Panel Reports

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.

On 1 June 1999, the US requested consultations with the EC in respect of the alleged lack of protection of trademarks and geographical indications (GIs) for agricultural products and foodstuffs in the EC. The US contended that EC Regulation 2081/92, as amended, does not provide national treatment with respect to geographical indications and does not provide sufficient protection to pre-existing trademarks that are similar or identical to a geographical indication. The US considered this situation to be inconsistent with the EC’s obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, including but not necessarily limited to Articles 3, 16, 24, 63 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement...

On 18 February 2003, Mexico requested consultations with the US as regards several anti-dumping measures imposed by the US on imports of OCTG from Mexico, including the final determinations in some administrative and sunset reviews; and the US authorities’ determination regarding the continuation of the anti-dumping orders. In addition to these measures, Mexico’s request includes a number of laws, regulations and administrative practices (such as “zeroing”) used by the US authorities in the above determinations. Mexico considers that the above anti-dumping measures are incompatible with Articles 1, 2, 3, 6, 11 and 18 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Articles VI and X of the GATT 1994 and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

On 21 October 2002, the European Communities requested consultations with Korea on certain measures establishing subsidies to its shipbuilding industry which, according to the European Communities, are inconsistent with Korea’s obligations under the SCM Agreement. These measures are as follows: - Corporate restructuring subsidies in the form of debt forgiveness, debt and interest relief and debt-to-equity swaps, provided through government-owned and government-controlled banks; - Special taxation on in-kind contribution and the special taxation on spin-off scheme provided in the Special Tax Treatment Control Law which establishes two tax programmes limited to companies under corporate restructuring and provided tax concessions to Daewoo; - Pre-shipment loans and advance payment refund guarantees provided by the state-owned Export-Import Bank of Korea (“KEXIM”) to all Korean shipyards

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.

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.