The Indian Shrimp Industry

Organizes to Fight the Threat of

Anti-Dumping Action

Presented by-
Aman Kumar Singh
Vaibhav Rakheja
The Indian shrimp industry and its response 

• The first concrete signal that India might be included in the US industry’s
anti-dumping petition was received by the Indian government in June
2003.
• India’s marine products industry has been one of the major export success
stories. From an export base of just Rs. 450 million in 1971-2, it increased
to Rs. 68,810 million in 2002-3.
• Shrimp is the mainstay of India’s marine product exports.
• Success in India’s shrimp export is directly attributable to the
development of shrimp culture.
• Assisted by the Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA),
shrimp culture has developed as a major industry in several coastal states.
• The Indian government has played an important role in the promotion of
marine product exports, including the development of shrimp farming.
• The MPEDA is a government-sponsored body whose mandate covers the
development of the industry as a whole, including export promotion.
•  It is under the administrative control of the Department of Commerce and
is headed by a senior officer of the Indian Administrative Service.  
• The Seafoods Exporters Association of India (SEAI) is the nodal body of the
exporters community and is represented on the MPEDA governing council. 
• After the statement of the Commerce Minister on the possible threat to
Indian shrimp exports to the United States, these two bodies went into
action.
• There are specific variations between the shrimp caught off the south-
west coast of the United States and in Indian waters, so that prices are
bound to be different. 
• The threat for the domestic shrimp farmer in the United States comes
from China, Thailand, Indonesia and Ecuador.
• India’s shrimp exports are predominantly of black tiger and scampi
varieties which are not cultivated in the United States.
• Fishing in the United States is a capital-intensive activity calling for
major investment.
• In India shrimp capture is carried out with a very low level of capital and
requiring hardly any investment. 
• India’s shrimp export to the United States came under difficulties before,
when the United States banned the import of captured shrimp from
certain countries, including India, in 1976. 
• It was on the ground that trawling for shrimp by mechanized means had
been adversely affecting certain varieties of sea turtles.
• The WTO ruled against the United States and asked it to make the regime
WTO-compatible.
• Shrimp caught by non-mechanized means were being made on the basis
of certification by the MPEDA, as required under the law.
• Under the Amendment, the US government distributes the anti-dumping
and anti-subsidy duties to the US firms that brought forward the cases.
Lessons learnt 
• The crisis caused by the anti-dumping petition of the Ad Hoc Group has
been so far handled competently. 
• The two nodal agencies, one a government body (the MPEDA) and the
other a private trade body (the SEAI) have coordinated their approaches.
• One reason for this of course is that the SEAI is represented in the
management of the MPEDA.
•  Several visits by the representatives of those two bodies to Washington
at critical points also helped to bring an understanding of the nature of
the problem and how to face it. 
• This resulted in the selection and appointment of the legal counsel, as
early as September 2003. 
• The importance of coordinated action by the threatened partners, was
appreciated and was worked on by the trade representatives with their
counterparts in several Asian countries included in the petition.
• Another achievement has been the speedy resolution of the issue of
financing. 
• The fact that the Association decided to bear more than 50% of the total
costs from its internal resources.
• And the rest from the contribution of members according to the value of
their respective exports was critical.
•  Equally critical has been the government’s steadfast support for the
shrimp industry.
• What remains unaddressed is the issue which is in fact generic and
therefore affects all cases, including the shrimp case. 
•  Anti-dumping cases take a long time to be finally decided. 
• During this period, trade is affected because importers are risk-avoiders
and will, therefore, be likely to shift to new sources of supply until the
uncertainty is resolved. 
• Industry people pointed out that an anti-dumping case was initiated
against Indian leather goods in South Africa two years ago.
• Although the case was ultimately settled in India’s favour, the market
was lost to India, because of the uncertainty caused by the transitional
decisions.
• The shrimp industry in India had always focused on one or two major markets
for growth. 
• Previously it was Japan and during the last few years, it has been the United
States.
• It has now learnt the importance of diversification. 
•  A. J. Tharakan, the SEAI president, has said that they are exploring alternative
markets to make up for the loss of the lucrative US market. 
• But it will be a long drawn-out process. It is not easy to establish your presence.’
• This is why it is important to start early — a lesson the industry appears to have
learned from this experience.