Sharma defends solar mission's focus on domestic content

Defending the solar mission's focus on domestic content requirement, Commerce Minister Anand Sharma today said India would deal "appropriately" with the US contention of Indian "protectionism" at the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
"India will respond adequately at the WTO," Sharma told reporters here today after delivering a lecture at Sophiya College here.
Yesterday, the US challenged "domestic content" requirement in the solar mission, alleging that it is "discriminatory" and against international norms, including WTO laws, and badly affects the American domestic solar panel manufacturing industry.
The US has requested WTO dispute resolution with India on domestic content requirements during Phase II of India's solar mission, to protect 10,000 jobs likely to be affected due to New Delhi's insistence on using only locally manufactured solar cells and modules.

"We are also very clear that India has to create domestic manufacturing capacities. India must have those capacities.
Otherwise, we will end up importing for the rest of our lives," Sharma said, adding that the solar mission also involves heavy subsidies and public money should not be used pay for imports.

Sharma also hinted that India might respond to the US action with a counter application.
"We may also have some issues, even with regard to the solar mission. W we may also have an application that we may move to the WTO," he said, without specifying details.
He said that the WTO is the proper multilateral platform to resolve such issues regarding international agreements between two countries.

The Union Commerce Minister added that at times when India felt aggrieved, it also moved the WTO against many countries, including the US.
"We also take them to the WTO. We have taken US to WTO on some issues," he said.
The threat of challenging the solar mission provisions by the USA comes days after its pharma watchdog took action against some Indian pharma companies.
Stating that he appreciated the existence of local regulatory requirements, Sharma said the name of a certain Indian company should be made public only after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scrutinised the company's replies, in order to avoid any damage to its reputation.

"If a question is raised, the concerned Indian company should not feel that it has been discriminated against, or the the information should not be made public, even before the company has responded to questions raised by the FDA."
He said one should not read too much into repeated US actions on the trade front, asserting that India is able enough to protect its interests.