Panel Reports

On 21 March 2003, Antigua and Barbuda requested consultations with the US regarding measures applied by central, regional and local authorities in the US which affect the cross-border supply of gambling and betting services. Antigua and Barbuda considered that the cumulative impact of the US measures is to prevent the supply of gambling and betting services from another WTO Member to the United States on a cross-border basis. According to Antigua and Barbuda, the measures at issue may be inconsistent with the US obligations under the GATS, and in particular Articles II, VI, VIII, XI, XVI and XVII thereof, and the US Schedule of Specific Commitments annexed to the GATS.

On 20 December 2002, Canada requested consultations with the United States regarding the investigation of the USITC in Softwood Lumber from Canada (Invs. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928 (Final)) and the final definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties applied as a result of the USITC’s final determination made on 2 May 2002, notice of which was published in the United States Federal Register on 22 May 2002 (Volume 67, Number 99 at pp. 36022-36023) that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of softwood lumber from Canada that the Department of Commerce has determined are subsidized and sold in the United States at less than fair value. Canada claimed that, through these measures, the United States has violated its obligations under Article VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994, Articles 1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 12 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles 10, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4, 15.5, 15.7, 15.8, 22 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.

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 27 September 2002, Australia and Brazil requested consultations with the European Communities concerning the export subsidies provided by the EC in the framework of its Common Organisation of the Market for the sugar sector. The requests concerned Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the EC’s common organization of the markets in the sugar sector, and all other legislation, regulations, administrative policies and other instruments relating to the EC regime for sugar and sugar containing products including the rules adopted pursuant to the procedure referred to in Article 42(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/2001, and any other provision related thereto. On 14 March 2003, Thailand requested consultations with the European Communities on the same matter.

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 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 5 March 2002, India requested consultations with the EC concerning the conditions under which the EC accords tariff preferences to developing countries under its current scheme of generalized tariff preferences (“GSP scheme”). India presented this request pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU, Article XXIII:1 of the GATT 1994 and paragraph 4(b) of the so-called Enabling Clause. India considered that the tariff preferences accorded by the EC under the special arrangements, (i) for combating drug production and trafficking and (ii) for the protection of labour rights and the environment, create undue difficulties for India’s exports to the EC, including for those under the general arrangements of the EC’s GSP scheme, and nullify or impair the benefits accruing to India under the most favoured nation provisions of Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 and paragraphs 2(a), 3(a) and 3(c) of the Enabling Clause. In India’s view, the conditions under which the EC accorded tariff preferences under the special arrangements could not be reconciled with the requirements provided in paragraphs 2(a), 3(a) and 3(c) of the Enabling Clause.

On 30 January 2002, Japan requested consultations with the United States in respect of the final determinations of both the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) and the United States International Trade Commission in the full sunset review of the anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Japan. These determinations were issued on 2 August 2000 and 21 November 2000, respectively. Japan claimed that these determinations were erroneous and based on deficient rulings, procedures and provisions pertaining to the United States Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and related regulations. Japan further claimed that the procedures and provisions of the Act and related regulations as well as the above determinations were inconsistent with, inter alia, Articles VI and X of GATT 1994; Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 (including Annex II), 11, 12, and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

On 7 November 2001, Brazil requested consultations with Argentina in respect of the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Argentina on imports of poultry from Brazil, classified under Mercosur tariff line 0207.11.00 and 0207.12.00. These measures were adopted by the Ministry of Economy of Argentina in Resolution 574 from 21 July 2000, published in the Argentinean Official Gazette on 24 July 2000. Brazil considered that the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed, as well as the investigation conducted by the Argentinean Authorities might have been flawed and based on erroneous or deficient procedures, inconsistent with Argentina’s obligations under Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Article VI of the GATT 1994, and Articles 1 and 7 of the Customs Valuation Agreement.