1722hrs: The Respondent begins with his reply to the  rebuttals but is told that he had already made that argument during his pleadings. He is asked if he has any new points. He replies in the negative and concludes without making any replies. 

The first semi final has concluded and the next round shall commence after around 20 minutes!

1730hrs: The first Semi-Final round was between The George Washington University Law School, Washington DC acting as Complaints and National Law University, Jodhpur acting as Respondents.

The esteemed four member panel judging the semi finals consists of-

Mr. Animesh Sinha
Ms. Anuradha RV
Mr. Mukundan Chakrapani
Ms. Surbhi Mehta

1758hrs: Round 2 of the Semifinals has commenced! The second Semi-Final round is between National Law University, Delhi acting as Complaints and San Beda College of Law, Manila acting as Respondents.

1759hrs: The first speaker from the Complainants side has already begun speaking and hasn't been interrupted with questions by the Panel yet. As he lays down the legal tests for the first issue of his argument, the panel says that it not enough to merely state the test, he must explain them as well.

1803hrs: The complainant is now demonstrating that the products are 'like' and the Panel appears to follow him but then asks him to demonstrate how each requirement under the proposed test has been met.

1803hrs: The Panel asks the Speaker whether mere similarity between the products is sufficient to show likeness. The Speaker concedes that it isn't and then moves on to show that the measure also fulfills other criteria. The Complainant Speaker I is now being grilled by the panel on facts. The speaker holds his stead and answers the questions with confidence.

1807hrs: The Panel is still questioning the Speaker on likeness of the products. The questioning is more intense now. The Respondent attempts to marshall facts to his advantage but is unable to satisfy the Panel. He directs the Panel to a specific paragraph in the record to buttress his argument and the Panel seems to accept his submissions.

1808hrs: Complainant Speaker I has managed to move on to his next argument quickly, in spite of all the queries put forth by the Panelists.

1812hrs: The Speaker is again caught in a flurry of questions and is unable to get out of it. Respondents are ruffling through their notes. Do they have the answers?

1815hrs: Complainant Speaker I is told that he may answer this last question before moving on. He graciously thanks the Panel and attempts to answer. He is asked to explain whether the measure at hand falls within the ambit of Art. 2.1.

1816hrs:  He gives a short crisp answer which is accepted by the Panellists who seem impressed. Good work there!

1819hrs: Speaker II begins her arguments in a clear lucid manner. The poise with which all the teams conduct themselves is very impressive.

1822hrs: Speaker II quotes VCLT to support her arguments but the Panel has more questions for her.  Complainant Speaker II seems slightly disconcerted by the panelist's questions. Will she address all concerns of the panel adequately or will she succumb to her nervousness?

1824hrs: The Speaker is told that she is dodging the question by the Panel. She attempts to clarify her stand regarding the objective of the measure at hand.

1827hrs: The Speaker is attempting to demonstrate that the measure at hand provides is unreasonable and that there are other alternatives that are available to the respondent.

1830hrs: The Panel asks whether the Speaker knew in advance if they knew of the consequences of non compliance in advance. She confidently replies with a 'yes' and moves on to her next issue. She has picked up the pace of her argument and is talking somewhat faster than before.

1832hrs: The Panel states that there is some contradiction in the arguments of the Complainant. Speaker II attempts to clarify her stand and suggests that there were alternatives available to the Respondent.

1834hrs: The Panel is now using her own statements where she stated that they were aware of the consequences to contradict her stand. The Speaker does not flinch and makes her submission confidently and calmly.

1837hrs: The Speaker now moves on to her next submission and is questioned on the exact nature of the measure that is being challenged.

1840hrs:  As Complainant Speaker II begins to elaborate on the scheme of GATT Article XX, she is briefly interrupted by the Panelist. The Speaker is asked a last question regarding procedure but she is unable to justify her answers under the DSU and states what she 'thinks' is the position. The Panel is not satisfied but since her time is up, she concludes her submissions.

1842hrs: Respondent Speaker I begins his arguments with the introduction of issues and time division. He sound calm and has very clear enunciation.

