Dispute settlement
Compliance with WTO dispute settlement decisions: Is there a crisis?
Conferences and symposia on the World Trade Organization (WTO) have been proliferating in connection with the organization’s tenth anniversary with a particular focus on the WTO dispute settlement system – how it is working what difficulties have arisen how its rules might evolve etc. These events typically feature a certain amount of hand-wringing over the fact that adopted WTO dispute settlement decisions have only a limited indirect influence on the subsequent behaviour of losing respondents and sometimes are not implemented promptly or at all. Some observers have gone so far as to proclaim the existence of a ‘compliance crisis’ with potentially ruinous consequences for the WTO and the trading system more generally.
Key Issues in WTO Dispute Settlement
This book examines aspects of the operation of the WTO dispute settlement system during the first ten years of the WTO. It covers a representative cross-section of the issues and situations WTO Members have dealt with under the Dispute Settlement Understanding. The book is unique in that it includes contributions from virtually the entire gamut of actors involved in the day-to-day operation of the WTO dispute settlement system: Member government representatives private lawyers who litigate on behalf of Member governments in the system Appellate Body members Appellate Body Secretariat staff and WTO Secretariat staff. It also includes contributions from several academics who closely follow and carefully scrutinize all that goes on within the system. It therefore provides fascinating insights into how the system has operated in practice and how the lessons of the first decade can be applied to make the system even more successful in the years to come.
The making of the ‘World Trade Court’: The origins and development of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization
The Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) heard and decided its first appeals case in 1996. By 1 January 2005 the Appellate Body had heard and decided 64 appeals from WTO panel reports. The body of case law generated by the Appellate Body over the past nine years is both in quantitative and qualitative terms impressive. The Appellate Body’s case law is highly authoritative and has made a significant contribution to the development of international trade law. The decisions of the Appellate Body in for example US – Shrimp and EC – Asbestos have effectively put an end to complex and sensitive disputes between WTO Members. Both panels and parties in WTO disputes have shown and continue to show much deference to the case law of the Appellate Body. The Appellate Body is undisputedly the most important organ of WTO dispute settlement. The Appellate Body is all but in name the ‘World Trade Court’. The key question addressed in this article is: what explains the prominent status which the Appellate Body and its case law have achieved since 1996? Was the ‘success’ of the Appellate Body and its emergence as the World Trade Court ‘predetermined’ by its constituent instruments or is it primarily the result of other factors that have affected the Appellate Body and its case law in the past nine years?
The reasonable period of time for compliance with rulings and recommendations adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body
The need for a reasonable period of time for the implementation of rulings and recommendations adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) arises in two situations: first when the responding party in a dispute settlement proceeding has been found to have violated WTO rules or otherwise nullified or impaired benefits accruing to the complaining party; and second when the incriminated measure is still in existence at the time when the responding party that has ‘lost’ the case has to inform the DSB of its intentions in respect of implementation. For this purpose a DSB meeting has to be held within 30 days after the adoption of the panel report and if applicable the Appellate Body report.
The power of the WTO dispute settlement system
The dispute settlement system of the WTO is one of the most important elements of a rules-based multilateral trading system. By way of introduction to the very instructive chapters that follow I would like to make several observations about the nature of dispute settlement in a trading system based on national sovereignty followed by some comments on how the system is designed to ensure integrity and fairness in the WTO’s adjudicative process.
Key Issues in WTO Dispute Settlement
This book examines aspects of the operation of the WTO dispute settlement system during the first ten years of the WTO. It covers a representative cross-section of the issues and situations WTO Members have dealt with under the Dispute Settlement Understanding. The book is unique in that it includes contributions from virtually the entire gamut of actors involved in the day-to-day operation of the WTO dispute settlement system: Member government representatives private lawyers who litigate on behalf of Member governments in the system Appellate Body members Appellate Body Secretariat staff and WTO Secretariat staff. It also includes contributions from several academics who closely follow and carefully scrutinize all that goes on within the system. It therefore provides fascinating insights into how the system has operated in practice and how the lessons of the first decade can be applied to make the system even more successful in the years to come.
