Panel Reports

On 4 February 2010, China requested consultations with the European Union concerning three EU measures in connection with the imposition of anti-dumping duties on imports of certain leather footwear from China. In particular, China is challenging as WTO-inconsistent Article 9(5) of the Basic EC Anti–Dumping Regulation, which provides that, in cases involving imports from NME countries, the anti–dumping duty shall be specified for the supplying country concerned and not for each individual supplier. According to China, applicable WTO rules require that an individual margin and duty be determined and specified for each known exporter and producer and not for the supplying country as a whole. China states that the Basic Regulation provides that an individual duty will only be specified for exporters that demonstrate that they fulfil the criteria set forth in Article 9(5), the Individual Treatment rules, and is therefore inconsistent with various provisions of the WTO Agreement, China's Protocol of Accession, the GATT 1994, and the Anti-Dumping Agreement. China is also challenging as WTO-inconsistent the Review and Definitive Regulations imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of certain footwear from China, and various aspects of the expiry and original determinations and investigations underlying those regulations.

On 24 November 2009, Korea requested consultations with the United States regarding their use of zeroing in three anti–dumping cases involving certain products from Korea, namely, stainless steel plate in coils, stainless steel sheet and strip in coils, and diamond sawblades and parts thereof. Korea claimed that the effect of the use of zeroing by the US Department of Commerce (USDOC) in these three cases has been either to artificially create margins of dumping where none would otherwise have been found, or to inflate margins of dumping. In its consultation request, Korea alleged that the USDOC's use of zeroing in its final determinations, amended final determinations, and anti-dumping duty orders in the three cases in question was inconsistent with the United States' obligations under Article VI of GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, and 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. On 3 December 2009, Japan requested to join the consultations.

On 23 June 2009, the United States requested consultations with China with respect to China's restraints on the export from China of various forms of raw materials. The United States cites 32 measures through which China allegedly imposes restraints on the exports in question and note that there appear to be additional unpublished restrictive measures.

On 27 November 2008, Brazil requested consultations with regard to: - certain determinations of the United States Department of Commerce (USDOC) concerning the imports of certain orange juice from Brazil; - any actions taken by United States Customs and Border Protection (USCBP) to collect definitive anti-dumping duties at duty assessment rates established in periodic reviews covered by the preceding paragraph, including through the issuance of USCBP liquidations instructions and notices; and - certain US laws, regulations, administrative procedures, practices and methodologies.

On 27 June 2005, the European Communities requested consultations with the United States concerning prohibited and actionable subsidies provided to US producers of large civil aircraft. (See also dispute DS317). The European Communities considers that the measures cited in its request for consultations are inconsistent with: - Articles 3.1(a), 3.1(b), 3.2, 5(a), 5(c), 6.3(a), 6.3(b) and 6.3(c) of the SCM Agreement; and - Article III:4 of the GATT 1994

On 31 July 2009, China requested consultations with the European Communities concerning Article 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 384/96 (the EC's Basic Anti–Dumping Regulation) which provides that in case of imports from non-market economy countries, the duty shall be specified for the supplying country concerned and not for each supplier and that an individual duty will only be specified for exporters that demonstrate that they fulfil the criteria listed in that provision.

On 26 November 2008, Thailand requested consultations with the United States with respect to the application by the United States of the practice known as “zeroing” of negative dumping margins in the United States' determination of the margins of dumping in its anti-dumping investigation of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand. Specifically, Thailand requests consultations concerning the USDOC's use in the Final Determination and Amended Final Determination of the practice of “zeroing” negative anti-dumping margins in calculating overall weighted-average margins of dumping in this investigation. Thailand alleges that the effect of this practice was to create artificially margins of dumping where none would otherwise have been found or, at a minimum, to inflate margins of dumping. Thailand considers the USDOC's use of this practice of “zeroing” in the Final Determination, the Amended Final Determination, and the Order to be inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under Article VI of the GATT 1994, and, in particular, under Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

On 28 May 2008, the United States requested consultations with the European Communities and its member States with respect to their tariff treatment of certain information technology products.

On 31 August 2007, New Zealand requested consultations with Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Zealand. On 27 March 2007, Australia's Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine determined a policy for the importation of apples from New Zealand: “Importation of apples can be permitted subject to the Quarantine Act 1908, and the application of phytosanitary measures as specified in the Final import risk analysis report for apples from New Zealand, November 2006”. New Zealand considers that these restrictions are inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the SPS Agreement, and in particular Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 8 and Annex C. On 13 September 2007, the European Communities requested to join the consultations. On 14 September 2007, the United States requested to join the consultations. Subsequently, Australia informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of the European Communities and the United States to join the consultations. On 6 December 2007, New Zealand requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 17 December 2007, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.