1843hrs: The Respondents were busy flipping through and reading their printed material while the Complainants were arguing. However, now while arguing, the Respondents' first speaker is looking the Panellists right in the eye and is not referring to any material.

1844hrs: Respondents' second speaker is passing notes now for reference to the first speaker. Yet, the first speaker has answered Panellist Anuradha RV's question without reference to the notes passed.

1845hrs: Now while Panelist Mr. Mukundan Chakrapani asks a long question, the speaker is reading the notes. This might annoy the Panellists. Beware!

1846hrs: Both Mr. Chakrapani and Ms. Anuradha RV have asked  questions in the last minute. He is now struggling to proceed with his arguments. Mr. Animesh Sinha has also joined in the questioning now.

1848hrs:  The reliability of the report given in one of the annexures to the problem is under scrutiny now. Despite the ceaseless questioning, Respondents' first speaker seems unfazed.

1849hrs: The Panel does not appear to accept his argument regarding likeness and the Respondent is now facing a flurry of questions. However, he retains his composure and calmly elucidates his stand to the Panel  and appears to convince them. At the very least, they allow him to move on to the next argument.

1850hrs: Some use of hand movements by the Respondents' first speaker. However, he seems a little hesitant, like he wants to move his hands naturally but is not too sure if he is supposed to do so. He continues to maintain his composure through the barrage of questions and even briefly glances at the note by his co counsel. Team work at its best!

1851hrs: The Panel is now questioning the Respondent Speaker on the harshness of the measure. Respondent I attempts to show how the measure was needed to address the situation in the Respondent state.

1854hrs: The Panel is now questioning the Speaker on other alternatives available to the Respondent. Speaker II always begins his answers with an "Honourable Members of the Panel". He is very polite and does not flinch at any of the questions which are more aggressive now.

1858hrs: The Speaker has run out of time and is asked to answer a very specific question. He confidently begins his reply but is immediately questioned. However, as is his style, he remains calm and attempts to elaborate on his submission.

1901hrs: Speaker I for Respondent concludes his submissions and the second speaker begins her submissions.

1905hrs: The Respondent Speaker II responds to the Panel's initial questions by quoting a case. The Panel is not entirely satisfied, and begin questioning her, to which she responds by marshalling facts to her advantage.

1907hrs: The Panel interrupts the answer by her to suddenly switch to a new issue through their questions. The Speaker is unfazed and answers confidently.

1912hrs: The Panel is questioning the Speaker on whether preemptive measures are allowed under trade law. The Respondent's response leads to further questioning which the  Speaker uses to move on to her other arguments.

1915hrs: The Complainants seem to be scribbling fervently as if they have found rebuttals of substance. With the last five minutes of the allotted time of the second speaker of the Respondents remaining, the intensity of questioning seems to have diminished. The Speaker is going a little faster than she was before. The Panel asks her a question regarding the analysis conducted by the Respondent prior to the implementation of the measure. The Panel seem to accept her answer and asks her to move on with her submissions.

1916hrs: The panelists state that the Respondent Speaker II is reiterating the points of her first speaker and question her as to whether she has any new submissions to make. When she declines this, she is questioned over whether she would like to argue the defense under Article XX which she declines as well. She thanks the Panel and concludes her speech before the allotted time is up. This is unprecedented. All the speakers of all the 3 teams speaking in the semi finals before her have exceeded their time!

1917hrs: The Respondent concludes her submission. The Complainants begin with their rebuttals and are told to only make new points to rebut and not repeat arguments they have already made. The speaker raises a total of 4 rebuttals. That's a lot of rebuttals! Their rebuttals are majorly with respect to the mandatory nature of the measure and likeness of the products.

1918hrs: The rebuttals are proceeding without any questions from the Panel though one of the Panelists looks unimpressed with the rebuttals being put forth. 

1920hrs: It seems that the speaker has already exceeded 4 points and yet he hasn't been interrupted by the Panel. He raises a lot of other rebuttals. We counted a total of 8! He in fact had even more rebuttals but he ran out time.

