Anti-dumping, subsidies, safeguards

Subsidies are one of many policy instruments subject to rules in the multilateral trading system but they present more complex issues for policy-makers than many other instruments subject to GATT /WTO rules. One reason for this is that subsidies can be defined in different ways. Another is that that they are used in pursuit of a wide array of objectives. Even where they are not aimed at trade they can affect trade flows. The kinds of subsidies of primary concern to this Report are those that impart an advantage to some domestic producers and thereby affect trade. The challenging task of determining which sorts of subsidies are problematic from the perspective of the trading system and what might be done about them has occupied an important place on the agenda of the WTO /GATT system.

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 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 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.

El 15 de noviembre de 2019 la OMC distribuyó el informe del Grupo Especial sobre el cumplimiento encargado de examinar el asunto “Estados Unidos - Medidas compensatorias sobre determinados productos planos de acero al carbono laminado en caliente procedentes de la India (DS436) planteado por la India.

El 29 de octubre de 2001 la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Medida de salvaguardia definitiva contra las importaciones de tubos al carbono soldados de sección circular procedentes de Corea”.

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.

El 14 de abril de 1999 la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Brasil - Programa de financiación de las exportaciones para aeronaves”.

El 28 de junio de 2002 la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Aplicación de medidas antidumping y compensatorias a las chapas de acero procedentes de la India”.

Le 31 octobre 2019 l’OMC a distribué le rapport du Groupe spécial chargé d’examiner l’affaire introduite par les États-Unis “Inde — Mesures liées aux exportations” (DS541).

El 16 de noviembre de 2007 la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Comunidades Europeas - Medida antidumping sobre el salmón de piscifactoría procedente de Noruega”.

El 11 de agosto de 2004 el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Determinación definitiva de la existencia de dumping respecto de la madera blanda procedentedel Canadá”.

Le 16 juillet 2004 l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “États-Unis - Réexamens à l’extinction des mesures antidumping visant les produits tubulaires destinés à des pays pétroliers en provenance d’Argentine”.

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.