indias amendment to its import policy conditions for apples restriction to nhava sheva port in october 2015 new zealand raised concerns regarding indias amendment to its import policy that limited the entry of apple imports to the nhava sheva port of mumbai with all other ports consequently closed. historically new zealands apple exports had been able to enter india through six ports and as result the process of restricting entry to only one port had caused congestion. new zealand further observed that this measure had neither been notified to the wto nor was justified and was in breach of articles 5 and 7 of the sps agreement. while new zealand thanked india for the bilateral discussions to date it also urged india to notify its amended measure to the wto and to provide the rationale for its decision to limit port access as well as the time-frame for this measure. chile shared new zealands concerns and further requested india to provide the reasoning and scientific basis for only allowing apple imports from a single port. in addition chile requested an explanation of the rationale regarding the absence of a notification to the wto in conformity with article 7 and annex b compliance with article 8 and annex c and the justification for applying an emergency measure in relation to articles 5.4 and 5.5 of the sps agreement. the united states and the european union supported this concern emphasizing the need for clarification of the objective of the measure and urged india to notify the measure immediately. the united states noted that given the urgency of the announcement and the restrictiveness of the measure it was left to speculate that the measure had been implemented due to an sps concern. the united states was concerned that the single port in india could not meet the storage and infrastructure requirements required to handle the volume of us apple exports to india expected this year. similarly the european union indicated concerns about the potential increase in transportation costs. the united states requested that india provide a cogent explanation of its reasons consistent with its wto obligations for resorting to this action. india had indicated at the beginning of the meeting when the agenda was adopted that it would not respond to this concern as it was not an sps-related issue. after members expressed their concerns india reiterated that the measure in question was not an sps measure and as such could not be in violation of the sps agreement. india emphasized that the agricultural nature of the products covered did not automatically make the measure itself an sps measure as defined in annex a of the sps agreement. chile noted that in situation such as this one a member could place on record its view that a measure on which a specific trade concern had been raised was not covered by the sps agreement. it was not necessary to raise this before the adoption of the agenda. chile further indicated that a response such as indias was legitimate and asked that the response be included in the record. in addition chile queried whether the measure would fall under import licensing or another agreement. in march 2016 the united states thanked india for rescinding its port restrictions on apples and welcomed the removal of the measure. the united states also expressed appreciation for indias efforts to ensure the immediate notification of any such future actions of a similar nature to the relevant wto committee. new zealand echoed the united states sentiments and thanked india for opening the ports. however new zealand understood that two out of the original six ports remained closed. if that was indeed the case new zealand encouraged india to also allow apples to be imported through those ports. the european union thanked india for reopening the ports and looked forward to the opening of the other ports as well as receiving any future notifications from india on similar measures. india stated that as far as it was concerned the issue was not an sps issue and therefore did not accept i