India's quest for regional trade agreements: Challenges ahead

Journal of World Trade

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 433-460

  Farasat, Shadan ^a  

^a NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC GROWTH; HOLISTIC APPROACH; MULTILATERAL TRADE; REGIONAL TRADE; TRADE AGREEMENT; TRADE POLICY; WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION;

ASIA; EURASIA; INDIA; SOUTH ASIA;

EID: 47349094533     PISSN: 10116702     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.54648/trad2008020     Document Type: Article

References (142)

1. In this article, the term RTA means free trade agreements (FTAs), customs union (CUs), interim agreements that eventually lead to the formation of a CU or an FTA and preferential trade-egreements between developing countries (developing country RTAs) governed by the Enabling Clause. This article is based on information as of end of September 2007.
2. As amended and in force on 1 January 1995, 55 U.N.T.S. 187.
3. 15 December 1993, 33 I.L.M. 44.
4. L/4903, 28 November 1979, GATT B.I.S.D. (26th Supp.).
5. Ever since 1991 a substantial portion of India's trade liberalization has been carried out by unilateral reduction of tariff rates, which have been announced in subsequent annual budgets.
6. Agreement on SAARC Preferential Trade Agreement, done at Dhaka, 11 April 1993, available at: (visited 21 September 2007).
7. First Agreement on Trade Negotiations Amongst Developing Member Countries of the Economic And Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, done at Bangkok, 31 July 1975, available at: (visited 20 September 2007). This agreement was formerly called the Bangkok Agreement and has been recently renamed the Asia Pacific Trade Agreement along with a few other amendments.
8. For an analysis of some of the major reasons why countries enter into RTAs see John Whalley, Why do Countries Seek Regional Trade Agreements, available at: (visited 10 September 2007).
9. See Sungjoon Cho, A Bridge Too Far. The Fall of the Fifth WTO Ministerial Conference and the Future of the Trade Constitution, 2 Journal of International Economic Law (2004), 219.
10. Anup Shah, WTO Meeting in Hong Kong 2005 (26 December 2005), available at: (visited 17 September 2007).
11. Most of the mode 4 Commitments by developed countries cover only very high Managerial Personnel, indirectly excluding service workers, who comprise the majority of movement of natural persons across countries. See Richard Self and B.K. Zutshi, Temporary Entry of Natural Persons as Service Providers: Issues and Challenges in Further Liberalization under the Current GATS negotiation, paper presented on Joint WTO-World Bank Symposium on Movement of Natural Persons under the GATS, available at: , p. 11 (visited 20 August 2007).
12. See Suparna Karmakar, Disciplining Domestic Regulations Under GATS and its implications for Developing Countries: An Indian Case Study, 41 Journal of World Trade 1 (February 2007), 127.
13. J.N. Dixit, India's Foreign Policy 1947-2003 (New Delhi: Picus Books, 2003), p. 386.
14. Sultan Shahin, India's 'Look East' Policy pays off (11 October 2003), available at: (visited 12 September 2007).
15. Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement between the Republic of India and the Republic of Singapore, done at New Delhi, 29 June 2005, available at: < www.iesingapore.gov.sg> (visited 17 September 2007).
16. See Diplomatic correspondent, India-Singapore sign Economic Pact, 30 June 2005, available at: (visited 16 September 2007).
17. Done at Islamabad, 6 January 2004, available at: (visited 10 September 2007).
18. The relevant portion of SAFTA Preamble reads that "Aware that a number of Regions are entering into such agreements to enhance trade through the free movement of goods" the SAARC members are entering into SAFTA.
19. See SAFTA Article 11 (e);
20. see, also, Mechanism for Compensation of Revenue Loss for Least Developed Contracting States (LDC) Member States, available at: (visited 14 September 2007).
21. Done at Bali, 8 October 2003, available at: (visited 22 September 2007).
22. India-ASEAN Framework Agreement Article 7.
23. ASEAN-India Partnership for Peace, Progress and Shared Prosperity, done at Vientiane, 30 November 2004, available at: (visited 15 September 2007).
24. Special correspondent, India Suggests SAARC Agenda on WTO Issues, The Hindu, 30 March 2005, available at: (visited 22 September 2007).
