This is from USTR:
At the direction of President Donald J. Trump, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer announced today that the United States intends to terminate India’s and Turkey’s designations as beneficiary developing countries under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program because they no longer comply with the statutory eligibility criteria.
India’s termination from GSP follows its failure to provide the United States with assurances that it will provide equitable and reasonable access to its markets in numerous sectors. Turkey’s termination from GSP follows a finding that it is sufficiently economically developed and should no longer benefit from preferential market access to the United States market.
By statute, these changes may not take effect until at least 60 days after the notifications to Congress and the governments of India and Turkey, and will be enacted by a Presidential Proclamation.
I haven't seen reactions from India and Turkey yet, but it is possible that this could lead to two very interesting WTO complaints. With just a quick look at the case law, here are some possibilities.
As the AB said in para. 154 of EC - Tariff Preferences, "[i]t is clear from the ordinary meanings of 'nondiscriminatory', however, that preference-granting countries must make available identical tariff preferences to all similarly-situated beneficiaries." Both India and Turkey could argue that the decision to terminate their designation as beneficiary developing countries is discriminatory, because it treats similarly situated countries differently. In the case of Turkey, the question of whether it is "sufficiently economically developed" could be really interesting for the debate over the classification of countries as "developing" at the WTO.
In addition, India could refer to paragraph 3(c) of the Enabling Clause, which specifies that "differential and more favourable treatment" "... shall in the case of such treatment accorded by developed contracting parties to developing countries be designed and, if necessary, modified, to respond positively to the development, financial and trade needs of developing countries." It could then cite the AB's statement in para. 164 of EC - Tariff Preferences that: "the response of a preference-granting country must be taken with a view to improving the development, financial or trade situation of a beneficiary country, based on the particular need at issue." Here, India could argue, the U.S. criteria, and its decision under those criteria, are not designed to "to improve the development, financial or trade situation" of India.
