Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. Collections & Series
  4. Dispute Settlement Reports Online
  5. Content listing

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Societies Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1607 results in Dispute Settlement Reports Online

Page 60 of 81

  • United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Original Complaint by India) - Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU (WT/DS217) Decision by the Arbitrator

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006, pp 4691-4770

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Initial Proceedings

    On 27 January 2003, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the report of the Panel in this dispute, as modified by the report of the Appellate Body.

    The findings adopted by the DSB were that the measure at issue in this case – the Continued Dumping and Subsidies Offset Act of 2000 (hereafter “CDSOA”):

  • (a) is a non-permissible specific action against dumping or a subsidy, contrary to Articles VI:2 and VI:3 of the GATT 1994, Article 18.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereafter the “Anti- Dumping Agreement”) and Article 32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (hereafter the “SCM Agreement”);

  • (b) is inconsistent with certain provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and SCM Agreement, so that the United States has failed to comply with Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (hereafter the “WTO Agreement”);

  • (c) pursuant to Article 3.8 of the DSU, to the extent that it is inconsistent with provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement, nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to the complaining parties under those Agreements;

    • On 13 June 2003, an arbitrator established under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU ruled that the “reasonable period of time” for the United States to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this case was 11 months from the date of adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports by the DSB. The United States was consequently awarded until 27 December 2003 to bring the CDSOA into conformity with its obligations under GATT 1994, the Anti- Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement and the WTO Agreement.

    On 16 January 2004, India requested authorization from the DSB, under Article 22.2 of the DSU, to suspend the application to the United States of tariff concessions and related obligations under GATT 1994 in an amount that will be determined every year by the amount of offset payments made to affected domestic producers in the latest annual distribution of anti-dumping and countervailing duties under the CDSOA.

  • United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Original Complaint by Mexico) - Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU (WT/DS234) Decision by the Arbitrator

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006, pp 4931-5010

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Initial Proceedings

    On 27 January 2003, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the report of the Panel in this dispute, as modified by the report of the Appellate Body.

    The findings adopted by the DSB were that the measure at issue in this case – the Continued Dumping and Subsidies Offset Act of 2000 (hereafter “CDSOA”):

  • (a) is a non-permissible specific action against dumping or a subsidy, contrary to Articles VI:2 and VI:3 of the GATT 1994, Article 18.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereafter the “Anti- Dumping Agreement”) and Article 32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (hereafter the “SCM Agreement”);

  • (b) is inconsistent with certain provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and SCM Agreement, so that the United States has failed to comply with Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (hereafter the “WTO Agreement”);

  • (c) pursuant to Article 3.8 of the DSU, to the extent that it is inconsistent with provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement, nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to the complaining parties under those Agreements;

    • On 13 June 2003, an arbitrator established under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU ruled that the “reasonable period of time” for the United States to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this case was 11 months from the date of adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports by the DSB. The United States was consequently awarded until 27 December 2003 to bring the CDSOA into conformity with its obligations under GATT 1994, the Anti- Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement and the WTO Agreement.

    On 16 January 2004, Mexico requested authorization from the DSB, under Article 22.2 of the DSU, to suspend the application to the United States of obligations in the trade in goods sector.

  • United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (Original Complaint by the European Communities) - Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU (WT/DS136) Decision by the Arbitrators

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006, pp 4269-4312

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Request for Arbitration and Selection of the Arbitrators

    On 26 September 2000, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the report of the Appellate Body and the report of the Panel as upheld by the Appellate Body in this dispute. The reasonable period of time for the United States to bring the Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 into conformity with the DSB recommendations and rulings was originally decided through arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), and was due to expire on 26 July 2001. It was subsequently extended so as to expire on 31 December 2001, or the date on which the then session of the US Congress adjourned, whichever would be earlier.

    On 7 January 2002, the European Communities requested that the DSB authorize it to suspend the application of obligations under GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti-Dumping Agreement”).

    On 17 January 2002, the United States objected to the level of suspension proposed by the European Communities, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU.