25. Christian Bjornskov and Kim Martin Lind, "Where do Developing Countries go after Doha? An Analysis of WTO Positions and Potential Alliances, 36 Journal of World Trade 3 (June 2002), 562, wherein after a detailed examination of trade policies of various WTO Members, the authors have concluded that the trade policy objectives of India matches with only few other WTO Members (including developing countries).
26. Joint Study Group Report on India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic and Co-operation Agreement, available at: , p. 32 (visited 22 September 2007).
27. M.K. Venu, Time for Asian Renaissance: ET Catches up with Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Economic Times (8 July 2005), p. 12.
28. Id.
29. Reduction of tariffs is envisaged under two different schemes. For goods listed in the "Normal Track" India will eliminate tariffs in 2011 for nine out of the ten ASEAN members (exception is Philippines). For these goods the ASEAN-6 (Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand) will also eliminate tariffs in 2011 and the new ASEAN Member States will eliminate tariffs for India in 2016. India and Philippines will eliminate tariffs for each other on a reciprocal basis by 2016. For goods listed in the "Sensitive Track" parties are yet to agree on the dates for elimination of tariffs. Both the Normal Track and the Sensitive Track lists are currently under negotiation.
30. Framework Agreement Between MERCOSUR and the Republic of India, done at Asuncion, 17 March 2003, available at: (visited 22 September 2007).
31. Press Information Bureau Release, available at: (visited 10 September 2007).
32. Framework Agreement on the BIMST-EC Free Trade Area, done at Phuket, 8 February 2004, available at: (visited 22 September 2007).
33. Done at New Delhi, 28 December 1998, available at: (visited 15 August 2007).
34. Shebonti Ray Dadwal, SAFTA is on Track but FTA?, Financial Express (10 April 2004), available at: (visited 20 September 2007).
35. Framework Agreement for Establishing a Free Trade Area between Republic of India and the Kingdom of Thailand, done at Bangkok, 9 October 2003, available at: (visited 20 September 2007).
36. Thailand Board of Investment, Thailand's FTAs Facilitate Trade and Investment, available at: (visited 10 September 2007).
37. Preferential Trade Agreement between the Republic of India and the Transitional Republic of Afghanistan, done at New Delhi, 6 March 2003, available at: (visited 20 September 2007).
38. Treaty of Trade between the Government of India and His Majesty's Government of Nepal, done at New Delhi, 6 December 1991, available at: (visited 10 September 2007).
39. Agreement on Trade and Commerce between the Government of Republic of India and the Government of Republic of the Kingdom of Bhutan, done at Thimpu, 28 February 1995, available at: (visited 21 September 2007).
40. Brief of India's Current Engagement in RTAs, available at: (visited 22 September 2007).
41. Sungjoon Cho, Toward Synergistic Building Blocks: Social Regulations under RTAs and Their Ramifications to the Global Trading System, paper presented on Seminar on Regionalism and the WTO on 14 November 2003 at the WTO headquarters, Geneva, available at: (visited 11 September 2007);
42. see, also, Monica Posell, A Latin America Perspective an Reform of Article XXIV, available at: (visited 11 September 2007).
43. GATT Article XXIV:5(b).
44. Mitsoo Matsuhita, The World Trade Organization: Law Practice and Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2003), p. 351.
45. Ibid.
46. See note 41 above.
47. "Analytical Index of the GATT", in Guide to GATT Law and Practice, Vol. 2 (Geneva: WTO, 1995), p. 824.
48. Id.
49. The Report of the Working Party on the European Free Trade Area - Examination of the Stockhohn Convention, in GATT Analytical Index, as note 45 above, at 825;
50. for an analysis of the GATT working party reports as note 42 above, at 357.
51. WTO Appellate Body Report, Turkey - Restrictions on Import of Textile and Clothing Products (Turkey-Textiles), WT/DS34/AB/R, adopted on 19 November 1999, para. 48.
52. See note 42 above, at 357.
53. Preamble, Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXIV of GATT 1994, available at (visited 22 September 2007).