THE WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures
The third edition of The WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures collects together the treaty texts decisions and agreed practices relating to the procedures that apply in the settlement of WTO disputes. It affords ready answers to technical questions relating to matters such as: how disputes are initiated and conducted including at the appellate stage; what deadlines apply and how to calculate them; what rules of conduct bind individuals involved in WTO dispute settlement; and what rules of procedure apply to meetings of the Dispute Settlement Body. This highly practical work which includes cross-references and a subject index will prove invaluable to anyone working in WTO dispute settlement including lawyers civil servants working in the field of trade economists academics and students. This edition has been fully updated to take account of revised rules and procedures.
Preface
This volume contains a collection of the legal texts related to the settlement of disputes under the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO). To facilitate their use the texts have been grouped by subject matter and cross-references and a subject index have been added by the WTO Secretariat. These additions do not form part of the legal texts and therefore should not be used as sources of interpretation.
The WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures, 3rd Edition
The third edition of The WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures collects together the treaty texts decisions and agreed practices relating to the procedures that apply in the settlement of WTO disputes. It affords ready answers to technical questions relating to matters such as: how disputes are initiated and conducted including at the appellate stage; what deadlines apply and how to calculate them; what rules of conduct bind individuals involved in WTO dispute settlement; and what rules of procedure apply to meetings of the Dispute Settlement Body. This highly practical work which includes cross-references and a subject index will prove invaluable to anyone working in WTO dispute settlement including lawyers civil servants working in the field of trade economists academics and students. This edition has been fully updated to take account of revised rules and procedures.
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.
Dominican Republic - Measures Affecting the Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes
On 8 October 2003 Honduras requested consultations with the Dominican Republic concerning certain measures affecting the importation and internal sale of cigarettes. This request is a new and expanded version of a complaint filed by Honduras on 28 August 2003 (WT/DS300/1).
United States - Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services
On 21 March 2003 Antigua and Barbuda requested consultations with the US regarding measures applied by central regional and local authorities in the US which affect the cross-border supply of gambling and betting services. Antigua and Barbuda considered that the cumulative impact of the US measures is to prevent the supply of gambling and betting services from another WTO Member to the United States on a cross-border basis. According to Antigua and Barbuda the measures at issue may be inconsistent with the US obligations under the GATS and in particular Articles II VI VIII XI XVI and XVII thereof and the US Schedule of Specific Commitments annexed to the GATS.
European Communities - Export Subsidies on Sugar - Complaint by Thailand
On 27 September 2002 Australia and Brazil requested consultations with the European Communities concerning the export subsidies provided by the EC in the framework of its Common Organisation of the Market for the sugar sector. The requests concerned Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the EC’s common organization of the markets in the sugar sector and all other legislation regulations administrative policies and other instruments relating to the EC regime for sugar and sugar containing products including the rules adopted pursuant to the procedure referred to in Article 42(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/2001 and any other provision related thereto. On 14 March 2003 Thailand requested consultations with the European Communities on the same matter.
European Communities - Export Subsidies on Sugar - Complaint by Australia
On 27 September 2002 Australia and Brazil requested consultations with the European Communities concerning the export subsidies provided by the EC in the framework of its Common Organisation of the Market for the sugar sector. The requests concerned Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the EC’s common organization of the markets in the sugar sector and all other legislation regulations administrative policies and other instruments relating to the EC regime for sugar and sugar containing products including the rules adopted pursuant to the procedure referred to in Article 42(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/2001 and any other provision related thereto. On 14 March 2003 Thailand requested consultations with the European Communities on the same matter.
European Communities - Export Subsidies on Sugar - Complaint by Brazil
On 27 September 2002 Australia and Brazil requested consultations with the European Communities concerning the export subsidies provided by the EC in the framework of its Common Organisation of the Market for the sugar sector. The requests concerned Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the EC’s common organization of the markets in the sugar sector and all other legislation regulations administrative policies and other instruments relating to the EC regime for sugar and sugar containing products including the rules adopted pursuant to the procedure referred to in Article 42(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/2001 and any other provision related thereto. On 14 March 2003 Thailand requested consultations with the European Communities on the same matter.
