-competitive licensing practices
- Applies MFN and national treatment to IP protection
- 20-year patent protection; 10-year trademark registration; life + 50 years for copyright
- Compulsory licensing (Art. 31): Permitted for public health emergencies (clarified by Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, 2001)
- Enforcement obligations — civil and criminal remedies must be available
Facts: India’s National Solar Mission required solar power developers to use domestically manufactured solar cells and modules (local content requirement). The US challenged this under GATT Art. III:4 and the TRIMs Agreement.
Held: The AB found India’s domestic content requirements violated GATT Art. III:4 (national treatment) and the TRIMs Agreement. India’s attempt to justify the measure under Art. XX(j) (essential products) and Art. XX(d) was rejected. India was required to bring the measure into conformity.
7. Export Trade Transactions and International Commercial Contracts
7.1 Standard Trade Terms — INCOTERMS
INCOTERMS (International Commercial Terms) are standardised trade terms published by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). They allocate costs, risks and duties between buyer and seller in international sales contracts. The latest version is INCOTERMS 2020.
| Term | Full Form | Risk Transfer Point | Seller’s Obligations | Buyer’s Obligations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FOB | Free on Board (named port of shipment) | When goods pass ship’s rail at port of loading | Deliver to ship, clear for export, pay loading costs | Pay freight, insurance, all costs from ship’s rail |
| CIF | Cost, Insurance and Freight (named port of destination) | When goods pass ship’s rail at port of loading (same as FOB) | Pay freight + arrange minimum marine insurance + costs to destination port | Pay costs upon arrival; accept documents without inspecting goods |
| FAS | Free Alongside Ship (named port of shipment) | When goods are placed alongside the vessel | Deliver goods alongside vessel; clear for export | Bear all risks and costs from alongside ship; arrange loading |
A common exam mistake: under CIF, the seller pays freight and insurance to the destination port, but risk passes to the buyer when goods cross the ship’s rail at the loading port — not at the destination. The seller insures on buyer’s behalf. The buyer takes risk during transit but the seller pays for it.
Rajesh, a Mumbai exporter, agrees to sell 100 tons of cotton to Klaus in Hamburg on CIF terms. Rajesh arranges shipping from Mumbai to Hamburg and takes out marine insurance. The goods are damaged when the ship sinks in the Arabian Sea. Although Rajesh is responsible for freight and insurance, risk passed to Klaus when the goods were loaded onto the ship in Mumbai. Klaus can claim under the insurance policy. Rajesh must tender the shipping documents (bill of lading, insurance policy, invoice) — Klaus cannot refuse simply because the goods are damaged.
Facts: Goods were shipped under a bill of lading. The consignee alleged short delivery and claimed damages from the carrier. The question was whether the carrier was liable and the limitation period under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the one-year limitation period under the Hague Rules applies to claims against the carrier under a bill of lading. The consignee bears the burden of proving short delivery.
8. Payments in International Trade
8.1 Bills of Exchange
A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person (drawer) to another (drawee), signed by the person giving it (drawer), requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to bearer (Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 5).
Parties: Drawer (exporter/seller) · Drawee (importer/buyer — before acceptance) · Acceptor (after acceptance) · Payee · Endorser · Holder in due course
Types: Sight draft (payable on presentation) · Usance/Time draft (payable after a fixed period)
8.2 Letter of Credit (Documentary Credit)
A Letter of Credit (LC) is a written commitment by a bank (issuing bank) at the request and on the instructions of a customer (applicant/importer), to pay or accept bills of exchange drawn by the seller (beneficiary), provided the beneficiary presents documents strictly complying with the terms and conditions specified in the LC.