On 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported films for theatrical release, audiovisual home entertainment products (e.g. video cassettes and DVDs), sound recordings and publications (e.g. books, magazines, newspapers and electronic publications); and (2) certain measures that restrict market access for, or discriminate against, foreign suppliers of distribution services for publications and foreign suppliers of audiovisual services (including distribution services) for audiovisual home entertainment products.

On 6 March 2007, the United States requested consultations with India with respect to “additional duties” or “extra additional duties” that India applies to imports from the United States, which include (but are not limited to) wines and distilled products (HS2204, 2205, 2206 and 2208.

On 24 April 2006, Thailand requested consultations with the United States concerning anti-dumping measures on imports of frozen warmwater shrimp. Thailand requests consultations on the United States’ application in the Preliminary, Final and Amended Final Determinations of the practice known as “zeroing” negative dumping margins, the effect of which was to artificially create margins of dumping, and the consequent imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand.

On 30 March 2006, the European Communities and the United States, and on 13 April 2006, Canada, requested consultations with China regarding China's imposition of measures that adversely affect exports of automobile parts from the European Communities, the United States and Canada to China. The measures include the following: (a) Policy on Development of Automotive Industry (Order No. 8 of the National Development and Reform Commission, 21 May 2004); (b) Measures for the Administration of Importation of Automotive Parts and Components for Complete Vehicles (Decree No. 125), which entered into force on 1 April 2005); and, (c) Rules for Determining Whether Imported Automotive Parts and Components Constitute Complete Vehicles (General Administration of Customs Public Announcement No. 4, which entered into force on 1 April 2005; as well as any amendments, replacements, extensions, implementing measures or other measures related.

On 8 November 2004, the European Communities filed a request for consultations with the United States asserting that the United States should have removed its retaliatory measures since the EC has removed the measures found to be WTO-inconsistent in the EC — Hormones case.

On 17 March 2006, Norway requested consultations with the European Communities concerning Council Regulation (EC) No. 85/2006 of 17 January 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway.

On 17 November 2005, Ecuador requested consultations with the United States concerning the final affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value with respect to certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador published by the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) on 23 December 2004, the amended final determination of sales at less than fair value on 1 February 2005 and the accompanying anti-dumping duty order. According to Ecuador, it has concerns particularly about the DOC’s practice of “zeroing” negative anti-dumping margins, based on which the DOC issued the foregoing determinations and order. Ecuador considers that the foregoing determinations and order are inconsistent with Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 5.8, 6.10, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

On 20 June 2005, the European Communities requested consultations with Brazil on the imposition of measures that adversely affect exports of retreaded tyres from the EC to the Brazilian market.

On 4 June 2004, Indonesia requested consultations with Korea concerning the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties by Korea on imports of business information paper and uncoated wood-free printing paper from Indonesia and certain aspects of the investigation leading to the imposition of such duties.

On 1 December 2004, Korea requested consultations with Japan concerning Japan’s import quotas on dried laver and seasoned laver. According to the request for consultations, Korea believes that Japan’s extremely restrictive import quotas on dried laver and seasoned laver are inconsistenté.

On 21 September 2004, the United States requested consultations with the European Communities concerning the Communities’ administration of laws and regulations pertaining to the classification and valuation of products for customs purposes and its failure to institute tribunals or procedures for the prompt review and correction of administrative action on customs matters.

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.

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

On 16 March 2004, the United States requested consultations with Mexico concerning certain tax measures imposed by Mexico on soft drinks and other beverages that use any sweetener other than cane sugar.

On 25 July 2003, Korea requested consultations with the European Communities concerning the EC’s provisional countervailing measures and any final countervailing measures which may be finalized and implemented later this year against dynamic random access memory chips (“DRAMs”) from Korea. According to Korea, when considering the determinations with respect to the provisional measures against the DRAMs from Korea, which have already been implemented, and any final measures on the same products, which may be finalized and implemented later this year, the European Commission failed to comply with various WTO substantive and procedural requirements, including demonstration of the existence of a financial contribution and a benefit conferred, and demonstration of specificity of the subsidies concerned.

On 16 June 2003, the United States requested consultations with Mexico concerning its definitive anti-dumping measures on beef and long grain white rice as well as certain provisions of Mexico’s Foreign Trade Act and its Federal Code of Civil Procedure.