54. See Annexure 2A-Schedule of the Republic of India, available at: (visited 23 September 2007).
55. As stated on Government of Singapore website in the FAQ Section on CECA, available at: (visited 22 September 2007).
56. India's Sensitive List under SAFTA for Non-Least Developed Contracting States (NLDCs), available at: (visited 20 September 2007).
57. India's Sensitive List Under SAFTA for Least Developed Contracting States (LDCs), available at: (visited 20 September 2007).
58. Laos and Vietnam are the ASEAN members that are not WTO Members.
59. This is because GATT Article XXIV finds specific mention in Article 3 of the India-ASEAN Framework Agreement.
60. Paragraph 2(c) of the Enabling Clause allows "Regional or global arrangements entered into among less-developed contracting parties for the mutual reduction or elimination of tariffs..."; In fact, even the SAFTA has Bhutan as one of its members. Bhutan, currently involved in negotiating its entry into the WTO, is not a Member as yet. Thus, SAFTA, which in all likelihood will be notified under the Enabling Clause may not be in compliance with the requirements of the Enabling Clause.
61. See note 45 above, at 798-799, wherein those RTAs have been enumerated that had non-members of the WTO as parties and were still evaluated under Article XXIV:7(b);
62. see, also, Won-Mog Choi, Legal Problems of Making Regional Trade Agreements with Non-WTO Members, 8 Journal of International Economic Law (2005) 825, wherein the author has argued that in light of the explicit language of Article XXIV:5
63. and the specific circumstances in which these RTAs were put forth before the working parties, they cannot be said to have established a legal norm that permits RTAs with non-members of the WTO to be ordinarily examined under Article XXIV:7(b), without following the special procedure under Article XXIV:10.
64. See note 45 above, at 829.
65. Ibid.
66. GATT Article XXIV:8(b).
67. While some of these RTAs between developing countries are ends by themselves others are interim measures leading to the formation of full-fledged FTAs.
68. Jo-Ann Crawford and Roberto V Fiorentino, The Changing Landscape of Regional Trade Agreements, available at: (visited 20 September 2007).
69. Sung Hoon Park, "Regionalism, Open Regionalism and Article XXIV of GATT: Conflicts and Harmony", in F. Snyder (ed.), Regional and Global Regulation of International Trade (Oxford: Hart, 2002), p. 283.
70. See Arun Goyal, WTO in the New Millennium (4th edn, New Delhi: Academy of Business Studies, 2000), p. 157.
71. Nigel Grimwade, International Trade Policy: A Contemporary Analysis (London: Routledge, 1996), p. 277.
72. Clause 3(a) of the Enabling Clause.
73. Clause 3(b) of the Enabling Clause.
74. GATT Article XXIV:8(b).
75. GATT Article XXIV:5(c).
76. Paragraph 3 of the Understanding,
77. This is because there are two schemes for trade liberalization under the India-ASEAN Framework Agreement, the Normal Track and the Fast Track. Tariff on goods under the Normal Track scheme are not fully liberalized until 2017.
78. Article 3 of the India-ASEAN Framework Agreement.
79. See note 58 above.
80. MERCOSUR was notified by the member states under the Enabling Clause. Certain WTO Members raised objection and demanded that MERCOSUR needs to be examined under Article XXIV. Consequently, the CRTA has been asked to examine the Agreement in light of Article XXIV. Although the factual examination has concluded, the report is yet to be adopted. Similarly, with respect to the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), which was also notified under the Enabling Clause, in February 1993 the United States, the EU and other Members argued before the GATT General Council that the AFTA needs to be examined under Article XXIV as the size of the AFTA goes much beyond what was envisaged under Enabling Clause. The developing nations countered this by arguing that AFTA was an agreement between developing countries and thus can be notified under the Enabling Clause. The developing countries seem to have prevailed as to date no formal request for examining the AFTA has been made.
81. See Notification of RTAs to the GATT/WTO and in Force as of 18 July 2007, available at: (visited 22 September 2007).
82. Ibid.
83. Statesman News Service, Govt. Finalizing Revised offer for WTO, Statesman, 25 May 2005, p. 9.
84. Services accounted for 54.1 percent of India's GDP in 2005-2006.
85. See Planning Commission of India, Economic Survey 2005-2006, available at: , p. 118 (visited 12 September 2007).
86. Ibid.
87. Ibid., at 117.
88. Pursuant to the Doha Ministerial, the VITO is presently considering the various possible issues under Article V including interpretations of the term "substantial sectoral coverage". See Negotiating Group on Rules, Compendium of Issues Related to Regional Trade Agreements, TN/RL/W/8/Rev.1, pp. 22-23.