United States - Subsidies on Upland Cotton
On 27 September 2002 Brazil requested consultations with the United States regarding prohibited and actionable subsidies provided to US producers users and/or exporters of upland cotton as well as legislation regulations statutory instruments and amendments thereto providing such subsidies (including export credits) grants and any other assistance to the US producers users and exporters of upland cotton (“US upland cotton industry”). Brazil contended that these measures were inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the following provisions: Articles 5(c) 6.3(b) (c) and (d) 3.1(a) (including item (j) of the Illustrative List of Export Subsidies in Annex I) 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement; Articles 3.3 7.1 8 9.1 and 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Article III:4 of GATT 1994. Brazil was of the view that the US statutes regulations and administrative procedures listed above were inconsistent with these provisions as such and as applied. On 9 October and 11 October 2002 Zimbabwe and India respectively requested to join the consultations. On 14 October 2002 Argentina and Canada requested to join the consultations. The United States informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Argentina and India to join the consultations.
Canada - Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of Imported Grain
On 17 December 2002 the United States requested consultations with Canada as regards matters concerning the export of wheat by the Canadian Wheat Board and the treatment accorded by Canada to grain imported into Canada. According to the United States the actions of the Government of Canada and the Canadian Wheat Board (entity enjoying exclusive rights to purchase and sell Western Canadian wheat for human consumption) related to export of wheat appear to be inconsistent with paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of Article XVII of GATT 1994.
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.
Introduction to the WTO Dispute Settlement System
The best international agreement is not worth very much if its obligations cannot be enforced when one of the signatories fails to comply with such obligations. An effective mechanism to settle disputes thus increases the practical value of the commitments the signatories undertake in an international agreement. The fact that the Members of the WTO established the current dispute settlement system during the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations underscores the high importance they attach to compliance by all Members with their obligations under the WTO Agreement.
Preface
There have been over 300 disputes brought to the World Trade Organization (WTO) since its creation in January 1995 and these disputes cover a wide range of economic activities
Possible Object of a Complaint – Jurisdiction of Panels and the Appellate Body
The previous chapter explored what constitutes a valid basis for a complaint in the WTO dispute settlement system and explained the different types of complaints available under the covered agreements. The present chapter addresses the jurisdiction of WTO panels and the Appellate Body by exploring the question of the object of the complaint. To put it more simply: against what can the complaint be directed? For example in a violation complaint what types of action by a Member are covered by a commitment in a covered agreement? Can only acts of administrative authorities be challenged or also legislative acts? Can the complainant invoke the dispute settlement system only against legally binding acts of Members or also against non-binding acts taken by the Members’ authorities? Can the challenge only be directed against governmental conduct or also against behaviour of private individuals? Can it be directed only against positive action or also against omissions i.e. the failure to act?
Developing Countries in WTO Dispute Settlement
revious chapters have addressed at least in part where the DSU specifically refers to developing country Members and provides for special rules applicable to disputes involving a developing country Member. Nevertheless these rules providing special and differential treatment are the subject of this separate chapter in order to examine the subject in more detail. This chapter also addresses other aspects of the developing countries’ role in the dispute settlement system.
Introduction to This Handbook
The WTO dispute settlement system plays an important role in clarifying and enforcing the legal obligations contained in the WTO Agreement. It has gained a strong practical relevance as more than 300 disputes have been brought from 1 January 1995 through October 2003. While dispute settlement is certainly not the only activity taking place within the WTO it has become an important part of the practical reality of the Organization. WTO dispute settlement has also become an important tool in the management by WTO Members of their international economic relations at large.
