Thus, the above analysis suggests that India’s move to impose an ad valorem for a period of 200 days every year beginning in September 2015 till March 31, 2018 was a protectionist strategy to benefit the domestic firms. This led to decreased terms of trade for Japan whose trade with India revolves around iron & steel. As a result, it imports from Japan declined in 2016. Japan disputed the above measure adopted by India citing that the Indian notification fails to point out accurately the reason for imposing such tariffs. While this is not the most appropriate economic action, it is a popular and easy to implement approach. It is understandable that India strives to encourage the domestic producers but such measures tend more to handicap them. Most international trade agreements prohibit such measures as they are disadvantageous for the foreign partner whose products become costlier due to the imposition. India as a member of World Trade Organization is obliged to maintain a certain level of openness when it comes to international trade. India has gone ahead with the strategy. While the result of the dispute is not resolved as of now, and whatever is the result of the consultation, India has put her relation within Japan at stake.