89. Luis Abugattas Majluf, Swimming in the Spaghetti Bowl: Challenges for Developing Countries Under the "New Regionalism", UNCTAD Policy Paper, available at: p. 22 (visited 10 September 2007).
90. Sectors in which Singapore gets preferential access include business services, construction and related engineering services, financial services, telecommunication services, tourism, transport and travel related services; Indian service providers will enjoy preferential treatment in business services, distribution services, education services, environmental services and transportation services. See the schedules of India and Singapore in CECA, available at: (visited 10 September 2007).
91. This is because Article V:3(a) provides that "Where developing countries are parties to an agreement of the type referred to in paragraph 1, flexibility shall be provided for regarding the conditions set out in paragraph 1, particularly with reference to subparagraph (b) thereof, in accordance with the level of development of the countries concerned, both overall and in individual sectors and sub-sectors."
92. For a detailed discussion on various possible interpretations of the term "flexibility" as used in GATS Article V:3(a), see note 82 above, at 25.
93. Sherry. M. Stephenson, Approaches to Services Liberalization by Developing Countries, OAS Trade Unit Study, available at: (visited 23 September 2007).
94. See Annexure 7-A and Annexure 7-B of the CECA.
95. CECA Article 7.4.
96. WTO Panel Report, Canada - Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry (Canada - Auto), WT/DS139/R, adopted 19 June 2000, para. 10.270, wherein it is stated that "Although the requirement of Article V:1(b) is to provide non-discrimination in the sense of Article XVII (National Treatment), we consider that once it is fulfilled it would also ensure non-discrimination between all service suppliers of other parties to the economic integration agreement. It is our view that the object and purpose of this provision is to eliminate all discrimination among services and service suppliers of parties to an economic integration agreement, including discrimination between suppliers of other parties to an economic integration agreement."
97. WTO Panel Report, Canada - Auto, ibid., para 10.271, wherein it is stated that "However, in our view, it is not within the object and purpose of Article V to provide legal coverage for the extension of more favourable treatment only to a few service suppliers of parties to an economic integration agreement on a selective basis, even in situations where the maintenance of such measures may explicitly be provided for in the agreement itself."
98. CECA Second Proviso to Article 7.1(e).
99. CECA First Proviso to Article 7.1(e).
100. Article V:3(b) reads "Notwithstanding paragraph 6, in the case of an agreement of the type referred to in paragraph 1 involving only developing countries, more favourable treatment may be granted to juridical persons owned or controlled by natural persons of the parties to such an agreement."
101. The fact that the notification under Article XXIV:7(a) is required for both interim agreements that lead to FTAs and FTAs, while the power to recommend changes under Article XXIV:7(b) is only with respect to FTAs alone means that Article XXIV intended to regulate FTAs much before they were fully formed and implemented. In practice, however, most RTAs are notified (if at all they are notified) much after they have fully come into force thus presenting the CRTA with a fait accompli. See Sungjoon Cho, Breaking the Barrier between Regionalism and Multilateralism: A New Perspective on Trade Regionalism, 42 Harvard International Law Journal 2 (2001), 419; This is true in the case of India as well. Out the 10 RTAs (12 including the trade treaties with Nepal and Bhutan) that India is party to only four have been notified to the WTO. As of 18 July 2007, none of the interim agreements that India has entered into in the past eight years have been notified to the WTO. Even the India-Sri Lanka FTA was notified to the WTO in 2002, i.e., nearly a year after it had already been in full force. However, in May 2007, the CECA has been notified to the WTO.
102. Work of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements, available at: (visited 20 September 2007).
103. These five RTAs are the Customs Union between the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM), the Caribbean Free Trade Agreement, the El Salvador-Nicaragua Free Trade Area and the Participation of Nicaragua in the Central American Free Trade Area. See note 45 above, at 817.
