Anti-dumping, subsidies, safeguards
Filter :
Language
Publication date
Content type
Series
Authors
United States - Countervailing Duty Investigation on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) from Korea
On 30 June 2003 Korea requested consultations with the United States concerning the US authorities’ affirmative preliminary and final countervailing duty determinations the preliminary injury determination and any subsequent determinations that may be made during the injury investigation on DRAMs and DRAM modules from Korea. Korea is also challenging all related laws and regulations including Section 771 of the US Tariff Act of 1930 and 19 CFR 351 respectively.
United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) from Mexico
On 18 February 2003 Mexico requested consultations with the US as regards several anti-dumping measures imposed by the US on imports of OCTG from Mexico including the final determinations in some administrative and sunset reviews; and the US authorities’ determination regarding the continuation of the anti-dumping orders. In addition to these measures Mexico’s request includes a number of laws regulations and administrative practices (such as “zeroing”) used by the US authorities in the above determinations. Mexico considers that the above anti-dumping measures are incompatible with Articles 1 2 3 6 11 and 18 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement Articles VI and X of the GATT 1994 and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
European Communities - Countervailing Measures on Dynamic Random Access Memory Chips from Korea (WT/DS299)
On 25 July 2003 Korea requested consultations with the European Communities concerning the EC’s provisional countervailing measures and any final countervailing measures which may be finalized and implemented later this year against dynamic random access memory chips (“DRAMs”) from Korea. According to Korea when considering the determinations with respect to the provisional measures against the DRAMs from Korea which have already been implemented and any final measures on the same products which may be finalized and implemented later this year the European Commission failed to comply with various WTO substantive and procedural requirements including demonstration of the existence of a financial contribution and a benefit conferred and demonstration of specificity of the subsidies concerned.
Mexico - Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Beef and Rice (Complaint with Respect to Rice)
On 16 June 2003 the United States requested consultations with Mexico concerning its definitive anti-dumping measures on beef and long grain white rice as well as certain provisions of Mexico’s Foreign Trade Act and its Federal Code of Civil Procedure.
European Communities - Measures Affecting Trade in Commercial Vessels
On 3 September 2003 Korea requested consultations with the European Communities concerning certain measures by the EC and its member States in favour of their shipbuilding industry which according to Korea are inconsistent with their WTO obligations. These measures are as follows: - EC Regulation 1177/2002 (“TDM Regulation”) and EC Regulation 1540/98 as well as the EC member States’ implementing provisions. These measures provide for subsidies in favour of commercial vessels in various forms; - The provision by the EC and the member States of subsidies in support of commercial vessels built in the EC in form of (a) operational aid granted on a contractual basis in forms such as grants export credits guarantees or tax breaks (b) restructuring aid (c) regional or other investment aid (d) research and development aid (e) environmental protection aid and (f) insolvency and closure aid.
United States - Countervailing Duty Investigation on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) from Korea (DS 296)
On 30 June 2003 Korea requested consultations with the United States concerning the US authorities’ affirmative preliminary and final countervailing duty determinations the preliminary injury determination and any subsequent determinations that may be made during the injury investigation on DRAMs and DRAM modules from Korea. Korea is also challenging all related laws and regulations including Section 771 of the US Tariff Act of 1930 and 19 CFR 351 respectively.
United States - Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina
On 7 October 2002 Argentina requested consultations with the US regarding the final determinations of the US Department of Commerce (“DOC”) and the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) in the sunset reviews of the anti-dumping duty order on OCTG from Argentina issued on 7 November 2000 (65 Federal Register 66701) and June 2001 (USITC Pub. No. 3434) respectively and the DOC’s determination to continue the anti-dumping duty order on OCTG from Argentina issued on 25 July 2001 (66 Federal Register 38630). Argentina considered that general US laws regulations policies and procedures related to the administration of sunset reviews and the application of anti-dumping measures were inconsistent either on their face or as applied with Articles 1 2 3 5 6 11 12 and 18 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA); Articles VI and X of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. Furthermore Argentina claimed that the sunset review conducted by the DOC is inconsistent with Articles 2 5 5.8 11.3 11.4 12.1 and 12.3 of the ADA. It also claimed that the sunset review conducted by the ITC was inconsistent with Articles 3 and 11.3 of the ADA.
United States - Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada
On 13 September 2002 Canada requested consultations under Article 4.8 of the DSU (urgency procedure) with the United States concerning the final affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value (dumping) with respect to certain softwood lumber products from Canada (Inv. No. A-122-838) announced by the US Department of Commerce (USDOC) on 21 March 2002 pursuant to Section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended on 22 May 2002 (Final Determination). The measures at issue include the initiation of the investigation the conduct of the investigation and the Final Determination. Canada considered these measures and in particular the determinations made and methodologies adopted therein by the DOC under authority of the United States Tariff Act of 1930 to violate Articles 1 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.6 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.4 6.9 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles VI and X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.
United States - Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina (DS268)
On 7 October 2002 Argentina requested consultations with the US regarding the final determinations of the US Department of Commerce (“DOC”) and the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) in the sunset reviews of the anti-dumping duty order on OCTG from Argentina issued on 7 November 2000 (65 Federal Register 66701) and June 2001 (USITC Pub. No. 3434) respectively and the DOC’s determination to continue the anti-dumping duty order on OCTG from Argentina issued on 25 July 2001 (66 Federal Register 38630). Argentina considered that general US laws regulations policies and procedures related to the administration of sunset reviews and the application of anti-dumping measures were inconsistent either on their face or as applied with Articles 1 2 3 5 6 11 12 and 18 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA); Articles VI and X of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. Furthermore Argentina claimed that the sunset review conducted by the DOC is inconsistent with Articles 2 5 5.8 11.3 11.4 12.1 and 12.3 of the ADA. It also claimed that the sunset review conducted by the ITC was inconsistent with Articles 3 and 11.3 of the ADA.
