71. The representative of India said that, since the United States had made some substantive comments on the Appellate Body and Panel Reports, his delegation wished to put its own views on record on this case. He first recalled that this Council and the DSB had a common membership and the detailed views of Members on these Reports had already been made and recorded in the DSB meeting. India recognized that the final results of the proceedings before the Panel were substantially more limited than those originally sought by the United States. It also recognized that the Appellate Body had rectified some of the errors contained in the Panel Report. Nevertheless, India was constrained to say that it was disappointed with the conclusions of the Appellate Body Report with regard to India's compliance with Article 70.8(a) and 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement. As was well known, India had always acknowledged its obligations under those provisions. The dispute with regard to Article 70.8 had only been about how India should carry out its obligations. Although the Panel had come to the conclusion that India's "administrative instructions" for receiving mailbox applications were inconsistent with Article 70.8 and this conclusion had been upheld by the Appellate Body, it should be borne in mind that the Panel itself had observed that it was up to India to decide how to implement its obligations under Article 70.8. The dispute regarding Article 70.9 had only been about when India should carry out its obligations under this Article and India's position in the dispute had been that Article 70.9 established an obligation to grant exclusive marketing rights for a product after all the conditions specified in Article 70.9 had been fulfilled. However, the Panel and the Appellate Body had concluded that India should have had a mechanism ready for the grant of exclusive marketing rights as of 1 January 1995. Therefore, it was obvious that the views of the Panel and of the Appellate Body with regard to India's perceived failure to comply with its obligations under Article 70.8 and 70.9 were based on narrow technicalities. He mentioned this only to highlight the fact that the conclusions of the Panel and of the Appellate Body with regard to India's perceived failure to comply with its obligations under Article 70.8(a) and 70.9 were not relatable to any deliberate intent or unwillingness on the part of India to comply with its obligations. As all were aware, under Article 21.3 of the DSU, India would inform the DSB of its intentions in respect of implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. In this context, he wished to state that it was India's intention to meet its WTO obligations with respect to this matter. It was obvious, however, that India would require a reasonable period of time to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. In light of the current situation and taking all relevant circumstances into consideration, India would require time until at least 16 June 1999 to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, and had requested the DSB to approve this request of India with regard to the reasonable time frame for implementation.