Parties to an LC:
- Applicant: The buyer/importer who requests the bank to open the LC
- Issuing Bank: The buyer’s bank that opens the LC and undertakes to pay the seller
- Beneficiary: The seller/exporter in whose favour the LC is opened
- Advising Bank: The seller’s bank that advises (notifies) the beneficiary of the LC’s opening
- Confirming Bank: A bank (usually in the seller’s country) that adds its own undertaking to pay — guaranteeing the LC even if the issuing bank defaults
- Negotiating Bank: A bank that purchases the documents and bills of exchange from the beneficiary
| Type | Description |
|---|---|
| Revocable LC | Can be amended or cancelled by the issuing bank without notice to the beneficiary (rarely used; UCP 600 treats all LCs as irrevocable unless stated otherwise) |
| Irrevocable LC | Cannot be amended or cancelled without consent of all parties — the standard LC |
| Confirmed LC | A second bank (confirming bank) adds its guarantee — seller has two bank undertakings |
| Transferable LC | Allows the beneficiary to transfer all or part of the credit to another beneficiary |
| Back-to-Back LC | A new LC opened by the beneficiary of the first LC (middleman) using the first LC as security |
| Standby LC | Functions as a guarantee — only called upon if the applicant defaults |
| Red Clause LC | Allows advance payment to the beneficiary before shipment |
UCP 600 (Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, 2007) issued by the ICC governs LCs. Key principles:
1. Principle of Independence/Autonomy: An LC is a separate transaction from the underlying contract of sale. Banks deal in documents, not goods. The bank’s obligation is not affected by disputes between buyer and seller on the underlying contract.
2. Principle of Strict Compliance: Banks must examine documents with care to ascertain whether they comply strictly with the terms of the LC. A document with even a minor discrepancy can be rejected.
3. Fraud Exception: An LC may not be enforced if the demand is tainted by egregious fraud — the only major exception to the autonomy principle.
9. Carriage of Goods — Bills of Lading
A bill of lading is a receipt given by the carrier to the shipper for goods received for carriage; it is a document of title to the goods; and it is evidence of the contract of carriage. It is one of the most important documents in international trade.
Three functions of a Bill of Lading:
- Receipt for goods: Acknowledges that the carrier has received the goods in the condition stated
- Document of title: Whoever holds the bill of lading (or endorsee) is entitled to possession of the goods — this makes it a negotiable document of title
- Evidence of contract of carriage: Sets out the terms on which goods will be carried (though the actual contract may be the charter party)
Types of Bills of Lading:
- Straight (non-negotiable): Consigned to a named person — cannot be transferred by endorsement
- To Order (negotiable): Consigned “to order” or “to order of [party]” — transferable by endorsement; most common in trade finance
- Bearer Bill: Payable to bearer — transferable by delivery alone
- Claused/Dirty: Contains reservations about the condition of goods received
- Clean: No adverse notations — required by most LCs
- Through Bill of Lading: Covers carriage by multiple modes of transport
The Hague/Hague-Visby Rules: The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to Bills of Lading (Hague Rules 1924, as amended by Visby Protocol 1968) sets minimum liability standards for carriers:
- Carrier’s fundamental duties: seaworthy ship; properly man, equip and supply; make holds fit and safe for goods
- Carrier’s immunities (Hague Rules Art. IV, Rule 2): Act of God, act of war, act of public enemies, management of ship, fire (unless carrier’s fault), nautical fault of master/crew
- Package limitation: Carrier’s liability limited to 666.67 SDR per package or 2 SDR per kg
- Time bar: 1 year from delivery or date of delivery
Facts: Cargo (earth-moving equipment) was damaged during sea transit. The consignee claimed damages from the carrier under the bill of lading. The carrier invoked the “nautical fault” immunity under the Hague Rules.
Held: The Supreme Court examined whether the damage was caused by nautical fault (navigational error) or cargo fault (improper stowage). The carrier was held not liable as the damage arose from an error in navigation — a recognised immunity under the Hague Rules.
📝 Important Questions for Exam
A. Short Answer Questions (2–5 Marks)
- What is the “negative consensus” rule in WTO dispute settlement?
- Distinguish between MFN and National Treatment under GATT.
- What is the difference between a prohibited subsidy and an actionable subsidy under the SCM Agreement?
- Define dumping under GATT Article VI. How is the dumping margin calculated?
- What are the four modes of supply under GATS?
- What is the “specialty” principle in extradition? (Distinguish from WTO speciality.)
- What is the “strict compliance” principle in letters of credit?
- State the three functions of a bill of lading.
- What is the difference between a clean and a claused bill of lading?
- What is the significance of UCP 600 in international trade?
- What are INCOTERMS? Give two examples and explain the difference between CIF and FOB.
- What is the “sunset review” of anti-dumping duties?
- What is a local content requirement and why is it inconsistent with WTO law?
- What is the “like product” test under Article III GATT?
- What is the role of the WTO Appellate Body? Why is it currently non-functional?
B. Long Answer / Essay Questions (10–15 Marks)
- Trace the historical development of GATT and the establishment of the WTO. How does the WTO differ from GATT 1947?
- Discuss the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism in detail. Critically evaluate its effectiveness and the current Appellate Body crisis.