United States - Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada
On 13 September 2002 Canada requested consultations under Article 4.8 of the DSU (urgency procedure) with the United States concerning the final affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value (dumping) with respect to certain softwood lumber products from Canada (Inv. No. A-122-838) announced by the US Department of Commerce (USDOC) on 21 March 2002 pursuant to Section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended on 22 May 2002 (Final Determination). The measures at issue include the initiation of the investigation the conduct of the investigation and the Final Determination. Canada considered these measures and in particular the determinations made and methodologies adopted therein by the DOC under authority of the United States Tariff Act of 1930 to violate Articles 1 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.6 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.4 6.9 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles VI and X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.
United States - Investigation of the International Trade Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada
On 20 December 2002 Canada requested consultations with the United States regarding the investigation of the USITC in Softwood Lumber from Canada (Invs. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928 (Final)) and the final definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties applied as a result of the USITC’s final determination made on 2 May 2002 notice of which was published in the United States Federal Register on 22 May 2002 (Volume 67 Number 99 at pp. 36022-36023) that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of softwood lumber from Canada that the Department of Commerce has determined are subsidized and sold in the United States at less than fair value. Canada claimed that through these measures the United States has violated its obligations under Article VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994 Articles 1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.8 12 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles 10 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.7 15.8 22 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.
United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 - Original Complaint by the European Communities
On 24 February 2004 the WTO issued the dispute panel reports in the case "United States - Anti-dumping act of 1916 - Complaint by the European Communities".
United States - Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada
On 3 May 2002 Canada requested consultations with the United States. The request concerned the final affirmative countervailing duty determination by the US Department of Commerce (File No. C‑122839) issued on 25 March 2002 with respect to certain softwood lumber from Canada. The measures at issue include the initiation and conduct of the investigation the final determination provision of expedited reviews and other matters related to these measures. Canada contended that these measures were inconsistent with and violate the United States’ obligations under Articles 1 2 10 11 12 14 15 19 22 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement and Articles VI:3 and X:3 of the GATT 1994.
United States - Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan
On 30 January 2002 Japan requested consultations with the United States in respect of the final determinations of both the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) and the United States International Trade Commission in the full sunset review of the anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Japan. These determinations were issued on 2 August 2000 and 21 November 2000 respectively. Japan claimed that these determinations were erroneous and based on deficient rulings procedures and provisions pertaining to the United States Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (“the Act”) and related regulations. Japan further claimed that the procedures and provisions of the Act and related regulations as well as the above determinations were inconsistent with inter alia Articles VI and X of GATT 1994; Articles 2 3 5 6 (including Annex II) 11 12 and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
United States - Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products
The European Communities Japan Korea Switzerland Canada Venezuela Norway China Mexico New Zealan and Brazil requested consultations with the United States regarding the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US in the form of an increase in duties on imports of certain flat steel hot-rolled bar cold-finished bar rebar certain welded tubular products carbon and alloy fittings stainless steel bar stainless steel rod tin mill products and stainless steel wire and in the form of a tariff rate quota on imports of slabs effective as of 20 March 2002.
United States - Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada
On 3 May 2002 Canada requested consultations with the United States. The request concerned the final affirmative countervailing duty determination by the US Department of Commerce (File No. C‑122839) issued on 25 March 2002 with respect to certain softwood lumber from Canada. The measures at issue include the initiation and conduct of the investigation the final determination provision of expedited reviews and other matters related to these measures. Canada contended that these measures were inconsistent with and violate the United States’ obligations under Articles 1 2 10 11 12 14 15 19 22 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement and Articles VI:3 and X:3 of the GATT 1994.
United States - Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan
On 30 January 2002 Japan requested consultations with the United States in respect of the final determinations of both the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) and the United States International Trade Commission in the full sunset review of the anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Japan. These determinations were issued on 2 August 2000 and 21 November 2000 respectively. Japan claimed that these determinations were erroneous and based on deficient rulings procedures and provisions pertaining to the United States Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (“the Act”) and related regulations. Japan further claimed that the procedures and provisions of the Act and related regulations as well as the above determinations were inconsistent with inter alia Articles VI and X of GATT 1994; Articles 2 3 5 6 (including Annex II) 11 12 and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
European Communities - Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil
On 21 December 2000 Brazil requested consultations with the EC as regards definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No. 1784/2000 concerning imports of malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings originating inter alia in Brazil. Brazil considered that the EC’s establishment of the facts was not proper and that its evaluation of these facts was not unbiased and objective both at the provisional and definitive stage particularly in relation to the initiation and conduct of the investigation (including the evaluation findings and determination of dumping injury and causal link between them). Brazil also challenged the evaluation and findings made in relation to the “community interest”. In sum Brazil considered that the EC had infringed Article VI of GATT 1994 and Articles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11 12 and 15 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.
United States - Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products
The European Communities Japan Korea Switzerland Canada Venezuela Norway China Mexico New Zealan and Brazil requested consultations with the United States regarding the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US in the form of an increase in duties on imports of certain flat steel hot-rolled bar cold-finished bar rebar certain welded tubular products carbon and alloy fittings stainless steel bar stainless steel rod tin mill products and stainless steel wire and in the form of a tariff rate quota on imports of slabs effective as of 20 March 2002.
Argentina - Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on Poultry from Brazil
On 7 November 2001 Brazil requested consultations with Argentina in respect of the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Argentina on imports of poultry from Brazil classified under Mercosur tariff line 0207.11.00 and 0207.12.00. These measures were adopted by the Ministry of Economy of Argentina in Resolution 574 from 21 July 2000 published in the Argentinean Official Gazette on 24 July 2000. Brazil considered that the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed as well as the investigation conducted by the Argentinean Authorities might have been flawed and based on erroneous or deficient procedures inconsistent with Argentina’s obligations under Articles 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 12 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Articles 1 and 7 of the Customs Valuation Agreement.
European Communities - Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-type Bed Linen from India - Recourse 1
On 3 August 1998 India requested consultations with the EC in respect of Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997 on imports of cotton-type bed-linen from India. India asserted that the EC initiated anti-dumping proceedings against imports of cotton- type bed-linen from India by publishing a notice of initiation in September 1996. Provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed by EC Council Regulation No 1069/97 of 12 June 1997. This was followed by the imposition of definitive duties in accordance with the above-mentioned EC Council Regulation No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997.
