Dispute settlement
European Communities - Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos – Containing Products
On 28 May 1998 Canada requested consultations with the EC in respect of measures imposed by France in particular Decree of 24 December 1996 with respect to the prohibition of asbestos and products containing asbestos including a ban on imports of such goods. Canada alleged that these measures violate Articles 2 3 and 5 of the SPS Agreement Article 2 of the TBT Agreement and Articles III XI and XIII of GATT 1994. Canada also alleged nullification and impairment of benefits accruing to it under the various agreements cited.
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".
Korea - Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef
On 1 February 1999 the US requested consultations with Korea in respect of a Korean regulatory scheme that allegedly discriminates against imported beef by inter alia confining sales of imported beef to specialized stores (dual retail system) limiting the manner of its display and otherwise constraining the opportunities for the sale of imported beef. The US alleged that Korea imposes a mark-up on sales of imported beef limits import authority to certain so-called “super-groups” and the Livestock Producers Marketing Organization (“LPMO”) and provides domestic support to the cattle industry in Korea in amounts which cause Korea to exceed its aggregate measure of support as reflected in Korea’s schedule. The US contended that these restrictions apply only to imported beef thereby denying national treatment to beef imports and that the support to the domestic industry amounts to domestic subsidies that contravene the Agreement on Agriculture. The US alleged violations of Articles II III XI and XVII of GATT 1994; Articles 3 4 6 and 7 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Articles 1 and 3 of the Import Licensing Agreement.
United States - Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities
On 17 March 1999 the EC requested consultations with the US in respect of definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of wheat gluten from the European Communities. The EC contended that by a Proclamation of 30 May 1998 and a Memorandum of the same date by the US President under which the US imposed definitive safeguard measures in the form of a quantitative limitation on imports of wheat gluten from the EC effective as of 1 June 1998. The EC considered these measures to be in violation of Articles 2 4 5 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards; Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Articles I and XIX of GATT 1994.
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 - Import Measures on Certain Products from the European Communities
On 4 March 1999 the EC requested consultations with the US in respect of the US decision effective as of 3 March 1999 to withhold liquidation on imports from the EC of a series of products together valued at over $500 million on an annual basis and to impose a contingent liability for 100% duties on each individual importation of affected products. On 2 March 1999 the arbitrators charged with determining the level of suspension of concessions requested by the United States in response to the failure by the EC to implement the recommendations of the DSB in respect of the EC’s banana regime (WT/DS27) had asked for additional data from the parties and informed the parties that they were unable to issue their report within the 60-day period envisaged by the DSU. The EC contends that the measure made effective by the US as of 3 March 1999 deprives EC imports into the United States of the products in question of the right to a duty not in excess of the rate bound in the US Schedule. The EC further contended that by requiring the deposit of a bond to cover the contingent liability for 100% duties US Customs effectively impose 100% duties on each individual importation. The EC alleged violations of Articles 3 21 22 and 23 of the DSU and Articles I II VIII and XI of GATT 1994. The EC also alleged nullification and impairment of benefits under GATT 1994 as well as the impediment of the objectives of the DSU and GATT 1994. The EC had requested urgent consultations pursuant to Article 4.8 of the DSU.
United States - Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act
On 26 January 1999 the European Communities requested consultations with the United States in respect of Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act as amended by the Fairness in Music Licensing Act which was enacted on 27 October 1998. The European Communities contended that Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act permits under certain conditions the playing of radio and television music in public places (bars shops restaurants etc.) without the payment of a royalty fee. The European Communities considered that this statute is inconsistent with US obligations under Article 9(1) of the TRIPS Agreement which requires Members to comply with Articles 1-21 of the Berne Convention. The dispute centred on the compatibility of two exemptions provided for in Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act with Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement which allows certain limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights of copyright holders subject to the condition that such limitations are confined to certain special cases do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work in question and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder: The so-called “business” exemption provided for in sub-paragraph (B) of Section 110(5) essentially allows the amplification of music broadcasts without an authorization and a payment of a fee by food service and drinking establishments and by retail establishments provided that their size does not exceed a certain square footage limit. It also allows such amplification of music broadcasts by establishments above this square footage limit provided that certain equipment limitations are met. The so-called “homestyle” exemption provided for in sub-paragraph (A) of Section 110(5) allows small restaurants and retail outlets to amplify music broadcasts without an authorization of the right holders and without the payment of a fee provided that they use only homestyle equipment (i.e. equipment of a kind commonly used in private homes).
Canada - Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry
On 3 July 1998 Japan requested consultations with Canada in respect of measures being taken by Canada in the automotive industry. Japan contended that under Canadian legislation implementing an automotive products agreement (Auto Pact) between the US and Canada only a limited number of motor vehicle manufacturers are eligible to import vehicles into Canada duty free and to distribute the motor vehicles in Canada at the wholesale and retail distribution levels. Japan further contended that this duty-free treatment is contingent on two requirements: Canadian value-added (CVA) content requirement that applies to both goods and services; and manufacturing and sales requirement. Japan alleges that these measures are inconsistent with Articles I:1 III:4 and XXIV of GATT 1994 Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement Article 3 of the SCM Agreement and Articles II VI and XVII of GATS.
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.
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.
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 - Term of Patent Protection
On 6 May 1999 the US requested consultations with Canada in respect of the term of protection granted to patents that were filed in Canada before 1 October 1989. The US contended that the TRIPS Agreement obligates Members to grant a term of protection for patents that runs at least until twenty years after the filing date of the underlying protection and requires each Member to grant this minimum term to all patents existing as of the date of the application of the Agreement to that Member. The US alleged that under the Canadian Patent Act the term granted to patents issued on the basis of applications filed before 1 October 1989 is 17 years from the date on which the patent is issued. The US contended that this situation is inconsistent with Articles 33 65 and 70 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Korea - Measures Affecting Government Procurement
On 16 February 1999 the US requested consultations with Korea in respect of certain procurement practices of the Korean Airport Construction Authority (KOACA) and other entities concerned with the procurement of airport construction in Korea. The US claimed that such practices were inconsistent with Korea’s obligations under the Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA). These include practices relating to qualification for bidding as a prime contractor domestic partnering and the absence of access to challenge procedures that are in breach of the GPA. The US contended that KOACA and the other entities are within the scope of Korea’s list of central government entities as specified in Annex 1 of Korea’s obligations in Appendix I of the GPA and pursuant to Article I(1) of the GPA apply to the procurement of airport construction.
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.
Canada - Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products
On 19 December 1997 the EC requested consultations with Canada in respect of the alleged lack of protection of inventions by Canada in the area of pharmaceuticals under the relevant provisions of the Canadian implementing legislation in particular the Patent Act. The EC alleged that Canada’s legislation is not compatible with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement because it does not provide for the full protection of patented pharmaceutical inventions for the entire duration of the term of protection envisaged by Articles 27.1 28 and 33 of the TRIPS Agreement.
United States - Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations"
On 18 November 1997 the European Communities requested consultations with the United States in respect of Sections 921-927 of the US Internal Revenue Code and related measures establishing special tax treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” (FSC). The European Communities contended that these provisions were inconsistent with the United States' obligations under Articles III:4 and XVI of the GATT 1994 Articles 3.1(a) and (b) of the SCM Agreement and Articles 3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture.