Anti-dumping, subsidies, safeguards

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.

On 2 December 2019 the WTO circulated the compliance panel report in the case brought by the European Union in “European Communities and Certain Member States - Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft - Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the EU” (DS316)

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.

Le 8 juin 2012 l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial chargé d’examiner la plainte de la Chine dans l’affaire “États-Unis — crevettes et lames de scie au diamant” (WT/DS422/R).

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 19 June 1996 Canada requested consultations with Brazil under Article 4 of the SCM Agreement which provides for special procedures for export subsidies. Canada claimed that export subsidies granted under the Brazilian Programa de Financiamento às Exportações (PROEX) to foreign purchasers of Brazil’s Embraer aircraft are inconsistent with Articles 3 27.4 and 27.5 of the SCM Agreement.

El 06 de diciembre de 2017 la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Medidas antidumping y compensatorias sobre determinado papel estucado o cuché procedente de Indonesia”.

On 19 June 1996 Canada requested consultations with Brazil under Article 4 of the SCM Agreement which provides for special procedures for export subsidies. Canada claimed that export subsidies granted under the Brazilian Programa de Financiamento às Exportações (PROEX) to foreign purchasers of Brazil’s Embraer aircraft are inconsistent with Articles 3 27.4 and 27.5 of the SCM Agreement.

On 10 December 2019 the Appellate Body issued its report in the case brought by Turkey in “Morocco - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot Rolled Steel from Turkey” (DS513). On 4 December Morocco notified the Appellate Body that it had withdrawn its appeal in this dispute.

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.