European Communities - Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil
On 21 December 2000 Brazil requested consultations with the EC as regards definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No. 1784/2000 concerning imports of malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings originating inter alia in Brazil. Brazil considered that the EC’s establishment of the facts was not proper and that its evaluation of these facts was not unbiased and objective both at the provisional and definitive stage particularly in relation to the initiation and conduct of the investigation (including the evaluation findings and determination of dumping injury and causal link between them). Brazil also challenged the evaluation and findings made in relation to the “community interest”. In sum Brazil considered that the EC had infringed Article VI of GATT 1994 and Articles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11 12 and 15 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.
Canada - Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft
On 17 February 2003 the WTO issued the dispute panel reports in the case "Canada - Export credits and loan guarantees for regional aircraft".
Argentina - Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Preserved Peaches
On 14 September 2001 Chile requested consultations with Argentina in respect of a definitive safeguard measure which Argentina applies on imports of peaches preserved in water containing added sweetening matter including syrup preserved in any other form or in water. According to Chile Argentina’s definitive safeguard measure is inconsistent with Articles 2 4 5 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994.
United States - Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000
On 21 December 2000 and 21 May 2001 respectively the complainants requested consultations with the US concerning the amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930 signed on 28 October 2000 with the title of “Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000” (the “Act”) usually referred to as “the Byrd Amendment”. According to the complainants the Act is inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under several provisions of the GATT the AD Agreement the SCM Agreement and the WTO Agreement. In particular the Act is alleged to be inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under: (i) Article 18.1 of the ADA in conjunction with Article VI:2 of the GATT and Article 1 of the ADA; (ii) Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement in conjunction with Article VI:3 of the GATT and Articles 4.10 7.9 and 10 of the SCM Agreement; (iii) Article X(3)(a) of the GATT; (iv) Article 5.4 of the ADA and Article 11.4 of the SCM Agreement; (v) Article 8 of the ADA and Article 18 of the SCM Agreement; (vi) Article 5 of the SCM Agreement; and (vii) Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO Article 18.4 of the ADA and Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement.
Flow Charts
The following Flow Charts graphically illustrate the different steps involved in calculating the margin of dumping. The Advanced Flow Chart shows the different steps in the form of a decision-tree. All references are to the relevant articles of the AD Agreement.
Procedural Aspects of an Anti-Dumping Investigation
The following section is a basic overview of how an anti-dumping investigation unfolds in practice. It also describes in summary fashion how anti-dumping measures resulting from such investigations are assessed and reviewed over time. In order to relate the practical aspects of an investigation to specific provisions of the AD Agreement references to the relevant articles of the AD Agreement are given.
Key Definitions and Concepts Applicable to the Investigation
As specialized terminology and concepts will be used and as an anti-dumping investigation is guided by certain principles and main procedural elements these issues will be addressed and explained first before going into the process of the investigation itself.
Domestic Legal Framework
The modalities of incorporating the provisions of the WTO Agreements and therefore also the AD Agreement in the domestic legal systems of Members and the design of the institutional aspects regarding anti-dumping investigations are preparatory arrangements which have to be addressed prior to considering the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation. These issues are addressed only in a cursory fashion as the modalities and structures involved are to a large degree determined by the constitutional law of each Member the delegation of powers to different bodies and agencies and other overarching considerations.
Introduction
Dumping is in general a situation of international price discrimination where the price of a product when sold to the importing country is less than the price of the same product when sold in the market of the exporting country. It is generally accepted in the multilateral trading system that if dumping takes place it might result in unfair trade as the domestic industry of the importing country might suffer harm as a result of the dumping. If this is the case the authorities of the importing country may if certain requirements are met take action against dumping. Anti-dumping action can therefore only be taken if dumping is taking place accompanied by consequent injury to the domestic industry.
Introduction
Although the AD Agreement contains some guidance on the methodologies to be applied in calculating the margin of dumping it does not provide comprehensive and detailed provisions to deal with all the issues involved. In some instances the AD Agreement provides for different options and leaves it to investigating authorities to decide which methodology to apply. In some of those instances where the AD Agreement does not provide clear guidance the practice of Members differs to a greater or lesser degree. An effort has been made to refer to the different practices of Members where the authors were aware of such practices. It is therefore not claimed that these references are complete and is done without any reference to the WTO compatibility or not of such practices.
Case-Study on Injury
This case-study seeks to illustrate the concepts discussed in a concrete fashion in the context of a hypothetical investigation. It should be borne in mind that the methodologies described herein do not necessarily represent the practices of any particular WTO Member and their disucssion in this case-study is not intended as an endorsement of those methodologies or as an indication that such methodologies are consistent with the AD Agreement. Nor are any of the possible conclusions or outcomes discussed in this case-study necessarily valid or sustainable in the context of WTO dispute settlement. The case-study merely seeks to illustrate possible approaches that might be taken to resolving issues that commonly arise in anti-dumping injury analysis. The methods presented herein are by no means the only available methodologies but they are based on methods that have been applied by Members which have not been disapproved by any dispute settlement Panel. In many instances there may be more than one approach to resolving a particular injury-related issue that would be consistent with Member obligations under the AD Agreement.
The Anti-Dumping Investigation
Once the decision to initiate an investigation has been taken and the required public notice has been given the formal investigation process starts.
A Handbook on Anti-Dumping Investigations
The subject of anti-dumping procedures has received growing attention in international trade policy and has become a source of tension between countries. This handbook covers the major areas arising in anti-dumping investigations as embodied in the relevant WTO provisions providing an exposition of well-sourced information explanations and guidance for grasping the intricacies of anti-dumping proceedings. Beginning with a chronicle of an anti-dumping investigation the book proceeds to consider the crucial issues involved: calculation of dumping margins and determinations of injury and causation. Well structured and easy to follow the handbook is designed to assist in a practical way investigators delegated the authority to conduct the required investigation. Clearly presented and informative this book will also interest government officials involved in international trade policy importing and exporting enterprises affected by anti-dumping investigations and their representatives including private legal practitioners and consultants and academic readers concerned with international trade issues.
