Global Indian Leaders
BOARD ROOM:
Steve Jobs and Bill Gates:
Steve Jobs and bill Gates were frenemies, as many know, but when Jobs died last fall, the mutual respect between the two tech titans was quite strong: By his bed, Jobs kept a letter Gates had written the Apple co-founder in his final months. Gates said on his last visit with Jobs, in the months before he died, "We spent literally hours reminiscing and talking about the future.” He made the remarks in an interview with recently. And despite their business battles over the years, "There was no peace to make. We were not at war. We made great products, and competition was always a positive thing. There was no (cause for) forgiveness," said Gates, co-founder of Microsoft.
*******************************************************************************************************************************************
More than 1 in 5 Americans economically insecure
More than one in five Americans saw their available household income decline by a quarter or more in the past three years, according to a report released Monday. They also lacked an adequate financial cushion to cope with this decline, which together with the 25 percent or more decrease of income, constitutes the major factors of economic insecurity, said the report. The report updated an Economic Security Index (ESI) developed by Jacob Hacker, a political science professor at Yale University. A record 20.5 percent of the American people faced this situation in the most recent economic downturn, a sharp increase from 14.3 percent in 1986. Roughly 62 million Americans were insecure in 2010, indicated the Index.
FRANCE
Unemployment in France Grows by 1.2%:
The number of jobless people inFrance grew by 1.2 percent in Octoberfrom a monthearlier, as sluggish economic activities slowed
job creation in the eurozone's second largest economy, official figures showed. According to labor ministry figures, France registered 34,400 more jobless people last month,which pulled up the country's total number of jobseekers to more than 2.8 million in France's mainland. If taking into account the overseas departments and workers, there were 4.459 million people currently living without a job, up by 0.4 % on a yearly basis, the jobless rate rose by 4.9 percent.
EUROPEAN UNION
EU welcomes Belgium's 2012 budget agreement
Belgium:The European Commission welcomed on Sunday an agreement by Belgian parties on the country's 2012 budget, which aims to bring the government deficit to levels recommended by the European Union (EU). The budget agreement was reached by six Belgian parties, one day after rating agency Standard & Poor's downgraded Belgium to AA from AA plus, citing uncertainty over the country's funding. "I welcome the agreement resented by Mr Elio Di Rupo on the measures to underpin the Belgian federal budget with the aim of bringing the general government defi-cit to 2.8 % of GDP in 2012, as recommended by the EU Council, and paving way for further consolidation in 2013 and 2014," said Olli Rehn, EU Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner.
Ex-British PM on China's eurozone aid
Former British prime minister Tony Blair, who is the Middle East Quartet envoy European leaders should show a credible commitment to stand behind the single-currency system and resolve the ongoing crisis, a prerequisite for China's help, Tony Blair said. "Now is really the last chance for decisive lead-ership (in Europe). It's) time for action, "said the former British prime minister in an exclusive interview. "I have no doubt China is prepared to help, but it only helps if Europe gets its act together. There's no Chinese action that can substitute European action," said Blair, who was visiting Beijing to meet with Vice-premier Wang Qishan to discuss global economics, eurozone debt and the Middle East crisis.
Canada, EU reach free trade agreement
Canada: Canada and the European Union have made formal offers on services and investment in their latest round of trade talks, and CanadianTrade Minister Ed Fast said that "another milestone" had been reached. Trade officials said here that there are still disagreements in several important areas, including intellectual property, on which Canada is starting a new round of changes to its copyright and patent rules, and agricultural subsidies as well as market protection. The EU as well as market protection. The EU provides large subsidies to its farmers, while Canada controls milk, egg and chicken production through a supply management system to keep out foreign competition. Canadian farmers have to follow this system, which keeps prices high by limiting production, despite pressure on Canada during free trade talks with the United States and other countries.