- Explain the Most Favoured Nation principle under GATT Article I. What are the exceptions to MFN? Illustrate with WTO decisions.
- Discuss the National Treatment obligation under GATT Article III with reference to the Japan — Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages case (1996).
- What is dumping? Explain the procedure for anti-dumping investigation and the measures available under the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.
- Write a detailed essay on subsidies and countervailing measures under the WTO SCM Agreement. Distinguish between prohibited, actionable, and non-actionable subsidies.
- Explain the law relating to letters of credit. What is the principle of autonomy/independence of an LC? When can a bank refuse to pay under an LC?
- Discuss the rights and liabilities of parties under a CIF contract. How does it differ from an FOB contract?
- Write a detailed note on bills of lading — their nature, types, and functions in international trade. Discuss the Hague/Visby Rules on carrier liability.
- Discuss GATS with reference to the four modes of supply and the distinction between general obligations and specific commitments.
C. Problem-Based Questions
- Problem: India imposes a 40% tariff on imported solar panels. China, which produces 80% of world’s solar panels, brings a WTO dispute. Advise China.
Hint: GATT Art. II (schedules of concessions) — if India’s bound tariff is lower than 40%, WTO violation. Check Art. XIX safeguards possibility. - Problem: State A grants a 50% tax rebate exclusively to steel manufacturers who export 60% of their output. State B files a WTO complaint. Advise.
Hint: SCM Agreement — export-contingent subsidy = prohibited (Red Box). Automatic withdrawal remedy. India Export case relevant. - Problem: An LC requires “clean on board bill of lading.” The B/L presented has a notation “goods received in damaged packaging.” The seller demands payment. Advise the issuing bank.
Hint: UCP 600 strict compliance — claused B/L is discrepant. Bank may (and should) refuse. Seller must remedy or obtain waiver from buyer. - Problem: Under a CIF contract, goods are lost at sea. The seller tenders documents (B/L, insurance policy, invoice). The buyer refuses saying “no goods, no payment.” Advise.
Hint: CIF — seller’s duty is to tender documents; risk passed at loading port. Buyer must pay against documents and claim on insurance. Buyer’s refusal is wrongful. - Problem: Country X has an 8% import duty on whisky. The same duty applies to locally produced liquor. However, X imposes an additional 15% internal excise tax on whisky but only 2% on domestic liquor. Y, exporter of whisky, complains. Advise.
Hint: GATT Art. III:2 — internal tax differential between like products (whisky vs local liquor). Japan-Taxes case applies. Violation of NT likely.
D. MCQ Practice
- The WTO was established in:
(a) 1947(b) 1986(c) 1995 ✓(d) 2001 - Under GATT Article I (MFN), any advantage granted to any product must be accorded:
(a) Immediately and unconditionally to like products from all members ✓(b) After reciprocal concessions(c) Only to developed country members(d) Subject to DSB approval - Under CIF, risk passes from seller to buyer:
(a) At the destination port(b) When goods pass the ship’s rail at the port of loading ✓(c) When documents are tendered(d) When insurance is arranged - The “negative consensus” rule in WTO DSU means:
(a) Panel reports are not binding(b) Panel/AB reports are adopted unless all members including the winner decide not to adopt ✓(c) A losing party can block adoption with support from 3 members(d) Reports require 2/3 majority for adoption - Under UCP 600, the principle that banks deal only in documents and not in goods is called:
(a) Strict compliance(b) Autonomy/independence principle ✓(c) Negotiation principle(d) Abstraction principle - A subsidy contingent on export performance is classified under SCM Agreement as:
(a) Prohibited (Red Box) ✓(b) Actionable (Yellow Box)(c) Non-actionable (Green Box)(d) Countervailable - Which document serves as: (i) receipt for goods, (ii) document of title, and (iii) evidence of contract of carriage?
(a) Letter of Credit(b) Bill of Lading ✓(c) Bill of Exchange(d) Packing List - The maximum duration of an anti-dumping duty before a sunset review is:
(a) 3 years(b) 5 years ✓(c) 7 years(d) 10 years - India’s National Solar Mission local content requirements were found WTO-inconsistent in:
(a) India-Autos Case(b) India-Solar Cells Case (WT/DS456) ✓(c) India-Steel Case(d) India-Pharma Case - GATS Mode 3 is:
(a) Cross-border supply(b) Consumption abroad(c) Commercial presence ✓(d) Presence of natural persons - The Japan-Alcoholic Beverages case (1996) is a leading case on:
(a) National Treatment under GATT Art. III ✓(b) MFN under Art. I(c) Anti-dumping(d) GATS Mode 1 - Under FOB contract, the buyer bears cost and risk:
(a) From the seller’s warehouse(b) From when goods pass the ship’s rail at port of loading ✓(c) From the destination port(d) Only from arrival of goods - The Hague Rules (1924) limitation period for cargo claims is:
(a) 1 year ✓(b) 2 years(c) 3 years(d) 6 months - Which WTO agreement prohibits local content requirements on investment?