    The matter was referred to arbitration. On 19 February 2002, Members were informed of the constitution of the Arbitrator. Its composition was as follows:

    Chairman: Mr Dimitrij Grčar

    Members: Mr Brendan McGivern

    Mr Eugeniusz Piontek

    On 27 February 2002, however, the European Communities and the United States jointly informed the Arbitrators that a proposal to repeal the 1916 Anti-Dumping Act and to terminate cases pending under the Act was being examined by the US Congress. In the light of this, the European Communities and the United States requested the Arbitrators to suspend the arbitration proceeding. The communication to the Arbitrators also stated that the European Communities and the United States agreed that the arbitration could be reactivated at the request of either party after 30 June 2002.

    On 19 September 2003, the European Communities requested the reactivation of the arbitration proceedings.

  • United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Original Complaint by Brazil) - Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU (WT/DS217) Decision by the Arbitrator

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006, pp 4341-4424

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Initial Proceedings

    On 27 January 2003, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the report of the Panel in this dispute, as modified by the report of the Appellate Body.

    The findings adopted by the DSB were that the measure at issue in this case – the Continued Dumping and Subsidies Offset Act of 2000 (hereafter “CDSOA”):

  • (a) is a non-permissible specific action against dumping or a subsidy, contrary to Articles VI:2 and VI:3 of the GATT 1994, Article 18.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereafter the “Anti- Dumping Agreement”) and Article 32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (hereafter the “SCM Agreement”);

  • (b) is inconsistent with certain provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and SCM Agreement, so that the United States has failed to comply with Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (hereafter the “WTO Agreement”);

  • (c) pursuant to Article 3.8 of the DSU, to the extent that it is inconsistent with provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement, nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to the complaining parties under those Agreements;

    • On 13 June 2003, an arbitrator established under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU ruled that the “reasonable period of time” for the United States to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this case was 11 months from the date of adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports by the DSB. The United States was consequently awarded until 27 December 2003 to bring the CDSOA into conformity with its obligations under GATT 1994, the Anti- Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement and the WTO Agreement.

    On 16 January 2004, Brazil requested authorization from the DSB5, under Article 22.2 of the DSU, to suspend the application to the United States of tariff concessions and related obligations under GATT 1994 in an amount to be determined every year by the amount of offset payments made to affected domestic producers in the latest annual distribution of anti-dumping and countervailing duties under the CDSOA.

  • United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina (WT/DS268) Report of the Panel

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006, pp 3421-4252

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 7 October 2002, the Government of the Republic of Argentina requested consultations with the Government of the United States of America pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“the DSU”), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“the GATT 1994”), and Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (“the Anti-Dumping Agreement”) concerning, inter alia, the determinations of the United States Department of Commerce (“the USDOC”) and the United States International Trade Commission (“the USITC”) in the sunset reviews of anti-dumping duty measure on oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) from Argentina. The United States and Argentina consulted on 14 November and 17 December 2002, but failed to settle the dispute.

    On 3 April 2003, Argentina requested the Dispute Settlement Body (“the DSB”) to establish a panel pursuant to Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, Article 6 of the DSU and Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

    At its meeting on 19 May 2003, the DSB established a panel in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU to examine the matter referred to the DSB by Argentina in document WT/DS268/2. At that meeting, the parties to the dispute also agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference are, therefore, the following:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Argentina in document WT/DS268/2, the mat-ter referred to the DSB by Argentina in that document and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.”

    On 22 August 2003, Argentina requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel, pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 8 of the DSU. On 4 September 2003, the Director-General accordingly composed the Panel as follows:

    Chairman: Mr. Paul O'Connor

    Members: Mr. Bruce Cullen

    Dr. Faizullah Khilji

    The European Communities, Japan, Korea, Mexico and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu reserved their third-party rights.

  • United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan (WT/DS244): Report of the Panel

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004:1
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    04 May 2006, pp 85-558

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Complaint of Japan

    On 30 January 2002, Japan requested consultations with the United States pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”), and Article 17.2 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (the Anti-dumping Agreement), regarding the affirmative final determinations of both the United States Department of Commerce (“DOC”) and the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) on the full sunset review of Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan issued on 2 August 2000 and 2 November 2000, respectively.