1922hrs: Respondent I starts with a statement that they would attempt to rebut the "myriad" rebuttals raised by the Complainant. He answers confidently and with that concludes the second semi-final round!

1923hrs: The judges are engaged in deep deliberation. The feedback session is supposed to commence in another 10 minutes. 

This ends our coverage for the semi finals. Stay tuned, we shall return with the results of the semi final rounds in about an hour! You can also keep checking our Twitter Page for further updates.

AND THE TWO TEAMS WHO SHALL BE DUKING IT OUT IN THE FINALS ARE

NLU DELHI AND THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF LAW!

Our heartiest congratulations to the two teams and we wish them all the best! Stay tuned for the finals which will take place tomorrow afternoon. Good Night! 

---------------------------------
08/ 02/ 2015

1351hrs: The Courtroom is ready. Finals shall begin at 2pm today!

1352hrs: Unlike the previous rounds where the time frame was shorter, the teams will now have 45 minutes each to put forth their submissions.

1412hrs: Panelists judging this final round are-

 

Dr. Ilaria Espa, Marie Curie Senior Research Fellow at World Trade Institute

Mr. Greg Tereposky, Partner, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP 

Mr. Ujal Singh Bhatia, Member, WTO Appellate Body

Ms. Indu Malhotra, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court

Mr. Jayant Dasgupta, former IAS officer, Executive Partner, Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys

 

1413hrs:  Finals are now underway. The George Washington University Law School acting as Complainants while National Law University Delhi are acting as Respondents.

First speaker for the Complainants is Zelda Vassar.

 

A brief summary of the facts, for our readers is that this is a dispute between Agatea (Complainant) and Asgard (Respondent) regarding the implementation of an Act (PaCE)  by Asgard imposing a requirement that all Powdered Infant Formula must carry a label with contents of the PIF. This was in response to an alarming spike in diabetes among children. Because the major market players in Asgard for PIFs were Agatean, they could not comply with the two month deadline given for compliance and hence their products were taken down. A domestic manufacturer however managed to capitalize on this opportunity to capture the market. Agatea has brought this dispute before a WTO Panel stating that Respondent could have given more time and could have allowed them to apply stickers.

 

1414hrs: The first Speaker for the Complainants begins her arguments by laying out the outline of her arguments regarding the violation of Art. III:4 and Art.2.1. She states that the last requirement under Art. 2.1 of legitimate regulatory distinction will be dealt with by her co-counsel along with the arguments under Art. 2.2.

 

1415hrs: Complainant Speaker 1 is now arguing that the measure at hand, imposing a labelling requirement is a technical regulation. She quotes the definition of a technical regulation given under Annex I of the TBT Agreement and is now demonstrating that the facts do in fact fulfill the requirements of that definition.

 

1417hrs: Mr. Greg Tereposky politely interrupts the counsel and states that he requires some factual clarification and is now reading out provisions of the PaCE (the  measure in issue). He states that the provision uses the word 'may

and hence it is not mandatory in nature.

 

1418hrs: The Complainant Speaker confidently replies that such a word is not conclusive and the nature of measure must be seen from all the facts and circumstances. She is now quoting the explanation given in US-Tuna II to support her submission that the measure provides for an enforcement mechanism and is therefore, mandatory.

 

1421hrs: The Speaker convincingly establishes her case that the measure is mandatory in nature and moves on to the requirement of 'likeness'. She is now quoting the report in US-Clove to show that the products were in a competitive relationship. She further cites the four factors given in EC-Asbestos to determine whether such a relationship exists.

 

1423hrs: The Panel is letting her argue at length and seems to be following her line of argument. Speaker 1 is now showing that since the likeness is based on a 'group' basis, the group of products in this case do in fact possess similar characteristics and are based on the same formula. She then argues that both the products are used as supplements for human milk and therefore have similar end uses.

 

1425hrs: The Panel now questions her argument stating that there is a sufficient distinction between individual physical characteristics and asks her whether it would affect her argument. The Speaker confidently replies that it would not since the likeness test depends on the characteristics of a group of products and not individual subsets.