(a) GATS(b) TRIPS(c) TRIMs ✓(d) SCM Agreement - A “confirming bank” in an LC transaction:
(a) Opens the LC(b) Adds its own undertaking to pay, providing the seller with a second bank guarantee ✓(c) Advises the beneficiary of the LC(d) Collects documents on behalf of the buyer - Which Article of GATT provides general exceptions including for public morals and health?
(a) Art. VI(b) Art. XI(c) Art. XX ✓(d) Art. XXIV - The Banana Case (EC-Bananas, 1996) established violations of:
(a) GATT Art. I (MFN) and GATS ✓(b) SCM Agreement(c) Anti-Dumping Agreement(d) TRIMs - A “standby letter of credit” functions primarily as a:
(a) Trade finance instrument for regular transactions(b) Bank guarantee — called only if the applicant defaults ✓(c) Advance payment mechanism(d) Documentary collection - TRIPS Agreement protects patents for a minimum period of:
(a) 10 years(b) 15 years(c) 20 years ✓(d) 25 years - The Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations took place in:
(a) 1986–1994 ✓(b) 1973–1979(c) 1960–1967(d) 1947–1949
⚡ Quick Revision Summary — International Trade Law
1. WTO Core Principles
- MFN (Art. I GATT): Any advantage to any country must be accorded immediately and unconditionally to all like products from all WTO members
- National Treatment (Art. III GATT): Imported like products must be treated no less favourably than domestic like products (internal taxes + regulations)
- Tariff Binding (Art. II): Members bind their maximum tariff rates in schedules; cannot exceed bound rate
- Transparency (Art. X): Trade laws/regulations must be published
2. Key Agreements at a Glance
| Agreement | Covers | Key Provision |
|---|---|---|
| GATT 1994 | Trade in goods | MFN (Art. I), NT (Art. III), General Exceptions (Art. XX) |
| DSU | Dispute settlement | Consultations → Panel → AB → DSB adoption → Implementation |
| SCM Agreement | Subsidies & CVMs | Prohibited (export/LC subsidies), Actionable (adverse effects), CVD investigation |
| Anti-Dumping Agmt | Dumping | NV – EP = dumping margin; injury + causation needed; 5-year sunset |
| GATS | Services | 4 modes; MFN general; market access/NT only in scheduled sectors |
| TRIMs | Investment measures | Prohibits local content requirements and trade/FX balancing |
| TRIPS | Intellectual property | Minimum standards; patents 20 yrs; compulsory licensing (Art. 31) |
3. INCOTERMS Memory Aid
- CIF = Seller pays Cost + Insurance + Freight BUT risk transfers at ship’s rail (loading port)
- FOB = Seller delivers to ship’s rail; buyer takes risk and pays freight/insurance from there
- FAS = Seller delivers alongside ship; buyer arranges loading and bears all risk from there
4. LC Parties — Mnemonic: “A-I-B-A-C-N”
- Applicant (buyer) → Issuing Bank → Beneficiary (seller) → Advising Bank → Confirming Bank → Negotiating Bank
5. Key WTO Dispute Cases
| Case | Year | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Japan-Alcoholic Beverages | 1996 | NT: two-tier analysis for Art. III:2 (like products + DCS products) |
| EC-Bananas | 1996 | MFN applies to competitive conditions; ACP preference violated Art. I |
| India-Autos | 2002 | LCR violates Art. III:4 and TRIMs Agreement |
| EC-Seal Products | 2014 | Art. XX(a) public morals available but chapeau requires non-arbitrary application |
| India-Solar Cells | 2016 | Solar panel LCR violates Art. III:4 and TRIMs |
| US-CVMs on India Steel | 2014 | CVD benefit benchmark must reflect host country market conditions |
| Kumho Petrochemicals | 2017 | Indian courts show deference to AD determinations; limited judicial review |