Historic Development of the WTO Dispute Settlement System
The WTO dispute settlement system is often praised as one of the most important innovations of the Uruguay Round. This should not however be misunderstood to mean that the WTO dispute settlement system was a total innovation and that the previous multilateral trading system based on GATT 1947 did not have a dispute settlement system.
Legal Basis for a Dispute
This chapter will explain the conditions under which Members of the WTO can invoke the provisions of the dispute settlement system; that is what constitutes a valid basis for a complaint by one Member against another Member.
Legal Effect of Panel and Appellate Body Reports and DSB Recommendations and Rulings
The previous chapters gave an explanation of the various procedures set out in the DSU. This chapter and the following ones will address specific issues of interest. This chapter addresses the legal effect of rulings made by panels the Appellate Body and the DSB.
Dispute Settlement without Recourse to Panels and the Appellate Body
The previous chapters have devoted much attention to the involvement of panels and the Appellate Body in the WTO dispute settlement system. However it is important to stress that panels and the Appellate Body are not always involved in a WTO dispute and there are various other ways to solve disputes within the framework of the WTO. Indeed the parties often use these other ways and manage to solve their dispute in a cooperative manner and not through recourse to adjudication by panels and the Appellate Body. In this regard parties can settle a dispute by finding a mutually agreed solution in bilateral negotiations or with the help of dispute resolution mechanisms such as good offices conciliation or mediation. In addition they can also agree to refer their dispute to an arbitrator.
WTO Bodies Involved in the Dispute Settlement Process
The operation of the WTO dispute settlement process involves the parties and third parties to a case the DSB panels the Appellate Body the WTO Secretariat arbitrators independent experts and several specialized institutions. This chapter gives an introduction to the WTO bodies involved in the dispute settlement system. The involvement of the parties and third parties the primary participants in a dispute settlement proceeding has already been outlined above. The precise tasks and roles of each of the actors involved in the dispute settlement process will become clear in the later chapter on the stages of the dispute settlement process.
The Process – Stages in a Typical WTO Dispute Settlement Case
This chapter explains all the various stages through which a dispute can pass in the WTO dispute settlement system. There are two main ways to settle a dispute once a complaint has been filed in the WTO: (i) the parties find a mutually agreed solution particularly during the phase of bilateral consultations; and (ii) through adjudication including the subsequent implementation of the panel and Appellate Body reports which are binding upon the parties once adopted by the DSB. There are three main stages to the WTO dispute settlement process: (i) consultations between the parties; (ii) adjudication by panels and if applicable by the Appellate Body; and (iii) the implementation of the ruling which includes the possibility of countermeasures in the event of failure by the losing party to implement the ruling.
A Handbook on the WTO Dispute Settlement System
The primary purpose of this training guide is to explain the WTO dispute settlement system to an interested person with little or no knowledge of how this system functions. However with its detailed content it could also serve as a very useful “handbook” to experienced practitioners of WTO Law. It explains the historic evolution of the current system and explores the practices that have arisen in its operation since its entry into force on 1 January 1995.
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.
European Communities - Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries
On 5 March 2002 India requested consultations with the EC concerning the conditions under which the EC accords tariff preferences to developing countries under its current scheme of generalized tariff preferences (“GSP scheme”). India presented this request pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU Article XXIII:1 of the GATT 1994 and paragraph 4(b) of the so-called Enabling Clause. India considered that the tariff preferences accorded by the EC under the special arrangements (i) for combating drug production and trafficking and (ii) for the protection of labour rights and the environment create undue difficulties for India’s exports to the EC including for those under the general arrangements of the EC’s GSP scheme and nullify or impair the benefits accruing to India under the most favoured nation provisions of Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 and paragraphs 2(a) 3(a) and 3(c) of the Enabling Clause. In India’s view the conditions under which the EC accorded tariff preferences under the special arrangements could not be reconciled with the requirements provided in paragraphs 2(a) 3(a) and 3(c) of the Enabling Clause.