 

1427hrs: The Speaker then quotes the HS classification to show that the products also have similar product classification. She is then questioned by Mr. Ujal Singh Bhatia but manages to convince the Panel about her argument. She notes that she has only five minutes left and moves to address the argument on less favourable treatment.

 

1429hrs:  The Speaker uses facts to show that the producers from Agatea would have to incur expenses of almost 50 million USD to bring their products in compliance with PaCE. She then argues that because of PaCE, the Agatean products were taken down from shelves in Asgard and allowed the domestic product to take over the market. She then quotes the report in US-COOL to back up her argument that PaCE did in fact have a detrimental effect on competition.

 

1431hrs: Ms. Indu Malhotra questions the Speaker on whether a profit margin would be subservient to the interests of public health. The Speaker replies that she disagrees that the objective of the PaCE was in fact to protect public health. She further states that in any case, they had attempted to comply with the measure by the application of the sticker but had been disallowed and states that this question would be dealth with in detail by her co-counsel.

 

1433hrs: The Speaker concludes with a thank you but Mr. Jayan Dasgupta has a last question for her as to whether they would still bring this claim if the stickers had been allowed. The Speaker replies that they would not and that the prohibition against the "adhesive label" in fact shows the protectionist intent of the Respondent.

 

1435hrs: The Speaker again thanks the Panel but there is yet one more question from Mr. Greg Tereposky on whether they should hear a claim under Art. III:4 as separate from the claim under Art.2.1. The Speaker begins her reply and corrects herself midway to state that if the Panel must look at Art.2.1 first and if it finds that there is no violation it may exercise judicial economy, while if it finds that there has been a violation it should move on to an analysis under Art. III:4. Her final thank you is accepted and the second speaker begins her arguments.

The second speaker from the Complainants' side is Kathryn Sadasivan.

 

1436hrs: The second speaker starts her argument by quoting the report in US-COOL to argue that if costs on manufacturers are not commensurate with the information given to the consumers then the discrimination cannot be said to be from a legitimate regulatory distinction.

 

1440hrs: Ms. Indu Malhotra asks the Speaker whether she really believes that stickers would serve the purpose since they can be torn and tampered with. The Speaker replies that steps may be taken to ensure that such damage does not occur and hence this measure violates Art. 2.1 of the TBT.

 

1442hrs: Ms. Indu Malhotra questions the Speaker as to whether there has been any de jure discrimination by the measure and asks her to distinguish between de jure and de facto discrimination. She does not seem satisfied with the answer given by the Speaker and then goes on to explain the difference herself and asks the Speaker to proceed with her arguments. The Speaker is now arguing that PaCE is not a measure that is "necessary" since alternative measures are available in the form of stickers.

 

1444hrs:  The Speaker is now arguing that even if the measure is found to pursue a legitimate objective under Art. 2.2 of the TBT Agreement and Art. XX of GATT, it is inconsistent with the chapeau of Art. XX since it is a disguised restriction on trade and argues that the burden of proof lies on the Respondent to demonstrate otherwise.

 

1446hrs: Mr. Ujal Singh Bhatia asks her whether the Complainants are challenging the measure as such or as applied. The Speaker replies that the entire implementation of the measure was taken by the same body within the Respondent and hence they are challenging those acts of the Respondent as being a disguised restriction on trade.

 

1447hrs: The Respondents are busy flipping through their written submissions and are passing notes back and forth while the Complainants put forth their arguments. 

 

1448hrs:  Ms. Ilaria Espa asks the Speaker for clarification and the Speaker confidently elaborates her arguments regarding PaCE being an inconsistent measure under the WTO framework. The Respondent speakers appear to be intently listening to her arguments. Speaker II for Respondent appears to be making some notes.

 

1450hrs: Complainant Speaker II then moves on to her next argument. Ms. Indu Mallhotra questions the Speaker stating that public health is a supervening interest as opposed to the commercial interests of the Complainant. Speaker replies by stating that the domestic product and imported products have similar levels of sugar and the importers were in fact willing to comply with the labelling requirement by the application of a sticker until such time they could comply with the stricter terms of PaCE. She now quotes statements from the Minister of Health of Asgard stating that it is time for Asgard to encourage domestic industries. She appears to suggest that these statements along with the enactment of PaCE shows that the disguised objective of PaCE was to protect the domestic industry. She also utilizes the facts to suggest that the interpretation of PaCE to disallow stickers was erroneous.