    Consultations were held on 14 March 2002, but parties failed to settle the dispute.

    On 4 April 2002, Japan requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, as well as Article 17 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.

    Establishment and Composition of the Panel

    The Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) established a panel on 22 May 2002, with standard terms of reference. The terms of reference of the Panel are:

    To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Japan in document WT/DS244/4, the matter referred by Japan to the DSB in that document, and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.

    On 9 July 2002, Japan requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel, pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 8 of the DSU. This paragraph provides:

    If there is no agreement on the panelists within 20 days after the date of the establishment of a panel, at the request of either party, the Director-General, in consultation with the Chairman of the DSB and the Chairman of the relevant Council or Committee, shall determine the composition of the panel by appointing the panelists whom the Director-General considers most appropriate in accordance with any relevant special or additional rules or procedures of the covered agreement or covered agreements which are at issue in the dispute, after consulting with the parties to the dispute.

  • United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan (WT/DS244): Report of the Appellate Body

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004:1
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    04 May 2006, pp 3-84

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Japan appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on Corrosion- Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by Japan against the United States regarding the continuation of anti-dumping duties on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Japan following the conduct of a five-year, or “sunset”, review of those duties.

    On 29 July 1992, USDOC initiated an anti-dumping investigation covering, inter alia, certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Japan. As a result of this investigation, USDOC issued an order on 19 August 1993, imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on those corrosion-resistant steel products at the rate of 36.41 percent ad valorem for KSC, NSC, and “all others”. On 1 September 1999, USDOC published a notice of initiation of a sunset review of the CRS order. In the final results of that review, USDOC determined that revo- cation of the CRS order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping”. USITC subsequently determined that revocation of the CRS order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.” Accordingly, the United States did not revoke the CRS order.

    Before the Panel, Japan argued that certain provisions of the Tariff Act, the SAA, the implementing regulations, and the Sunset Policy Bulletin were, both “as such” and as applied in the CRS sunset review, inconsistent with Articles VI and X of the GATT 1994, Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 18 of the Anti- Dumping Agreement, and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

    In the Panel Report, circulated to Members of the WTO on 14 August 2003, the Panel found that the United States laws, regulations and policies challenged by Japan are not inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the GATT 1994, or the WTO Agreement, either as such or as applied in the CRS sunset review.

  • United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada (WT/DS264): Report of the Panel

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    04 May 2006, pp 1937-2470

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Complaint of Canada

    On 13 September 2002, Canada requested consultations with the Government of the United States pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU, Article XXII of the GATT 1994 and Article 17 of the AD Agreement, concerning the Final Determination of sales at less than fair value with respect to certain softwood lumber products from Canada published in the Federal Register on 2 April 2002, and amended on 22 May 2002, pursuant to section 735 of the Tariff Act.

    On 11 October 2002, Canada and the United States held the requested consultations, but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter.

    On 6 December 2002, Canada requested the establishment of a panel to examine the matter.

    Establishment and Composition of the Panel

    At its meeting on 8 January 2003, the DSB established a Panel in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU and pursuant to the request made by Canada in document WT/DS264/2.

    At that meeting, the parties to the dispute also agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference are, therefore, the following:

    “[t]o examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Canada in document WT/DS264/2, the matter referred by Canada to the DSB in that document, and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements”.

    On 25 February 2003, the parties agreed to the following composition of the Panel:

    Chairman: Mr. Harsha V. Singh

    Members: Mr. Gerhard Hannes Welge

    Mr. Adrián Makuc

    The Panel was formally composed on 4 March 2003.

    The European Communities, India and Japan reserved their third-party rights.

    Panel Proceedings

    The Panel met with the parties on 17-18 June 2003 and 11-12 August 2003. The Panel met with third parties on 18 June 2003.

    On 16 January 2004, the Panel provided its interim report to the parties. See Section VI, infra.

    FACTUAL ASPECTS

    On 2 April 2001, an anti-dumping application was filed with DOC and the ITC by the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports Executive Committee, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union, with the subject merchandise certain softwood lumber products imported from Canada.

Page 60 of 81