Panel Reports

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.

On 24 November 2009, Korea requested consultations with the United States regarding their use of zeroing in three anti–dumping cases involving certain products from Korea, namely, stainless steel plate in coils, stainless steel sheet and strip in coils, and diamond sawblades and parts thereof. Korea claimed that the effect of the use of zeroing by the US Department of Commerce (USDOC) in these three cases has been either to artificially create margins of dumping where none would otherwise have been found, or to inflate margins of dumping. In its consultation request, Korea alleged that the USDOC's use of zeroing in its final determinations, amended final determinations, and anti-dumping duty orders in the three cases in question was inconsistent with the United States' obligations under Article VI of GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, and 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. On 3 December 2009, Japan requested to join the consultations.

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 27 November 2008, Brazil requested consultations with regard to: - certain determinations of the United States Department of Commerce (USDOC) concerning the imports of certain orange juice from Brazil; - any actions taken by United States Customs and Border Protection (USCBP) to collect definitive anti-dumping duties at duty assessment rates established in periodic reviews covered by the preceding paragraph, including through the issuance of USCBP liquidations instructions and notices; and - certain US laws, regulations, administrative procedures, practices and methodologies.

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 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 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.

On 28 May 2008, the United States requested consultations with the European Communities and its member States with respect to their tariff treatment of certain information technology products.

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 10 April 2007, the United States requested consultations with China concerning: (1) certain measures that restrict trading rights with respect to imported films for theatrical release, audiovisual home entertainment products (e.g. video cassettes and DVDs), sound recordings and publications (e.g. books, magazines, newspapers and electronic publications); and (2) certain measures that restrict market access for, or discriminate against, foreign suppliers of distribution services for publications and foreign suppliers of audiovisual services (including distribution services) for audiovisual home entertainment products.