The First GATT Article XX(j) Case

From today's India - Solar Cells WTO panel report:

7.202. We note at the outset that the general exception contained in Article XX(j) has never been invoked as a defence before a GATT/WTO dispute settlement panel. Article 3.2 of the DSU directs us to interpret this provision "in accordance with customary rules of interpretation of public international law". In accordance with the general rule of treaty interpretation reflected in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, we will interpret the terms "products in general or local short supply" pursuant to the ordinary meaning of the terms of Article XX(j), read in their context and in the light of the object and purpose of the covered agreements. In accordance with Article 32 of the Vienna Convention, we may have recourse to supplementary means of interpretation to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of Article 31, or to determine the meaning of the terms if we conclude that the interpretation according to Article 31 leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure, or leads to a result that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.

...

7.265. For the reasons set forth above, we find that solar cells and modules are not "products in general or local short supply" in India within the meaning of Article XX(j) of the GATT 1994. Accordingly, we find that the DCR measures do not involve the acquisition of "products in general or local short supply" in India, and are therefore not justified under the general exception in Article XX(j) of the GATT 1994.