 

1455hrs: The Court officers show the 'stop' sign. The Speaker concludes her arguments. Mr. Jayan Dasgupta has a question for the speaker in which he states that while he appreciates the points brought out by the Speaker, an emergency situation within Asgard would allow them to provide for a shorter time line for compliance. Further, he questions her on whether they had raised their arguments on the interpretation of PaCE in domestic fora.

 

1457hrs: The Complainant Speaker replies confidently to the first question using the facts to her advantage. She appears to be confused about the second question and asks for a clarification. She then confidently responds to that query by referring to the CODEX and facts on record to show that stickers should have been allowed.

 

1501hrs: Mr. Ujal Singh Bhatia has a question for the Complainant Speaker to which she delivers a convincing reply.

Speaker 1 for the Respondent now begins his arguments. Speaker 1 from the Respondents' side is Siddharth Gupta.

 

1502hrs: Speaker 1 for the Respondents begins his arguments and requests for permission to briefly lay out the facts. He then outlines his argument and seeks permission to move on to his argument. He seems to have adopted a slightly different approach for the final rounds as compared to his submissions in the semi finals.

 

1506hrs: The Speaker directs the Panel to a footnote in the written submission to quote the report in Korea-Beef. He then concedes that the products are like on the basis of the Report of Working Party on Border Tax Adjustments and states that this was why the definition of Powdered Infant Formula in PaCE was so broad. It remains to be seen whether the strategy works out for him!

 

1508hrs: Speaker 1 for the Respondent is breaking down to each of his arguments in order to help the judges follow his arguments. It seems to be working since there have been no interruptions so far. He quotes the facts to support his argument and he then puts forward an "arguendo argument".

 

1509hrs:  Mr. Greg Tereposky interrupts the Speaker and points out that the domestic manufacturer holds 60% of the market and asks the Speaker to explain how this does not show a detrimental effect on competition.

 

1511hrs: The Speaker answers then that the measure did not discriminate between domestic and imported products since even non-complying domestic products would have been seized and that they cannot be held responsible for the decisions of private players on whether or not to comply with the measure.

 

1514hrs: Mr. Ujal Singh Bhatia questions the Speaker on whether the prohibition against stickers modified the competitive environment. The Speaker replies that the private companies before using the stickers could have asked for a clarification from the judiciary of Asgard and that Asgard could not be bound by interpretations and understanding of private players and that its decision is a "legit" interpretation of the PaCE.

 

1515hrs: The Complainants are busy making notes and it appears as if they have identified certain arguments that they would like to rebut!

 

1517hrs: The Speaker has adopted a very humble manner of speaking and makes it a point to thank the judges after every question. In reply to a question by Mr. Jayan Dasgupta, he states that while they have not yet conclusively determined a link between diabetes and high sugar content of powdered infant food, the most prudent step they could take was to ensure consumer awareness.

 

1520hrs: The Speaker then quotes the report in US-Clove and states that they concede that the measure is a technical regulation. He asks whether the Panel requires him to elaborate on why it is such a regulation or whether it is okay for him to move on. He then moves on to an arguendo, if the Panel were to hold that the measure had a detrimental effect on competition.

 

1524hrs: The Speaker has run out time and asks for a brief extension to conclude his argument. Mr. Ujal Singh Bhatia however asks him on what is the legitimate regulatory distinction in the present case. Speaker 1 replies that this would be dealt with in detail by his co-speaker and reminds the Panel that this argument was only an arguendo and that their main submission is that there has been no discrimination.

 

1525hrs: Speaker II from the Respondent Side is Nidhi Koul and she begins her arguments by stating that she would be dealing with submissions under Art. 2.2, 2.8 of the TBT Agreement and Art. XX of the GATT. The Complainants are making notes continuously. They hadn't made any submissions under Art. 2.8 in their orals.