Canada - Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of Imported Grain
On 17 December 2002 the United States requested consultations with Canada as regards matters concerning the export of wheat by the Canadian Wheat Board and the treatment accorded by Canada to grain imported into Canada. According to the United States the actions of the Government of Canada and the Canadian Wheat Board (entity enjoying exclusive rights to purchase and sell Western Canadian wheat for human consumption) related to export of wheat appear to be inconsistent with paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of Article XVII of GATT 1994.
Mexico - Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services
On 17 August 2000 the US requested consultations with Mexico in respect of Mexico’s commitments and obligations under the GATS with respect to basic and value-added telecommunications services. According to the United States since the entry into force of the GATS Mexico has adopted or maintained anti-competitive and discriminatory regulatory measures tolerated certain privately-established market access barriers and failed to take needed regulatory action in Mexico’s basic and value-added telecommunications sectors.
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.
European Communities - Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries
On 5 March 2002 India requested consultations with the EC concerning the conditions under which the EC accords tariff preferences to developing countries under its current scheme of generalized tariff preferences (“GSP scheme”). India presented this request pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU Article XXIII:1 of the GATT 1994 and paragraph 4(b) of the so-called Enabling Clause. India considered that the tariff preferences accorded by the EC under the special arrangements (i) for combating drug production and trafficking and (ii) for the protection of labour rights and the environment create undue difficulties for India’s exports to the EC including for those under the general arrangements of the EC’s GSP scheme and nullify or impair the benefits accruing to India under the most favoured nation provisions of Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 and paragraphs 2(a) 3(a) and 3(c) of the Enabling Clause. In India’s view the conditions under which the EC accorded tariff preferences under the special arrangements could not be reconciled with the requirements provided in paragraphs 2(a) 3(a) and 3(c) of the Enabling Clause.
Japan - Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples
On 1 March 2002 the United States requested consultations with Japan regarding restrictions allegedly imposed by Japan on imports of apples from the United States. The United States’ complaint arose from the maintenance by Japan of quarantine restrictions on apples imported into Japan which restrictions were said to be necessary to protect against introduction of fire blight. Among the measures the United States complained of were the prohibition of imported apples from orchards in which any fire blight was detected the requirement that export orchards be inspected three times yearly for the presence of fire blight and the disqualification of any orchard from exporting to Japan should fire blight be detected within a 500 meter buffer zone surrounding such orchard. The United States claimed that these measures might be inconsistent with the obligations of Japan under:
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.
Japan - Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples
On 1 March 2002 the United States requested consultations with Japan regarding restrictions allegedly imposed by Japan on imports of apples from the United States. The United States’ complaint arose from the maintenance by Japan of quarantine restrictions on apples imported into Japan which restrictions were said to be necessary to protect against introduction of fire blight. Among the measures the United States complained of were the prohibition of imported apples from orchards in which any fire blight was detected the requirement that export orchards be inspected three times yearly for the presence of fire blight and the disqualification of any orchard from exporting to Japan should fire blight be detected within a 500 meter buffer zone surrounding such orchard. The United States claimed that these measures might be inconsistent with the obligations of Japan under:
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 - Rules of Origin for Textiles and Apparel Products
On 11 January 2002 India requested consultations with the United States in respect of its rules of origin applicable to imports of textiles and apparel products as set out in Section 334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act Section 405 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 and the customs regulations implementing these provisions. India argued that prior to the abovementioned Section 334 the rule of origin applicable to textiles and apparel products was the “substantial transformation” rule. India considered that Section 334 changed the system by identifying specific processing operations which would confer origin to the various types of textiles and apparel products. In India’s view these changes appear to have been made to protect the United States textiles and clothing industry from import competition. India indicated that the changes introduced by Section 334 had already been challenged by the European Communities on the grounds that they were incompatible with the United States’ obligations under the Agreement on Rules of Origin and other WTO Agreements (WT/DS151). India explained that that dispute was settled through a procès-verbal whereby the United States agreed to introduce legislation amending Section 334. According to India the changes introduced by the amending legislation i.e. Section 405 were aimed at taking account of the particular export interests of the European Communities. India is of the view that the changes introduced by Sections 334 and 405 have resulted in extraordinary complex rules under which the criteria that confer origin vary between similar products and processing operations. India argued that the structure of the changes the circumstances under which they were adopted and their effect on the conditions of competition for textiles and apparel products suggest that they serve trade policy purposes. On those grounds India questioned the compatibility of those changes with paragraphs (b) (c) (d) and (e) of Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin.
