Antidumping, subventions, sauvegardes
Filter :
Langue
Date de la publication
Type de contenu
Séries
Auteurs
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.