 

1527hrs: Speaker is now arguing on the legitimacy of the measure under Art. 2.2. Mr. Greg Tereposky asks her whether a measure can have more than one objective. The Speaker replies in the affirmative and states that one of the objectives of PaCE is to prevent deceptive practices. She moves on to the relational analysis required under Art. 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.

 

1528hrs: The Speaker argues that the measure makes a material contribution to the objective sought to be achieved by the measure. Mr. Greg Tereposky asks her a question but the Speaker doesn't seem to grasp it completely and asks for a clarification. She then replies that the measure is in fact not trade restrictive at all and hence a comparison with alternatives is not required. She argues that in any case, application of stickers would not serve the purpose of consumer awareness as the government must ensure that the measure must have a level of "conviction" which would not be satisfied by stickers.

 

1532hrs: Ms. Indu Malhotra states that by prohibiting speakers the Respondent had in fact taken away a level playing field from the market. The Speaker replies that the Agatean manufacturers had two months to approach the Respondent and inform them about the use of stickers which they did not.

 

1536hrs: Speaker II has moved on to her next argument under Art. 2.12 of the TBT agreement. Mr. Ujal Singh Bhatia asks her that since no submissions were made with respect to Art. 2.12 of the TBT Agreement, why should they hear the same? The Speaker replies on the basis of some statements in the facts. She then moves on to argument under Article XX of the GATT by quoting the report in US-Gasoline.

 

1541hrs: Speaker states that the measure falls within Art. XX(b) since the measure is necessary to protect human health. She shows how there has been an alarming spike in diabetes among children but Mr. Greg Tereposky questions her on whether a greater scientific analysis is required before such a measure must be taken. The Speaker replies that this is an arguendo but the Panellist replies that his question was in fact with respect to the speculative nature of the measure. The Speaker quotes the report in Thailand-Cigarettes to state that a complete scientific analysis is not required if there is an element of risk in the matter.

 

1544hrs: The Speaker has run out of time and states that she would take one minute to conclude her submission. She states that the PaCE is an initial step and the best step that could have been taken to combat the present situation and that it is indeed necessary since no reasonable alternatives are available to the Respondent. She now moves on to her arguments on the chapeau of Art. XX and states that it is not a disguised restriction on trade.

 

1547hrs: Another request for an extension of time is denied by the Panel. The Complainants begin with their rebuttals:

 

i) With respect to the objective pursued by PaCE, the Complainant states that no argument on emergency situation was raised and hence the argument by the Respondent was disingenuous.

ii) With respect to Art. 2.2, she states that even the aftermath of the measure, i.e., after compliance by Agatean manufacturers shows that there is a detrimental effect on competition and not a mere added cost since there was a clear loss in market share. With respect to the arguments on reasonable alternatives, the Speaker disagrees with the use of US-Tuna II and states that the alternative need not provide a better contribution to the objective and that hence any risks related to disingenuous information on stickers are not relevant. The Speaker seems fond of the word "disingenuous".

 

1552hrs: Ms. Indu Malhotra however questions the Speaker as  to why representations were not made in the four month period given to the importers. The Speaker replies that they did in fact make representations and marshalls facts to support her claim.

 

1553hrs: The second speaker then raises further rebuttals by stating that the Respondents have not shown that stickers carry any real risk of fraud and should therefore be disallowed. She concludes the submissions for the Complainant.

 

1554hrs: The Respondent begins his replies but firstly begins by raising  specific rebuttals to the arguments made by the Speaker. Shouldn't this have been addressed in the main speech? The judges seem to be following him however.

 

1557hrs: Speaker II for the Respondent begins with the replies to the rebuttals of the Complainant. She states that there would not have been a loss in market share if the Agatean companies had complied with PaCE and states that the companies managed to recover a large amount of market share after they complied with PaCE. With respect to the application of stickers she states that since the PaCE is not a trade restrictive measure there is no requirement of a comparison with any other alternatives. With respect to time line she states that the entire purpose of the PaCE would have been defeated if they had given a greater time line for compliance. She ends her speech with a relatively hesitant 'thank you'.