Form and Content of Questionnaires
The timetable for completing an entire anti-dumping investigation is short. If the investigation does not proceed in a rapid and orderly manner it can become very difficult for investigating authorities to meet necessary internal deadlines to ensure that the ultimate deadlines are met. Thus the investigating authorities should rapidly complete their review of the application and other sources of available information and immediately begin work on drafting the questionnaires to be transmitted to each of the industry segments.
Case-Study I
This case-study as is the case with the second case-study as well seeks to illustrate the concepts discussed in a concrete fashion in the context of a hypothetical investigation. The methodologies described herein do not necessarily represent the practices of any particular WTO Member and their disucssion in this case-study is not intended as an endorsement of those methodologies or as an indication that such methodologies are consistent with the AD Agreement. Nor are any of the possible conclusions or outcomes discussed in this case-study necessarily valid or sustainable in the context of WTO dispute settlement. The case-study merely seeks to illustrate possible approaches that might be taken to resolving issues that commonly arise in calculating margins of dumping. The methods presented herein are by no means always the only available methodologies but they are based on methods that have been applied by Members which have not been disapproved by any dispute settlement panel. In many instances there may be more than one approach that would be consistent with Member obligations under the AD Agreement.
Gathering Industry Information and Preparing Questionnaires
As soon as the anti-dumping investigation has been formally initiated the investigating authorities should immediately begin the process of collecting the additional industry data that will be necessary to thoroughly evaluate allegations of material injury threat of material injury and the causal link between alleged injury and the dumped imports. The ability of the investigating authorities to properly analyze injury and causal issues and thus the likelihood of avoiding or withstanding any dispute settlement challenges to the definitive injury determination will depend to a significant extent on the quality of the information gathered in the investigation process.
A Handbook on Anti-Dumping Investigations
A key guide to the intricacies of anti-dumping proceedings
United States - Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products from the European Communities
On 10 November 2000 the EC requested consultations with the US concerning the continued application by the United States of countervailing duties on a number of products. In particular the EC claimed that the application of the “same person” methodology by the US and the continued imposition of duties based on it are in breach of Articles 10 19 and 21 of the SCM Agreement because there is no proper determination of a benefit to the producer of the goods under investigation as required by Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement. The EC included in this request for consultations 14 US countervailing duty orders1 where this “same person” methodology was applied. All these cases involve alleged non-recurring subsidies granted to firms prior to a change of ownership.
European Communities - Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India - Recourse 1
On 3 August 1998 India requested consultations with the EC in respect of Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997 on imports of cotton-type bed-linen from India. India asserted that the EC initiated anti-dumping proceedings against imports of cotton- type bed-linen from India by publishing a notice of initiation in September 1996. Provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed by EC Council Regulation No 1069/97 of 12 June 1997. This was followed by the imposition of definitive duties in accordance with the above-mentioned EC Council Regulation No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997.
United States - Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany
On 10 November 2000 the EC requested consultations with the US in respect of countervailing duties imposed by the US on imports of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (“corrosion resistant steel”) dealt with under US case number C-428-817. This dispute related in particular to the final results of a full sunset review of the above measure carried out by the US Department of Commerce (“DOC”) and published in the US Federal Register No. 65 FR 47407 of 2 August 2000. In this decision the DOC found that revocation of the countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. The EC considered that this finding is inconsistent with the obligations of the US under the SCM Agreement and in particular in breach of Articles 10 11.9 and 21 (notably 21.3) thereof.
United States - Preliminary Determinations with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada
On 21 August 2001 Canada requested consultations with the US concerning the preliminary countervailing duty determination and the preliminary critical circumstances determination made by the US Department of Commerce on 9 August 2001 with respect to certain softwood lumber from Canada. This request also concerned US measures on company-specific expedited reviews and administrative reviews. In particular: As far as the preliminary countervailing duty determination is concerned Canada considered this determination to be inconsistent with US obligations under Articles 1 2 10 14 17.1 17.5 19.4 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement and Article VI(3) of GATT 1994. With respect to the preliminary critical circumstances determination Canada considered this determination to be inconsistent with Articles 17.1 17.3 17.4 19.4 and 20.6 of the SCM Agreement. As regards US measures on company-specific expedited reviews and administrative reviews Canada considered these measures are inconsistent with US obligations under Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 10 19.3 19.4 21.1 21.2 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement. Canada also considered that the US had failed to ensure that its laws and regulations are in conformity with its WTO obligations as required by Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. On the grounds that the affirmative preliminary countervailing duty and critical circumstances determinations had an immediate and significant trade impact Canada requested urgent consultations pursuant to Article 4.8 of the DSU. Although accepting Canada’s request to enter into consultations the US did not accept this to be a case of urgency for the purposes of Article 4.8 of the DSU since the measures in question involve the posting of bond for or deposit of preliminary duties which could be refunded in whole or in part.
Chile - Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products
On 5 October 2000 Argentina requested consultations with Chile concerning: the price band system established by Law 18.525 (as subsequently amended by Law 18.591 and Law 19.546) as well as implementing regulations and complementary and/or amending provisions; and the provisional safeguard measures adopted on 19 November 1999 by Decree No. 339 of the Ministry of Economy and the definitive safeguard measures imposed on 20 January 2000 by Decree No. 9 of the Ministry of Economy on the importation of various products including wheat wheat flour and edible vegetal oils. Argentina considered that these measures raised questions concerning the obligations of Chile under various agreements. According to Argentina the provisions with which the measures relating to the said price band system are inconsistent include but are not limited to the following: Article II of the GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. According to Argentina the provisions with which the safeguard measures are inconsistent include but are not limited to the following: Articles 2 3 4 5 6 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994
United States - Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000
On 21 December 2000 and 21 May 2001 respectively the complainants requested consultations with the US concerning the amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930 signed on 28 October 2000 with the title of “Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000” (the “Act”) usually referred to as “the Byrd Amendment”. According to the complainants the Act is inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under several provisions of the GATT the AD Agreement the SCM Agreement and the WTO Agreement. In particular the Act is alleged to be inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under: (i) Article 18.1 of the ADA in conjunction with Article VI:2 of the GATT and Article 1 of the ADA; (ii) Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement in conjunction with Article VI:3 of the GATT and Articles 4.10 7.9 and 10 of the SCM Agreement; (iii) Article X(3)(a) of the GATT; (iv) Article 5.4 of the ADA and Article 11.4 of the SCM Agreement; (v) Article 8 of the ADA and Article 18 of the SCM Agreement; (vi) Article 5 of the SCM Agreement; and (vii) Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO Article 18.4 of the ADA and Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement.
