Appellate Body Reports

On 4 February 2020 the Appellate Body issued its report in the case brought by Ukraine in “ Russia - Measures affecting the importation of railway equipment and parts thereof” (DS499).

On 28 March 2019 the WTO’s Appellate Body issued its report on US compliance in the dispute brought by the European Union in “United States — Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft — Second complaint” (DS353).

On 22 March 2018, the WTO Appellate Body issued its report in the case “Russia — Anti-Dumping Duties on Light Commercial Vehicles from Germany and Italy.

On 14 December 2018 the Appellate Body issued its report in the cases brought by Mexico and the United States in “United States - Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products — Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Mexico” (DS381).

On 9 November 2017 the WTO, Appellate Body issued its report in the cases brought by New Zealand and the United States in “Indonesia - Importation of Horticultural Products, Animals and Animal Products”.

On 11 May 2017, the WTO Appellate Body issued its report in the case “United States - Certain Methodologies and their Application To Anti-Dumping Proceedings Involving China”.

On 19 December 2014, the European Union requested consultations with the United States with respect to conditional tax incentives established by the State of Washington in relation to the development, manufacture, and sale of large civil aircraft. The European Union alleges that the measures constitute specific subsidies within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement. The European Union also considers that the measures are prohibited subsidies that are inconsistent with Articles 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement

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 6 February 2013, the United States requested consultations with India concerning certain measures of India relating to domestic content requirements under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (“NSM”) for solar cells and solar modules.

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 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 6 March 2012, the United States requested consultations with India with respect to the prohibitions imposed by India on the importation of various agricultural products from the United States purportedly because of concerns related to Avian Influenza. The measures at issue are: the Indian Livestock Importation Act, 1898 (9 of 1898) ("Livestock Act"); a number of orders issued by India's Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying, and Fisheries pursuant to the Livestock Act, most recently S.O. 1663(E); as well as any amendments, related measures, or implementing measures.

On 1 December 2008, Canada requested consultations with the United States concerning certain mandatory country of origin labelling (COOL) provisions in the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 as amended by the 2008 Farm Bill and as implemented through an Interim Final Rule of 28 July 2008. These include the obligation to inform consumers at the retail level of the country of origin in respect of covered commodities, including beef and pork. The eligibility for a designation of a covered commodity as exclusively having a US origin can only be derived from an animal that was exclusively born, raised and slaughtered in the United States. This would exclude such a designation in respect of beef or pork derived from livestock that is exported to the United States for feed or immediate slaughter.

On 17 September 2012, China requested consultations with the United States concerning the following measures: (i) a new piece of legislation (Public Law 112-99) that explicitly allows for the application of countervailing measures to non-market economy countries; (ii) countervailing duty determinations or actions made or performed by US authorities between 20 November 2006 and 13 March 2012 in respect of Chinese products; (iii) anti-dumping measures associated with the concerned countervailing duty measures as well as the combined effect of these anti-dumping measures and the parallel countervailing duty measures; and (iv) the United States’ failure to provide the US Department of Commerce (USDOC) with legal authority to identify and avoid the double remedies in respect of investigations or reviews initiated on or between 20 November 2006 and 13 March 2012.

On 12 April 2012, India requested consultations with the United States with regard to the imposition of countervailing duties by the United States on certain hot rolled carbon steel flat products from India (“subject goods”).

On 2 November 2009, Canada requested consultations with the European Communities concerning Regulation (EC) No. 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the EC Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products, and subsequent related measures. According to Canada, the regulation in question prohibits the importation and the placing on the EC market of all seal products.

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.

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 24 October 2008, Mexico requested consultations with the United States with respect to the following measures: (i) the United States Code, Title 16, Section 1385 (“Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act”), (ii) the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Section 216.91 (“Dolphin–safe labeling standards”) and Section 216.92 (“Dolphin–safe requirements for tuna harvested in the ETP [Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean] by large purse seine vessels”) and (iii) the ruling in Earth Island Institute v. Hogarth, 494 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2007).

On 14 September 2009, China requested consultations with the United States concerning increased tariffs on certain passenger vehicle and light truck tyres (subject tyres) from China. The decision was announced on 11 September 2009 following an investigation pursuant to section 421 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.). The USITC determined that there was market disruption as a result of rapidly increasing imports of subject tyres from China that were a significant cause of material injury to the domestic industry. Following a Presidential decision additional duties were imposed on subject tyres imports for a three year period in the amount of 35 per cent ad valorem in the first year, 30 per cent ad valorem in the second year and 25 per cent ad valorem in the third year (the tyres measure). This measure took effect on 26 September 2009.

On 29 July 2009, the European Communities requested consultations with the Philippines concerning the Philippines' current Excise Tax regime on distilled spirits, which has been in place since 1997. The European Communities contends that the regime discriminates against imported distilled spirits by taxing them at a substantially higher rate than domestic spirits. The European Communities cites a number of specific measures under the regime in its request. The European Communities considers that these measures are inconsistent with the Philippines' obligations under GATT 1994, in particular Article III:2. On 10 August 2009, the United States requested to join the consultations. Subsequently, the Philippines informed the DSB that it had accepted the request of the United States to join the consultations.

On 7 February 2008, the Philippines requested consultations with Thailand concerning a number of Thai fiscal and customs measures affecting cigarettes from the Philippines. Such measures include Thailand's customs valuation practices, excise tax, health tax, TV tax, VAT regime, retail licensing requirements and import guarantees imposed upon cigarette importers. The Philippines claims that Thailand administers these measures in a partial and unreasonable manner and thereby violates Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.

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 2 October 2006, the European Communities requested consultations with the United States concerning its continued application of the “zeroing” methodology. In particular, the request for consultations concerns (i) the implementing regulation (19 CFR Section 351) of the US Department of Commerce, especially section 351.414(c)(2); and (ii) the Import Administration Antidumping Manual (1997 edition), including the computer program(s) to which it refers. The European Communities claims that, based on these regulations, the US Department of Commerce continued to apply the “zeroing” methodology in the determinations of the margin of dumping in the final results of the anti-dumping administrative reviews concerning various EC goods, and any assessment instructions issued pursuant to those final results.