 

1605hrs: The participants and the audience have now left the hall for the High Tea. The continuous chatter among the audience suggests that the round has been engaging!

 

1645hrs: Everyone is now assembling for theValedictory Ceremony. The Ceremony begins with an address from GIMC OC member Sagar Godbole. A brief video is shown recalling the past editions of GIMC and it's growth as India's only International Trade Law Moot.

 

 

 

The dignitaries for this function are:

Honourable Mr. Justice D. M. Dharmadhikari, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India

Honourable Justice Mr. C. K. Thakker, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India

Dr. Ilaria Espa, Marie Curie Senior Research Fellow at World Trade Institute

Mr. Greg Tereposky, Partner, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP 

Mr. Ujal Singh Bhatia, Member, WTO Appellate Body

Mr. Jayant Dasgupta, former IAS officer, Executive Partner, Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys

Dr. Bimal N. Patel, Director, Gujarat National Law University.

 

1655hrs: Dr. Bimal N. Patel addresses the gathering by thanking all the OC members and recalls his words at the inauguration ceremony, that results are only a by product and of primary importance are the efforts.

 

1700hrs: The Chief Guest for today's function, Honourable Mr. Justice D. M. Dharmadhikari now begins his speech by reminiscing about his student days and notes how the quality of legal education has improved. He also refers to the increased importance of disputes such as those in trade law but urges the students that they must be also attentive to the problems of the judiciary and to not flock to corporate jobs. He speaks about the immense opportunity of growth in the arena of litigation. We see some heads nodding in agreement.

 

1704hrs: Mr. Greg Tereposky then begins his address with a brief introduction of the firm, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP. He notes the rising prominence of India in the field of International Trade Law and concludes his speech.

 

1708hrs: Mr. Jayant Dasgupta now addresses the gathering and says that he feels really happy to be a part of India's only International Trade Law Moot. He goes on to state that legal acumen of the students is necessary to put forward India's position in the international fora.

 

1715hrs: Mr. Ujal Singh Bhatia begins by stating that globalization has touched every profession in the world, including the legal profession and then goes on to address the interdependence in the profession. He goes on to congratulate all the participants and the OC.

 

1717hrs: Ms. Ilaria Espa congratulates the OC on the excellent organization of the moot and also the teams for their display of great knowledge and passion in WTO law. As the representative of WTI, she informs the participants about the offer to the winner to participate in the Summer Academy program in the WTI which she briefs them about.

 

1730hrs: The moment everyone has been waiting for is here. Everyone waits with bated breath for Mr. Girish R., the faculty convenor to declare the results. 

THE WINNING TEAM OF THIS YEAR'S EDITION OF GIMC IS

"NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, DELHI!!!!!"

 

 

Congratulations to the winners of the competition!

 

THE RUNNERS UP TEAM FOR THIS EDITION OF GIMC IS

" THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL!!" 

 

 

The prizes for memorials are being given out. 

Best Memo: National Law School of India University, Bengaluru

Second Best Memorial: National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, Hyderabad

 

 

The prizes for the Speakers are now being given out:

Best Speaker (Finals): Siddharth Gupta, NLU Delhi.
Best Speaker (Overall): Lowell Fredrick Madreleno, San Beda College of Law, Manila
Second Best Speaker (Overall): Yvete Marie Sola, San Beda College of Law, Manila

 

The Prize for the Best Researcher: Soumya Tiwari, RMLNLU, Lucknow.

 

A special mention was made for Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia since they just missed making it to the quarter finals!

 

1743hrs:  Ms. Snigdha Guha Roy, the Student Convenor takes the podium to huge applause and thanks the teams and faculty members for their support and participation. She notes that organizing GIMC isn't easy but it helps when there's a great team around. Grins from all OC members all around.

 

1745hrs: Mrs. Garima Goswami, the faculty co-convenor now addresses the gathering and gives the vote of thanks.

This is the GIMC PR team signing off! With the hope that you liked our coverage. Do leave a comment below!

 

See you at #GIMC2016 in one year's time.

 

Till then keep checking the Facebook page and Twitter page for photographs over the next few days!