Egypt - Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey
On 6 November 2000 Turkey requested consultations with Egypt concerning an anti-dumping investigation by the Egyptian Ministry of Trade and Supply with respect to imports of rebar from Turkey. The investigation was completed and the final report released on 21 October 1999. As a result of the investigation anti-dumping duties were imposed ranging from 22.63-61.00 per cent ad valorem. Turkey considered that: Egypt made determinations of injury and dumping in that investigation without a proper establishment of the facts and based on an evaluation of the facts that was neither unbiased nor objective; during the investigation of material injury or threat thereof and the causal link Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.5 6.1 and 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and during the investigation of sales at less than normal value Egypt violated Article X:3 of the GATT 1994 as well as Articles 2.2 2.4 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.7 and 6.8 and Annex II Paragraphs 1 3 5 6 and 7 and Annex I Paragraph 7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
United States - Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products from the European Communities
On 10 November 2000 the EC requested consultations with the US concerning the continued application by the United States of countervailing duties on a number of products. In particular the EC claimed that the application of the “same person” methodology by the US and the continued imposition of duties based on it are in breach of Articles 10 19 and 21 of the SCM Agreement because there is no proper determination of a benefit to the producer of the goods under investigation as required by Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement. The EC included in this request for consultations 14 US countervailing duty orders1 where this “same person” methodology was applied. All these cases involve alleged non-recurring subsidies granted to firms prior to a change of ownership.
United States - Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
On 17 January 2001 Canada requested consultations with the US concerning Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (the “URAA”) and the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA. In Canada’s view in a situation in which the DSB has ruled that the US has in an anti-dumping or countervailing duty proceeding acted inconsistently with US obligations under the AD or SCM Agreements the US law prohibits the US from complying fully with the DSB ruling. Under US law determinations whether to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties are made after the imports occur. With regard to imports that occurred prior to a date on which the US directs compliance with the DSB ruling the measures require US authorities to disregard the DSB ruling in making such determinations even where the determination whether to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties is made after the date fixed by the DSB for compliance. In such circumstances determinations by the US to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties would be inconsistent with its obligations under the AD or SCM Agreements. Canada considered that these measures are inconsistent with US obligations under Article 21.3 of the DSU in the context of Articles 3.1 3.2 3.7 and 21.1 of the DSU; Article VI of the GATT 1994; Articles 10 and note 36 19.2 19.4 and note 51 21.1 32.1 32.2 32.3 and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement; Articles 1 9.3 11.1 18.1-4 and note 12 of the AD Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
United States - Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany
On 10 November 2000 the EC requested consultations with the US in respect of countervailing duties imposed by the US on imports of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (“corrosion resistant steel”) dealt with under US case number C-428-817. This dispute related in particular to the final results of a full sunset review of the above measure carried out by the US Department of Commerce (“DOC”) and published in the US Federal Register No. 65 FR 47407 of 2 August 2000. In this decision the DOC found that revocation of the countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. The EC considered that this finding is inconsistent with the obligations of the US under the SCM Agreement and in particular in breach of Articles 10 11.9 and 21 (notably 21.3) thereof.
United States - Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Steel Plate from India
On 4 October 2000 India requested consultations with the United States concerning: final affirmative determinations of sales of certain cut-to-length carbon quality steel plate products from India at less than fair value by US Department of Commerce (DOC) on 13 December 1999 and affirmed on 10 February 2000; interpretation and use of provisions relating to facts available in the anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations by DOC; and determination and interpretation by the US International Trade Commission (ITC) of negligibility cumulation and material injury caused by the said Indian steel imports. India considered that these determinations are erroneous and based on deficient procedures contained in various provisions of US anti-dumping and countervailing duty law. According to India these determinations and provisions raise questions concerning the obligations of the United States under the GATT 1994 the Anti-Dumping Agreement the SCM Agreement and the Agreement establishing the WTO (WTO Agreement). India considered that the provisions of these agreements with which these measures and determinations appear to be inconsistent include but are not limited to the following: Articles VI and X of the GATT 1994; Articles 1 2 3 (especially 3.3) 5 (especially 5.8) 6 (especially 6.8) 12 15 18.4 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; Articles 10 11 (especially 11.9) 15 (especially 15.3) 22 and 27 (especially 27.10) of the SCM Agreement; Article XVI of the WTO Agreement.
United States - Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea
On 13 June 2000 Korea requested consultations with the United States in respect of the definitive safeguard measure imposed by the United States on imports of circular welded carbon quality line pipe (line pipe). Korea noted that on 18 February 2000 the United States proclaimed a definitive safeguard measure on imports of line pipe (subheadings 7306.10.10 and 7306.10.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States). In that proclamation the United States announced that the proposed date of introduction of the measure was 1 March 2000 and that the measure was expected to remain in effect for 3 years and 1 day. Korea considered that the US procedures and determinations that led to the imposition of the safeguard measure as well as the measure itself contravened various provisions contained in the Safeguards Agreement and the GATT 1994. In particular Korea considers that the measure is inconsistent with the United States’ obligations under Articles 2 3 4 5 11 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement; and Articles I XIII and XIX of the GATT 1994.
Canada - Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft
On 22 January 2001 Brazil requested consultations with Canada concerning subsidies which are allegedly being granted to Canada’s regional aircraft industry. Brazil’s claims are as follows: Export credits within the meaning of Item (k) of Annex I to the SCM Agreement are being provided to Canada’s regional aircraft industry by the Export Development Corporation (EDC) and the Canada Account. Loan guarantees within the meaning of Item (j) of Annex I to the SCM Agreement are being provided by EDC Industry Canada and the Province of Quebec to support exports of Canada’s regional aircraft industry. Brazil takes the view that all of the above-mentioned measures are subsidies within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement since they are financial contributions that confer a benefit. According to Brazil they are also contingent in law or in fact upon export and constitute therefore a violation of Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.