EU, Moscow strike deal on Russia joining WTO
European Union and Moscow have agreed terms for Russia to join the World Trade Organisation, leaving Bilateral agreement between Russia and Georgia as the only outstanding issue to resolve, the EU's trade chief said. A deal had been reached that would help to prevent EU jobs in the car industry from moving to Russia, EU trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht said in a statement. The agree-ment removesthe last major trade area that had been hesitant about allowing Russian WTO membership. Though Russia has been negotiating to join the WTO for 18 years, the $1.5 trillion economy is the largest still remaining outside the league of 153 trading nations. The case for Russian membership has been pushed by the perceived economic gains, as wellas the wish to usher Russia in before elections next March, which are expected to return Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, a WTO sceptic, to the presidency. EU is Russia's biggest trading partner, with 244 billion euros in bilateral trade in 2010 a 45.8% share of Russia's overall trade. Imports from Russia increased by 31.4 % in 2010, and exports from EU to Russia went up by 38.2% . ●
Indian Economy & Challenges:
Among the many challenges being faced by India, topping the list is the fact that the economy is fast losing steam. After expanding as much as 12.6% year-on-year (YoY) in Q1 of 2010, India’s gross domestic product (GDP) increased by only 6.1% YoY in Q4 of 2011, marking the slowest growth since Q4 of 2008, when the international financial crisis broke out. Besides, the Indian rupee declined by 17% against the US dollar in 2011, making it the worst performing currency in Asia. The Indian stock market was hardly constructive either, declining by 24.6% to rank among the worst performing bourses in Asia.
In addition, the current account deficits are deteriorating,
while inbound foreign direct investment (FDI) is also slowing.
India's FDI inflows declined by over 50% YoY to US$1.16 billion in
October 2011 for the second month in a row, following the drop of
16.7% to US$1.76 billion in September, which reflected in part the
economic slowdown in major developed economies.
One of the culprits behind India’s lacklustre economic performance would be the continued anti-inflation measures adopted by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). In a bid to arrest rampant food-led inflation, the RBI started to step on the monetary brake as early as January 2010, pushing the policy rate up from 4.75% by 13 consecutive times to 8.5% at the end of 2011. While inflation eased from the peak of 16.2% to 9.4% over the same period, the economy slowed considerably with the downside risks to growth increasing.
BRIC countries continue to shine Despite the short-term hiccups, India’s medium-term prospects remain bright. Back in 2001, Goldman Sachs coined the term BRIC, which started to arouse great interest in the tremendous growth potential of the four countries comprising Brazil, Russia, China and India. The BRIC countries were estimated to account for 8.3% of global GDP in 2001, with the share expected by the IMF to reach 18.9% in 2011. A decade ago, Goldman expected the BRIC share would rise to some 14% in 2011.
For India, its share of global GDP climbed from 1.5% in 2001 to an expected 2.6% in 2011. In 2010, India’s GDP growth hit 10.1% despite the international financial crisis, just shy of China’s 10.3%, surpassing Brazil’s 7.5% and Russia’s 4%. While the Indian economy lost momentum in the second half of 2011, the Indian government expects a full-year growth of around 7%, which is high relative to other Asian economies, not to mention the developed economies, and is hopeful of a recovery in the growth trajectory to 9-10% over the medium term.
Surge in middle-class population helps India’s medium-term prospects: Private consumption has been underpinning India’s persistent growth over the past decade. India has the highest private domestic consumption as share of GDP among the major economies of the Asia-Pacific region, estimated at around 57% in 2010.
India’s middle class has been fast expanding amid the country’s information technology export boom as well as rapid urbanisation over the past decade. According to India’s National Council for Applied Economic Research (NCAER), India had some 160 million middle-class individuals in 2010, representing about 13% of the country’s population. India’s middle class is expected to grow at an annual average rate of 8.5% from 2010 to 2025 to reach 547 million or 37% of India’s population, more than triple the current levels.
On average, India’s saving rates are roughly one-third of their income, which is not low. However, a typical Indian middle-class household’s saving ratio is even higher as estimated by the NCAER, standing at roughly half of their income. Unleashing further spending by Indian middle-class households will contribute further to the country’s retail boom. Meanwhile, the NCAER noted that while the middle class represents some 13% of India’s population, they own 49% of the cars in India, 21% of televisions, 53% of computers and air-conditioners, 38% of microwaves and 46% of credit cards. In 2015, the middle-income class is expected to account for some 20% of the population, yet holding 44% of the total income. The expected surge in middle-class population, along with their strong spending power, readily helps India’s medium-term prospects.
