Panel Reports

On 27 January 2017, the WTO issued the panel report in the case brought by the European Union in “Russia - Anti-Dumping Duties on Light Commercial Vehicles from Germany and Italy”.

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 18 August 1997, the EC requested consultations with the US in respect of a ban on imports of poultry and poultry products from the EC by the US Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Inspection Service, and any related measures. The EC contended that although the ban is allegedly on grounds of product safety, the ban does not indicate the grounds upon which EC poultry products have suddenly become ineligible for entry into the US market. The EC considered that the ban is inconsistent with Articles I, III, X and XI of GATT 1994, Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement, or Article 2 and 5 of the TBT Agreement.

On 8 May 2014, New Zealand requested consultations with Indonesia concerning certain measures it imposes on the importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products. New Zealand claims that the measures are inconsistent with: - Articles III:4, X:1 and XI:1 of the GATT 1994; - Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture; - Articles 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 2.2, 3.2, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.2 of the Import Licensing Agreement; and - Articles 2.1 and 2.15 of the Agreement on Preshipment Inspection.

On 19 December 2013, Argentina requested consultations with the European Union regarding (a) provisional and definitive anti-dumping measures imposed on biodiesel originating in, inter alia, Argentina, as well as the investigation underlying the measures; and, (b) a provision in Council Regulation (EC) 1225/2009 of November 2009, which refers to the adjustment or establishment of costs associated with the production and sale of products under investigation in the determination of dumping margins. Argentina claimed that the measures were inconsistent with: - Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 9.3, 18 and 18.4 of the Anti–Dumping Agreement; - Article VI of the GATT 1994; and - Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. On 9 January 2014, the Russian Federation requested to join the consultations. On 15 January 2014, Indonesia requested to join the consultations. Subsequently, the European Union informed the DSB that it had accepted the request of Indonesia to join the consultations.

On 29 August 2013, Korea requested consultations with the United States concerning anti–dumping and countervailing measures relating to large residential washers from Korea. Korea claims that the measures identified in its request for consultations are inconsistent with: - Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 5.8, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 11 and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; - Articles 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 10, 14 and 19.4 of the SCM Agreement; - Articles VI, VI:1, VI:2 and VI:3 of the GATT 1994; - Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

On 27 July 2012, Indonesia requested consultations with the European Union with respect to the imposition of definitive and provisional anti-dumping measures by the European Union on the importation of fatty alcohols and with respect to certain aspects of the investigation underlying these measures.

On 30 October 2013, Japan requested consultations with Ukraine regarding the definitive safeguard measures imposed by Ukraine on imports of certain passenger cars and the investigation that led to the imposition of those measures. Japan claims that the measures are inconsistent with: - Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 4.2(a), 4.2(b), 4.2(c), 5.1, 7.1, 7.4, 8.1, 11.1(a), 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards; and - Articles II:1(b) and XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994.

On 20 December 2012, Japan requested consultations with China pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the DSU, Article XXII:1 of the GATT 1994, and Articles 17.2 and 17.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to the measures and claims set out below. On 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China pursuant to the same, above-mentioned provisions and with respect to the measures and claims set out below. In both complaints, the consultations concerned China's measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certain HP-SSST from Japan and the European Union respectively, as set forth in MOFCOM's Preliminary Determination notice, and MOFCOM's Final Determination notice, including any and all annexes and any amendments thereof.

On 15 September 2010, the United States requested consultations with China with respect to measures imposing countervailing duties and anti-dumping duties on grain oriented flat-rolled electrical steel (“GOES”) from the United States as set forth in Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) Notice No. 21 [2010], including its annexes. The subsidy that China determined to confer a benefit are the “Buy America” provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and also State government procurement laws. The United States alleged that China appears to be acting inconsistently with its obligations under: - Articles 10, 11.2, 11.3, 12.3, 12.4.1, 12.7, 12.8, 15.1, 15.2, 15.5, 19, 22.2(iii), 22.3 and 22.5 of the SCM Agreement, - Articles 1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 6.9 and 12.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and - Article VI of the GATT 1994.