United States - Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea
On 13 June 2000 Korea requested consultations with the United States in respect of the definitive safeguard measure imposed by the United States on imports of circular welded carbon quality line pipe (line pipe). Korea noted that on 18 February 2000 the United States proclaimed a definitive safeguard measure on imports of line pipe (subheadings 7306.10.10 and 7306.10.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States). In that proclamation the United States announced that the proposed date of introduction of the measure was 1 March 2000 and that the measure was expected to remain in effect for 3 years and 1 day. Korea considered that the US procedures and determinations that led to the imposition of the safeguard measure as well as the measure itself contravened various provisions contained in the Safeguards Agreement and the GATT 1994. In particular Korea considers that the measure is inconsistent with the United States’ obligations under Articles 2 3 4 5 11 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement; and Articles I XIII and XIX of the GATT 1994.
Mexico - Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States - Recourse 1
On 8 May 1998 the US requested consultations with Mexico in respect of an anti-dumping investigation of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) grades 42 and 55 from the US conducted by Mexico. The US alleged that on 27 February 1997 the Government of Mexico published a notice initiating this anti-dumping investigation on the basis of an application dated 14 January 1997 from the Mexican National Chamber of Sugar and Alcohol Producers. The US further alleged that on 23 January 1998 Mexico issued a notice of final determination of dumping and injury in that investigation and consequently imposed definitive anti-dumping measures on these imports from the United States. The US contended that the manner in which the application for an anti-dumping investigation was made as well as the manner in which a determination of threat of injury was made is inconsistent with Articles 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 and 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Argentina - Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Ceramic Floor Tiles from Italy
On 26 January 2000 the EC requested consultations with Argentina in respect of Argentina’s definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of ceramic floor tiles from Italy imposed on 12 November 1999. The EC claimed that the Argentinian investigating authority without justification disregarded all the information on normal value and on export prices provided by the exporters included in the sample; failed to calculate an individual dumping margin for each of the exporters included in the sample; failed to make due allowance for the differences in physical characteristics between the models exported to Argentina and those sold in Italy; and failed to inform the Italian exporters of the essential facts concerning the existence of dumping which formed the basis for the decision whether to apply definitive measures. The EC considered that the anti-dumping measures in question were inconsistent with Articles 2.4 6.8 in conjunction with Annex II 6.9 and 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan
On 18 November 1999 Japan requested consultations with the United States in respect of the preliminary and final determinations of the US Department of Commerce and the US International Trade Commission on the anti-dumping investigation of Certain Hot Rolled Steel Products from Japan issued on 25 and 30 November 1998 12 February 1999 28 April 1999 and 23 June 1999. Japan considered that these determinations are erroneous and based on deficient procedures under the US Tariff Act of 1930 and related regulations. The Japanese complaint also concerned certain provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930 and related regulations. Japan claimed violations of Articles VI and X of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2 3 6 (including Annex II) 9 and 10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.d regulations. Japan claimed violations of Articles VI and X of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2 3 6 (including Annex II) 9 and 10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
United States - Measures Treating Exports Restraints as Subsidies
On 19 May 2000 Canada requested consultations with the US regarding certain US measures that treat a restraint on exports of a product as a subsidy to other products made using or incorporating the restricted product if the domestic price of the restricted product is affected by the restraint. The measures at issue included provisions of the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) (H.R. 5110 H.R. Doc. 316 Vol. 1 103d Cong. 2d Sess. 656 in particular at 925-926 (1994)) and the Explanation of the Final Rules US Department of Commerce Countervailing Duties Final Rule (63 Federal Register 65348 at 65349-51 (Nov. 25 1998)) interpreting section 771(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 USC. § 1677(5)) as amended by the URAA. Canada’s claims were as follows: Canada considered that these measures were inconsistent with US obligations under Articles 1.1 10 (as well as Articles 11 17 and 19 as they relate to the requirements of Article 10) and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement because these measures provide that the US will impose countervailing duties against practices that are not subsidies within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement. Canada also considered that the US has failed to ensure that its laws regulations and administrative procedures are in conformity with its WTO obligations as required by Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
Mexico - Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States - Recourse 1
On 8 May 1998 the US requested consultations with Mexico in respect of an anti-dumping investigation of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) grades 42 and 55 from the US conducted by Mexico. The US alleged that on 27 February 1997 the Government of Mexico published a notice initiating this anti-dumping investigation on the basis of an application dated 14 January 1997 from the Mexican National Chamber of Sugar and Alcohol Producers. The US further alleged that on 23 January 1998 Mexico issued a notice of final determination of dumping and injury in that investigation and consequently imposed definitive anti-dumping measures on these imports from the United States. The US contended that the manner in which the application for an anti-dumping investigation was made as well as the manner in which a determination of threat of injury was made is inconsistent with Articles 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 and 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
United States - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia
On 16 July 1999 New Zealand requested consultations with the US in respect of a safeguard measure imposed by the US on imports of lamb meat from New Zealand (WT/DS177). New Zealand alleged that by Presidential Proclamation under Section 203 of the US Trade Act 1974 the US imposed a definitive safeguard measure in the form of a tariff-rate quota on imports fresh chilled or frozen lamb meat effective from 22 July 1999. New Zealand contended that this measure is inconsistent with Articles 2 4 5 11 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I and XIX of GATT 1994. On 23 July 1999 Australia requested consultations with the US in respect of a definitive safeguard measure imposed by the US on imports of lamb (WT/DS178). Australia alleged that by Presidential Proclamation under Section 203 of the US Trade Act 1974 the US imposed a definitive safeguard measure in the form of a tariff-rate quota on imports of fresh chilled or frozen lamb meat from Australia effective from 22 July 1999. Australia contended that this measure is inconsistent with Articles 2 3 4 5 8 11 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I II and XIX of GATT 1994.