Retail modernisation continues despite reversal in multi-brand FDI: India’s retail market is estimated to have a size of some US$450 billion and is growing fast amid the continued rise in middle-class income and the number of well-off consumers. The level of organised or chain-store retailing in India is estimated to be some 7%, less than half of around 20% as estimated by McKinsey in China, and 30% or more in either Brazil and Russia. Further liberalising the retail market for foreign investors will accelerate the growth of organised retail with the effect of spurring retail sales.
After more than a decade of discussion, Indian prime minister granted access for foreign retailers to establish multi-brand retail outlets on 24 November 2011. Allowing multi-brand FDI is widely expected to raise the efficiency of India’s distribution system, as foreign retailers will bring in retail logistics technology and infrastructure to help reduce food wastage, which is estimated at some 40% and seen as a culprit behind high food-led inflation. However, facing a full-scale parliamentary revolt, the Indian government reversed its multi-brand FDI policy in less than one week. With the multi-brand FDI venue remaining shut, foreign retailers, including Hong Kong’s Mannings, Watson’s and PARKnSHOP, may have to wait.
Nonetheless, retail market liberalisation continued apace despite the government’s setback in multi-brand FDI policy. On 10 January 2011, the cap on single-brand FDI, which had been kept at 51% since 2006, was lifted to allow foreign investors to have complete ownership of their Indian operations. This was music to the ears of foreign retailers operating in India’s retail market, including Nike, Reebok, Calvin Klein, Estee Lauder, Levi’s and Starbucks. While some existing players opt for conversion to wholly foreign-owned operations, more newcomers are arriving too, including Swedish furniture maker IKEA, French luxury shoemaker Christian Louboutin, and Swiss leatherwear brand Bally. The US-India Business Council estimated that the single-brand retail market is valued at US$7 billion and expected it to more than triple over the next five years.
Aside from the single-brand retailing route, other entry modes are also available for foreign companies to gain access to the Indian market, including franchising (examples include Marks & Spencer, and Pizza Hut), cash and carry/wholesale (examples include France’s Metro and the US-based ShopRite, where full foreign ownership is allowed), and other joint-venture and distribution routes. Meanwhile, Hong Kong’s Giordano and Bossini have made their presence felt in India too. Bright prospects of Hong Kong exports targeting the Indian market: India is Hong Kong’s fourth largest export destination (trailing the Chinese mainland, the US and Japan). Hong Kong exports to India have grown at an annual pace of close to 30% since 2005 despite the negative fallouts due to the international financial crisis of 2008-09 and sluggish growth of developed economies in 2010-2011 amid the sovereign debt concerns. Close to half of the Hong Kong exports to India consist of jewellery and gems (mostly diamonds), surging by around 25% YoY in the first 11 months of 2011. While jewellery accounted for just over 2% of total exports to India, it increased by 460% YoY over the same period, reflecting the brisk demand for gold jewellery, while silver and platinum also recorded growth of more than 200%.
With global demand for diamonds expected to grow twice as fast as supply through 2020, industry sources expect continued growth in the prices of rough and uncut diamonds over the next few years. In this context, Hong Kong’s bilateral trade in diamond with India looks set to continue its brisk pace of growth. Of Hong Kong’s re-exports of India-origin diamonds, some 60% of them were exported back to India with a value of US$5.1 billion in 2011.
Source: Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department
While India is a big exporter of IT services, it is a big buyer of imported telecom products and consumer electronics. The country’s retail boom has led to the emergence of a large number of Indian specialty store chains, such as E-zone, Croma (of the Infiniti Group), NEXT (subsidiary of Videocon) and Viveks. Korean brands such as LG and Samsung are top players in the Indian market, followed by Japanese and local brands. Indian retail giants, such as Croma, are keen to introduce their private labels, boding well for Hong Kong’s exports of mid-priced, quality electronic items and electrical appliances. Developments aforementioned have been a boon to Hong Kong’s exports of consumer electronics and telecom products, rising by around 20% in 2011 to continue their hefty exports increase in recent years. Specifically, Hong Kong exports of camera, radios and television receptors surged, respectively, by 35%, 115% and 208% in 2011, presumably helped in part by the growing “use-and-throw” mentality of Indian consumers.