104. See note 96 above.
105. See note 42 above, at 344.
106. John H. Jackson, The Jurisprudence of GATT and the WTO: Insights in Treaty Law and Economic Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 104;
107. see, also, WTO Panel Report, United States - Definitive safeguard measures on imports of circular welded carbon quality line pipe from Korea, WT/DS34/AB/R, adopted on 8 March 2002, para. 7.144, wherein the Panel has observed, "In our view, the information provided by the United States in these proceedings, the information submitted by the NAFTA parties to the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA) (which the United States has incorporated into its submissions to the Panel by reference), and the absence of effective refutation by Korea, establishes a prima facie case that NAFTA is in conformity with Article XXIV:5(b) and (c), and with Article XXIV:8(b). Concerning Article XXVIII:8(b), we do not consider the fact that the CRTA has not yet issued a final decision that NAFTA is in compliance with Article XXIV:8 is sufficient to rebut the prima facie case established by the United States. Korea's argument is based on the premise that a regional trade arrangement is presumed inconsistent with Article XXIV until the CRTA makes a determination to the contrary. We see no basis for such a premise in the relevant provisions of the Agreements Establishing the WTO."
108. See note 96 above.
109. Regional Trade Agreements Notified to the GATT/WTO and in Force as of 18 July 2007, available at: (visited 23 September 2007);
110. The exception is the Free Trade Agreement between Thailand and Australia (Services) for which a Factual Presentation has been prepared on 21 March, 2007, WT/REG185/4, available at: (visited 23 September, 2007).
111. Enabling Clause paragraph 4 reads "Any contracting party taking action to introduce an arrangement pursuant to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above or subsequently taking action to introduce modification or withdrawal of the differential and more favourable treatment so provided shall a) notify the CONTRACTING PARTIES and furnish them with all the information they may deem appropriate relating to such action; b) afford adequate opportunity for prompt consultations at the request of any interested contracting party with respect to any difficulty or matter that may arise. The CONTRACTING PARTIES shall, if requested to do so by such contracting party, consult with all contracting parties concerned with respect to the matter with a view to reaching solutions satisfactory to all such contracting parties."
112. See note 101 above.
113. See note 102 above.
114. See paragraph 29 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, WT/MIN(01)/ DEC/1, adopted on 14 November 2001, which mandates negotiations aimed at "clarifying and improving disciplines and procedures under the existing WTO provisions applying to regional trade agreements. The negotiations shall take into account the developmental aspects of regional trade agreements".
115. See note 82 above.
116. In this case it was a CU but the reasoning will equally apply to an FTA.
117. See WTO, Panel Report, Turkey - Restriction on Import of Textiles and Clothing Products (Turkey - Textiles), WT/DS34/R, adopted 19 November 1999.
118. WTO Panel Report, Turkey - Textiles, as note 109 above, para. 9.53.
119. WTO Appellate Body Report, Turkey - Textiles, as note 48 above, para. 60; although neither Turkey nor India had appealed against the assumption of legality of the CU by the Panel, Philippines, an intervening party, had raised in the appeal the issue of the Turkey - EU CU not being a CU within the meaning of Article XXIV.
120. See WTO Appellate Body Report, Turkey - Textiles, as note 48 above, paras 29-30.
121. Petros C. Mavroidis, If I don't do it, somebody else will (or won't): Testing the compliance of PTAs with multilateral rules, 40 Journal of World Trade 1 (February 2006), 187, wherein numerous reasons have been suggested as to why both "incumbents" (countries that are RTA members) and "outsiders" (countries that are not members of any RTA) will be unwilling to challenge RTAs before the DSB. It has also been suggested that in the future the risk-averse WTO panels are unlikely to pronounce on the consistency of RTAs with GATT Article XXIV.
122. Reuters, ASEAN says expect India Free Trade Deal by 2008, 28 August 2007, available at: (visited 29 September 2007).
123. Ashok B. Sharma, FTA with MERCOSUR Group shouldn't hit domestic Veg Oil and Food Industries, 16 June 2004, available at: (visited 13 September 2007).
124. Pranajoy Guha and Shivam Vij, Indian Business Groups wary of Thai FTA, 21 October 2006, available at: (visited 23 September 2007).