Thailand - Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland
On 6 April 1998 Poland requested consultations with Thailand concerning the imposition of final anti-dumping duties on imports of angles shapes and sections of iron or non-alloy steel and H-beams. Poland asserted that provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed by Thailand on 27 December 1996 and a final anti-dumping duty of 27.78% of CIF value for these products produced or exported by any Polish producer or exporter was imposed on 26 May 1997. Poland further asserted that Thailand refused two requests by Poland for disclosure of findings. Poland contended that these actions by Thailand violate Articles 2 3 5 and 6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
European Communities - Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India
On 3 August 1998 India requested consultations with the EC in respect of Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997 on imports of cotton-type bed-linen from India. India asserted that the EC initiated anti-dumping proceedings against imports of cotton- type bed-linen from India by publishing a notice of initiation in September 1996. Provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed by EC Council Regulation No 1069/97 of 12 June 1997. This was followed by the imposition of definitive duties in accordance with the above-mentioned EC Council Regulation No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997.
United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan
On 18 November 1999 Japan requested consultations with the United States in respect of the preliminary and final determinations of the US Department of Commerce and the US International Trade Commission on the anti-dumping investigation of Certain Hot Rolled Steel Products from Japan issued on 25 and 30 November 1998 12 February 1999 28 April 1999 and 23 June 1999. Japan considered that these determinations are erroneous and based on deficient procedures under the US Tariff Act of 1930 and related regulations. The Japanese complaint also concerned certain provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930 and related regulations. Japan claimed violations of Articles VI and X of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2 3 6 (including Annex II) 9 and 10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea
On 30 July 1999 Korea requested consultations with the US in respect of Preliminary and Final Determinations of the US’s Department of Commerce (DOC) on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Korea dated 4 November 1998 and 31 March 1999 respectively and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea dated 20 January 1999 and 8 June 1999 respectively. Korea considered that several errors were made by the US in those determinations which resulted in erroneous findings and deficient conclusions as well as the imposition calculation and collection of anti-dumping margins which are incompatible with the obligation of the US under the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of GATT 1994 and in particular but not necessarily exclusively Article 2 Article 6 and Article 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Korea believed that the US did not act in conformity with the cited provisions among others in its treatment of the following: certain US sales made to a bankrupt company; the calculation of two distinct exchange rate periods for export sales; and currency conversion for certain normal value sales made in US dollars.
United States - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia
On 16 July 1999 New Zealand requested consultations with the US in respect of a safeguard measure imposed by the US on imports of lamb meat from New Zealand (WT/DS177). New Zealand alleged that by Presidential Proclamation under Section 203 of the US Trade Act 1974 the US imposed a definitive safeguard measure in the form of a tariff-rate quota on imports fresh chilled or frozen lamb meat effective from 22 July 1999. New Zealand contended that this measure is inconsistent with Articles 2 4 5 11 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I and XIX of GATT 1994. On 23 July 1999 Australia requested consultations with the US in respect of a definitive safeguard measure imposed by the US on imports of lamb (WT/DS178). Australia alleged that by Presidential Proclamation under Section 203 of the US Trade Act 1974 the US imposed a definitive safeguard measure in the form of a tariff-rate quota on imports of fresh chilled or frozen lamb meat from Australia effective from 22 July 1999. Australia contended that this measure is inconsistent with Articles 2 3 4 5 8 11 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I II and XIX of GATT 1994.
United States - Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or above from Korea - Recourse 1
On 14 January 1998 the EC requested consultations with Argentina in respect of definitive anti-dumping measures allegedly imposed by Argentina on imports of drill bits from Italy. The EC stated that on 12 September 1998 Argentina imposed definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of drill bits from Italy. The investigation which led to the imposition of these measures had allegedly been initiated on 21 February 1997. The EC alleged that due to the fact that Argentina’s investigation exceeded 18 months it was in violation of Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
European Communities - Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India
On 3 August 1998 India requested consultations with the EC in respect of Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997 on imports of cotton-type bed-linen from India. India asserted that the EC initiated anti-dumping proceedings against imports of cotton- type bed-linen from India by publishing a notice of initiation in September 1996. Provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed by EC Council Regulation No 1069/97 of 12 June 1997. This was followed by the imposition of definitive duties in accordance with the above-mentioned EC Council Regulation No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997.
Guatemala - Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Grey Portland Cement from Mexico
On 5 January 1999 Mexico requested consultations with Guatemala concerning definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by the authorities of Guatemala on imports of grey Portland cement from Mexico and the proceedings leading thereto. Mexico alleged that the definitive anti-dumping measure is inconsistent with Articles 1 2 3 5 6 7 12 and 18 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and its Annexes I and II as well as with Article VI of the GATT 1994.
Thailand - Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy steel and H-Beams from Poland
On 30 June 1998 the EC requested consultations with the US in respect of the alleged imposition of countervailing duties on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel (leaded bars) from the UK. The EC asserted that the US imposed countervailing duties of 1.69 per cent on United Engineering Steels Ltd (UES) for the review period 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1994 and of 2.4 per cent for the review period 1 January 1995 to 20 March 1995 on the basis of subsidies which had been granted to British Steel Corporation (BSC). The EC also contended that the US imposed countervailing duties on British Steel plc (BSplc) / British Steel Engineering Steels LTD (BSES) for the review period 1 January 1996 to 31 December 1996 on the basis of subsidies granted to BSC before its privatization in 1988. The EC alleged that these impositions of countervailing duties constitute a violation of Articles 1.1(b) 10 14 and 19.4 of the Subsidies Agreement.
United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 - Complaint by the European Communities
On 10 February 1999 Japan requested consultations with the United States in respect of the US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 15 U.S.C. 72 (1994) (“US 1916 Act”). Japan alleged that the US 1916 Act stipulates that the importation or sale of imported goods within the US market in certain circumstances is unlawful constituting a criminal offence and inviting civil liability. Japan further alleged that judicial decisions under the US 1916 Act are made without the procedural safeguards provided for in the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Japan stated that a court action had been brought under the US 1916 Act against affiliates of Japanese companies. Japan contended that the US 1916 Act is inconsistent with Articles III VI and XI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 - Complaint by Japan
On 10 February 1999 Japan requested consultations with the United States in respect of the US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 15 U.S.C. 72 (1994) (“US 1916 Act”). Japan alleged that the US 1916 Act stipulates that the importation or sale of imported goods within the US market in certain circumstances is unlawful constituting a criminal offence and inviting civil liability. Japan further alleged that judicial decisions under the US 1916 Act are made without the procedural safeguards provided for in the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Japan stated that a court action had been brought under the US 1916 Act against affiliates of Japanese companies. Japan contended that the US 1916 Act is inconsistent with Articles III VI and XI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Brazil - Export Financing Programme for Aircraft
On 28 August 2000 the WTO issued the dispute panel reports in the case "Brazil - Export financing programme for aircraft".