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.
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.
European Communities - Trade Description of Sardines
On 20 March 2001 Peru requested consultations with the EC concerning Regulation (EEC) 2136/89 which according to Peru prevents Peruvian exporters to continue to use the trade description “sardines” for their products. Peru submitted that according to the relevant Codex Alimentarius standards (STAN 94-181 rev. 1995) the species “sardinops sagax sagax” are listed among those species which can be traded as “sardines”. Peru therefore considered that the above Regulation constitutes an unjustifiable barrier to trade and hence in breach of Articles 2 and 12 of the TBT Agreement and Article XI:1 of GATT 1994. In addition Peru argues that the Regulation is inconsistent with the principle of non-discrimination and hence in breach of Articles I and III of GATT 1994.
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.
United States - Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations"
On 30 August 2002 the WTO issued the dispute panel reports in the case "United States - Tax treatment for "foreign sales corporations"".
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.
European Communities - Trade Description of Sardines
On 20 March 2001 Peru requested consultations with the EC concerning Regulation (EEC) 2136/89 which according to Peru prevents Peruvian exporters to continue to use the trade description “sardines” for their products. Peru submitted that according to the relevant Codex Alimentarius standards (STAN 94-181 rev. 1995) the species “sardinops sagax sagax” are listed among those species which can be traded as “sardines”. Peru therefore considered that the above Regulation constitutes an unjustifiable barrier to trade and hence in breach of Articles 2 and 12 of the TBT Agreement and Article XI:1 of GATT 1994. In addition Peru argues that the Regulation is inconsistent with the principle of non-discrimination and hence in breach of Articles I and III of GATT 1994.
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
India - Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector
On 6 October 1998 the EC requested consultations with India concerning certain measures affecting the automotive sector being applied by India. The EC stated that the measures include the documents entitled “Export and Import Policy 1997-2002” “ITC (HS Classification) Export and Import Policy 1997-2002” (“Classification”) and “Public Notice No. 60 (PN/97-02) of 12 December 1997 Export and Import Policy April 1997-March 2002” and any other legislative or administrative provision implemented or consolidated by these policies as well as MoUs signed by the Indian Government with certain manufacturers of automobiles. The EC contended that: under these measures imports of complete automobiles and of certain parts and components were subject to a system of non-automatic import licenses. in accordance with Public Notice No. 60 import licenses might be granted only to local joint venture manufacturers that had signed an MoU with the Indian Government whereby they undertook inter alia to comply with certain local content and export balancing requirements. The EC alleged violations of Articles III and XI of GATT 1994 and Article 2 of the TRIMs 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 - Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" - Recourse 1
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.
United States - Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998
On 8 July 1999 the European Communities requested consultations with the United States in respect of Section 211 of the US Omnibus Appropriations Act. The EC and its member States alleged as follows: - Section 211 which was signed into law on 21 October 1998 did not allow the registration or renewal in the United States of a trademark if it was previously abandoned by a trademark owner whose business and assets have been confiscated under Cuban law. - This law provided that no US court shall recognize or enforce any assertion of such rights. - Section 211 US Omnibus Appropriations Act was not in conformity with the US’ obligations under the TRIPS Agreement notably its Article 2 in conjunction with the Paris Convention Article 3 Article 4 Articles 15 to 21 Article 41 Article 42 and Article 62
India - Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector
On 6 October 1998 the EC requested consultations with India concerning certain measures affecting the automotive sector being applied by India. The EC stated that the measures include the documents entitled “Export and Import Policy 1997-2002” “ITC (HS Classification) Export and Import Policy 1997-2002” (“Classification”) and “Public Notice No. 60 (PN/97-02) of 12 December 1997 Export and Import Policy April 1997-March 2002” and any other legislative or administrative provision implemented or consolidated by these policies as well as MoUs signed by the Indian Government with certain manufacturers of automobiles. The EC contended that: under these measures imports of complete automobiles and of certain parts and components were subject to a system of non-automatic import licenses. in accordance with Public Notice No. 60 import licenses might be granted only to local joint venture manufacturers that had signed an MoU with the Indian Government whereby they undertook inter alia to comply with certain local content and export balancing requirements. The EC alleged violations of Articles III and XI of GATT 1994 and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement.
Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products - Recourse 1
On 8 October 1997 the United States requested consultations with Canada in respect of export subsidies allegedly granted by Canada on dairy products and the administration by Canada of the tariff-rate quota on milk. The United States contended that these export subsidies by Canada distort markets for dairy products and adversely affect US sales of dairy products. The United States alleged violations of Articles II X and X1 of the GATT 1994 Articles 3 4 8 9 and 10 of the Agreement on Agriculture Article 3 of the SCM Agreement and Articles 1 2 and 3 of the Import Licensing 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.
United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products - Recourse 1
On 8 October 1996 India Malaysia Pakistan and Thailand requested consultations with the United States concerning a ban on importation of shrimp and shrimp products from these complainants imposed by the US under Section 609 of US Public Law 101-162. Violations of Articles I XI and XIII of the GATT 1994 as well nullification and impairment of benefits were alleged.
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 - Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan
On 3 April 2000 Pakistan requested consultations with the US in respect of a transitional safeguard measure applied by the United States as of 17 March 1999 on combed cotton yarn (United States category 301) from Pakistan (see US Federal Register of 12 March 1999 document 99-6098). In accordance with Article 6.10 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) the United States had notified the TMB on 5 March 1999 that it had decided to unilaterally impose a restraint after consultations as to whether the situation called for a restraint had failed to produce a mutually satisfactory solution. In April 1999 the TMB examined the US restraint pursuant to Article 6.10 of the ATC and recommended that the US restraint should be rescinded. On 28 May 1999 in accordance with Article 8.10 of the ATC the United States notified the TMB that it considered itself unable to conform to the recommendations issued by the TMB. Despite a further recommendation of the TMB pursuant to Article 8.10 of the ATC that the United States reconsider its position the United States continued to maintain its unilateral restraint and thus the matter remained unresolved. Pakistan claimed as follows: the transitional safeguards applied by the United States are inconsistent with the United States’ obligations under Articles 2.4 of the ATC and not justified by Article 6 of the ATC; the US restraint does not meet the requirements for transitional safeguards set out in paragraphs 2 3 4 and 7 of Article 6 of the ATC.
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 - Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" - Recourse 1
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.
United States - Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998
On 8 July 1999 the European Communities requested consultations with the United States in respect of Section 211 of the US Omnibus Appropriations Act. The EC and its member States alleged as follows: - Section 211 which was signed into law on 21 October 1998 did not allow the registration or renewal in the United States of a trademark if it was previously abandoned by a trademark owner whose business and assets have been confiscated under Cuban law. - This law provided that no US court shall recognize or enforce any assertion of such rights. - Section 211 US Omnibus Appropriations Act was not in conformity with the US’ obligations under the TRIPS Agreement notably its Article 2 in conjunction with the Paris Convention Article 3 Article 4 Articles 15 to 21 Article 41 Article 42 and Article 62
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.
Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products - Recourse 1
On 8 October 1997 the United States requested consultations with Canada in respect of export subsidies allegedly granted by Canada on dairy products and the administration by Canada of the tariff-rate quota on milk. The United States contended that these export subsidies by Canada distort markets for dairy products and adversely affect US sales of dairy products. The United States alleged violations of Articles II X and X1 of the GATT 1994 Articles 3 4 8 9 and 10 of the Agreement on Agriculture Article 3 of the SCM Agreement and Articles 1 2 and 3 of the Import Licensing Agreement.