India may not look “all is well” for the time being, while the economy is losing some steam, quite unlike the theme song “Aal izz well” of recent Indian movie hit “Three Idiots”. Nonetheless, the world’s second most-populated market and Hong Kong’s fourth-largest export destination is expected to be expanding sturdily over the medium-term, thanks to sustained middle-class spending. Further, with inflationary pressures likely to be subdued further in upcoming months, the prospects of the RBI relaxing its monetary stance and the economy picking up again remain. |
WTO:
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: DISPUTE DS414
China — Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-rolled Electrical Steel from the United States
Panel report circulated on 15 June 2012
Key facts
back to top
Short title: | China — GOES |
Complainant: | United States |
Respondent: | China |
Third Parties: | Argentina; European Union; Honduras; India; Japan; Korea, Republic of; Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of; Viet Nam |
Agreements cited: (as cited in request for consultations) |
Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures: Art.
10,
11.2,
11.3,
12.3,
12.4.1,
12.7,
12.8,
15.1,
15.2,
15.5,
19,
22.2(iii),
22.3,
22.5 Anti-dumping (Article VI of GATT 1994): Art. 1, Annex II, 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5.1, 6.8, 6.9, 12.2, 12.2.2 GATT 1994: Art. VI |
Request for Consultations received: | 15 September 2010 |
Panel Report circulated: | 15 June 2012 |
Summary of the dispute to date
The summary below was up-to-date at 15 June 2012
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 15 September 2010, the United States requested consultations with China with respect to measures imposing countervailing duties and anti-dumping duties on grain oriented flat-rolled electrical steel (“GOES”) from the United States as set forth in Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) Notice No. 21 [2010], including its annexes. The subsidy that China determined to confer a benefit are the “Buy America” provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and also State government procurement laws.
The United States alleged that China appears to be acting inconsistently with its obligations under:
On 11 February 2011, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 24 February 2011, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
Panel and Appellate Body proceedings
At its meeting on 25 March 2011, the DSB established a panel. The European Union, Honduras, India, Japan, Korea and Viet Nam reserved their third party rights. Subsequently, Argentina and Saudi Arabia reserved their third party rights. On 10 May 2011, the panel was composed. On 19 September 2011, the Chairman of the panel informed the DSB that the timetable adopted by the panel after consultations with the parties, envisages that the final report shall be issued to the parties by May 2012. The panel expects to conclude its work within that time-frame.
On 15 June 2012, the panel report was circulated to Members.
Summary of key findings 1. This dispute concerned measures imposing countervailing
and anti-dumping duties on grain oriented flat-rolled electrical
steel (“GOES”) from the United States. The measures were
imposed by China's Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) and the United
States claimed that they were inconsistent with China's commitments
and obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement
and the GATT 1994. The United States' claims with respect to initiation of certain countervailing duty investigations 2. The United States claimed that China acted inconsistently with Articles 11.2 and 11.3 of the SCM Agreement because MOFCOM initiated countervailing duty investigations into 11 programmes without sufficient evidence to justify this. The Panel concluded that the obligation upon Members in relation to the sufficiency of evidence in a countervailing duty investigation finds expression in Article 11.3 of the SCM Agreement, which provides that an investigating authority must assess the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence in an application to determine whether it is sufficient to justify initiation. The Panel reached its conclusions by reference to the requirements for “sufficient evidence” set forth in Article 11.2, but did not consider it necessary to reach separate conclusions under this provision. With respect to each of the 11 programmes at issue, the Panel concluded that China had acted inconsistently with Article 11.3 of the SCM Agreement. The United States' claims with respect to the non-confidential summaries 3. The applicants for initiation sought and obtained from
MOFCOM confidential treatment in relation to a number of categories
of information. The United States claimed that MOFCOM acted
inconsistently with Articles 12.4.1 of the SCM Agreement and 6.5.1
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to require the applicants
to submit adequate non-confidential summaries of the
information. The Panel upheld the United States' claim.