Brazil - Export Financing Programme for Aircraft - Recourse 1
On 19 June 1996 Canada requested consultations with Brazil under Article 4 of the SCM Agreement which provides for special procedures for export subsidies. Canada claimed that export subsidies granted under the Brazilian Programa de Financiamento às Exportações (PROEX) to foreign purchasers of Brazil’s Embraer aircraft are inconsistent with Articles 3 27.4 and 27.5 of the SCM Agreement.
Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft - Recourse 1
On 10 March 1997 Brazil requested consultations with Canada in respect of certain subsidies granted by the Government of Canada or its provinces intended to support the export of civilian aircraft. The request was made pursuant to Article 4 of the SCM Agreement. Brazil contended that these measures are inconsistent with Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.
United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 - Complaint by Japan
On 10 February 1999 Japan requested consultations with the United States in respect of the US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 15 U.S.C. 72 (1994) (“US 1916 Act”). Japan alleged that the US 1916 Act stipulates that the importation or sale of imported goods within the US market in certain circumstances is unlawful constituting a criminal offence and inviting civil liability. Japan further alleged that judicial decisions under the US 1916 Act are made without the procedural safeguards provided for in the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Japan stated that a court action had been brought under the US 1916 Act against affiliates of Japanese companies. Japan contended that the US 1916 Act is inconsistent with Articles III VI and XI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
United States - Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom
On 30 June 1998 the EC requested consultations with the US in respect of the alleged imposition of countervailing duties on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel (leaded bars) from the UK. The EC asserted that the US imposed countervailing duties of 1.69 per cent on United Engineering Steels Ltd (UES) for the review period 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1994 and of 2.4 per cent for the review period 1 January 1995 to 20 March 1995 on the basis of subsidies which had been granted to British Steel Corporation (BSC). The EC also contended that the US imposed countervailing duties on British Steel plc (BSplc) / British Steel Engineering Steels LTD (BSES) for the review period 1 January 1996 to 31 December 1996 on the basis of subsidies granted to BSC before its privatization in 1988. The EC alleged that these impositions of countervailing duties constitute a violation of Articles 1.1(b) 10 14 and 19.4 of the Subsidies Agreement.
Brazil - Export Financing Programme for Aircraft - Recourse 1
On 19 June 1996 Canada requested consultations with Brazil under Article 4 of the SCM Agreement which provides for special procedures for export subsidies. Canada claimed that export subsidies granted under the Brazilian Programa de Financiamento às Exportações (PROEX) to foreign purchasers of Brazil’s Embraer aircraft are inconsistent with Articles 3 27.4 and 27.5 of the SCM Agreement.
United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 - Complaint by the European Communities
On 9 June 1988 the European Communities requested consultations with the United States in respect of the alleged failure of the United States to repeal its Anti-Dumping Act of 1916. The European Communities contended that the US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 is still in force and is applicable to the import and internal sale of any foreign product irrespective of its origin including products originating in countries which are WTO Members. The European Communities also alleged that the 1916 Act exists in the US statute books in parallel with the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended which includes the US implementing legislation of multilateral Anti-Dumping provisions. The European Communities alleged violations of Articles III:4 VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994 Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement and Articles 1 2 3 4 and 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Mexico - Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States
On 8 May 1998 the US requested consultations with Mexico in respect of an anti-dumping investigation of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) grades 42 and 55 from the US conducted by Mexico. The US alleged that on 27 February 1997 the Government of Mexico published a notice initiating this anti-dumping investigation on the basis of an application dated 14 January 1997 from the Mexican National Chamber of Sugar and Alcohol Producers. The US further alleged that on 23 January 1998 Mexico issued a notice of final determination of dumping and injury in that investigation and consequently imposed definitive anti-dumping measures on these imports from the United States. The US contended that the manner in which the application for an anti-dumping investigation was made as well as the manner in which a determination of threat of injury was made is inconsistent with Articles 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 and 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Australia - Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive Leather - Recourse 1
On 4 May 1998 the United States requested consultations with Australia in respect of prohibited subsidies allegedly provided to Australian producers and exporters of automotive leather including subsidies provided to Howe and Company Proprietary Ltd. (or any of its affiliated and/or parent companies) which allegedly involve preferential government loans of about $A25 million and non‑commercial terms and grants of about $A30 million. The United States contended that these measures violate the obligations of Australia under Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.
United States - Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom
On 30 June 1998 the EC requested consultations with the US in respect of the alleged imposition of countervailing duties on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel (leaded bars) from the UK. The EC asserted that the US imposed countervailing duties of 1.69 per cent on United Engineering Steels Ltd (UES) for the review period 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1994 and of 2.4 per cent for the review period 1 January 1995 to 20 March 1995 on the basis of subsidies which had been granted to British Steel Corporation (BSC). The EC also contended that the US imposed countervailing duties on British Steel plc (BSplc) / British Steel Engineering Steels LTD (BSES) for the review period 1 January 1996 to 31 December 1996 on the basis of subsidies granted to BSC before its privatization in 1988. The EC alleged that these impositions of countervailing duties constitute a violation of Articles 1.1(b) 10 14 and 19.4 of the Subsidies Agreement.
Korea - Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products
On 12 August 1997 the EC requested consultations with Korea in respect of a definitive safeguard measure imposed by Korea on imports of certain dairy products. The EC contended that under the provisions of different governmental measures Korea has imposed a safeguard measure in the form of an import quota on imports of certain dairy products. The EC considered that this measure is in violation of Articles 2 4 5 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguard Measures as well as a violation of Article XIX of GATT 1994.