125. See K.G. Narendranath, India Turns Wiser on bilateral trade pacts, The Economic Times, 21 June 2007, available at: (visited 25 September 2007).
126. See Jagdish Bhagwati, A Stream of Windows: Unsettling Reflections on Trade, Immigration and Democracy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 1998), p. 290; the spaghetti bowl problem is also being faced in other parts of Asia, where due to proliferation of RTAs, there are multiple RTAs among the same countries, with varying terms of trade under each of these RTAs. Recently Japan has proposed an East Asian Free Trade Zone comprising of 15 Asian nations, including China and India. Other Asian nations have welcomed this move because it will reduce the spaghetti bowl effect in Asia.
127. See Woranuj Maneerungsee, Asian FTAs would simplify trade rules, 11 April 2006, available at: (visited 21 September 2007).
128. In the CECA between India and Singapore, for most products, parties have agreed to a RoO based on the dual criteria of regional value content and change in tariff classification, whereas in respect of RoO for India-ASEAN FTA, which is yet to be finalized, there is continuing disagreement between the parties, with India insisting on the dual criteria similar to the CECA, whereas ASEAN is wanting to go ahead only with the value added content rule.
129. Rahul Sen, "New Regionalism in Asia: A Comparative Analysis of Emerging Regional and Bilateral Trading Agreements involving ASEAN, China and India, 40 Journal of World Trade 4 (August 2006), 570.
130. Address by President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam at Business Chambers of Korea, Seoul, 7 February 2006, available at: (visited 21 September 2007).
131. Sanjay Kumar, India Calls for the formation of an Asian Economic Community, Malaysian Sun, 17 September 2007, available at: (visited 26 Sev2t2embel 2007).
132. See note 119 above, at 581.
133. Indian Trade Promotion Council, Major Destinations of Exports, available at: (visited 26 September 2007).
134. See Planning Commission of India, Economic Survey 2005-2006, available at: p. 117 (visited 19 September 2007).
135. See Sydney M. Cone, The Promotion of free Trade Areas Viewed in Terms of Most Favored Nation Treatment and "Imperial Preference", 26 Michigan Journal of International Law 2 (2007), 1, wherein the author has demonstrated that the recent bilateral FTAs entered into by the United States with smaller countries such as Australia, Chile and Singapore are loaded in favour of the United States.
136. See Jaime de Melo, Regionalism and Developing Countries: A Primer, 41 Journal of World Trade 2 (April 2007), 351.
137. Mukul J. Asher and Rahul Sen, Enhancing India's Deepening Integration with rest of Asia, available at: , p. 14 (visited 26 September 2007)
138. See Round Table on Indo-ASEAN FTA: Organized by Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), available at: (visited 29 September 2007).
139. World Trade Organization, World Trade Report 2004: Exploring the Linkage between The Domestic Policy Environment and International Trade, available at: (visited 23 September 2007).
140. Ibid.
141. From an economic perspective, the desirability of RTAs vis-à-vis the WTO, is examined by whether the RTA is trade-diverting or trade-creating. An RTA is considered to be trade-diverting if it takes away trade from efficient outside suppliers and gives it to inefficient suppliers of the member countries of the RTA. On the contrary, an RTA is trade-creating if it increases trade from an efficient member country at the expense of an inefficient member. Trade-creating RTAs are considered to enhance the welfare effect (particularly for countries outside the RTA) and thus considered desirable from a multilateral perspective. Whether or not, a particular RTA is trade-creating is a question of fact, which is to be determined empirically by examining trade flows prior to and subsequent to the countries entering an RTA. However, a reduction in MFN tariff rates by countries entering an RTA, will ensure that exports from non-members of the RTA are not adversely affected, thus increasing the chance that the RTA is trade-creating. See Jagdish Bhagwati, Writings on International Economics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 173-179.
142. G. Parthasarathy, India and Free Trade in Asia, 14 June 2006, available at: (visited on 20 September 2007), wherein it is pointed out that due to the continued inability of the Government of India to bring down tariffs in some major sectors either in RTAs or on an MFN basis the East Asian nations are increasingly wary of trade engagements with India.