The Panel concluded that the purported summaries did not provide a
reasonable understanding of the substance of the information
submitted in confidence. The United States' claim with respect to public notice of the calculations used to determine the dumping margins 4. The United States claimed that MOFCOM did not disclose
the data and calculations it used to arrive at the dumping margins
for the two respondent companies and that this was inconsistent
with Article 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Panel
rejected the United States' claim. The Panel could not find
within the text of Article 12.2.2 an obligation to include in the
relevant public notice or separate report the confidential data and
calculations underlying a dumping margin. The United States' claim with respect to public notice of the findings and conclusions leading to MOFCOM's benefit determination under the government procurement statutes 5. The United States claimed that MOFCOM did not adequately explain, in either the preliminary or final determinations, why the exclusion of foreign producers from the competitive bidding process under the United States Government procurement statutes led to the conclusion that the resulting prices were not market prices for the purposes of the benefit determination. According to the United States, this was inconsistent with Article 22.3 of the SCM Agreement. The Panel rejected the United States' claim. The Panel held that Article 22.3 does not discipline the substantive adequacy of an investigating authority's reasoning. In the Panel's view, MOFCOM included in its public notice the findings and conclusions on matters of law that it considered material, and also referred to the material facts it was relying upon to reach those conclusions. The United States' claims with respect to the use of facts available 6. The United States brought a number of claims regarding MOFCOM's resort to facts available in calculating certain dumping and subsidy rates. Although the Panel rejected the United States' claim that MOFCOM improperly resorted to facts available to calculate the subsidy rates for the two known respondent exporters, the Panel concluded that the manner in which MOFCOM applied facts available was inconsistent with Article 12.7 SCM Agreement. 7. The Panel upheld the United States' claim that China had acted inconsistently with Article 6.8 and paragraph 1 of Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 12.7 of the SCM Agreement because MOFCOM improperly resorted to facts available in calculating the dumping and subsidy rates for exporters that were unknown to it. 8. The United States also brought claims under Articles
6.9, 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles
12.8, 22.3 and 22.5 of the SCM Agreement, arguing that China did
not disclose the essential facts, or provide in sufficient detail
in its final determination the findings and conclusions leading to
the application of facts available to “unknown” United States
exporters. The Panel upheld the United States' claims in this
regard. The United States' claims with respect to MOFCOM's price effects analysis 9. The United States challenged MOFCOM's finding that the dumped and subsidized imports had significant price effects. The United States contended that MOFCOM's analysis of these price effects was conclusory, failed to reflect an objective examination of the evidence, and was not based on positive evidence. The Panel upheld the United States' claims, finding that China had acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Articles 15.1 and 15.2 of the SCM Agreement. 10. The United States also claimed that China did not disclose the essential facts supporting its price effects analysis and did not offer an adequate explanation for its price effects findings, in violation of Articles 6.9 and 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and 12.8 and 22.5 of the SCM Agreement. The Panel also upheld these claims. The United States' claims with respect to MOFCOM's causation analysis 11. The United States claimed that MOFCOM's causation analysis was inconsistent with Articles 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and 15.5 of the SCM Agreement, on the basis that MOFCOM erroneously concluded that the rapid increase in the capacity of the domestic GOES industry during the period of investigation could not have been a cause of injury to the domestic industry. The United States also claimed that MOFCOM's analysis was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and 15.1 of the SCM Agreement because it did not comply with the “objective examination” and “positive evidence” requirements embodied in those provisions. The Panel upheld the United States' claims. 12. The United States also claimed that China acted
inconsistently with Articles 6.9 and 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement and 12.8 and 22.5 of the SCM Agreement, on the basis that
China failed to disclose the essential facts supporting its
analysis and did not provide an adequate explanation for its
causation findings. The Panel upheld these claims. |