DS: Mexico — Provisional Countervailing Measures on Olive Oil from the European Communities

back to top

Current status

 

back to top

Key facts

 

back to top

Latest document

  

back to top

Summary of the dispute to date

The summary below was up-to-date at

Consultations

Complaint by the European Communities.

On 18 August 2004, the European Communities requested consultations with Mexico concerning the imposition by Mexico of provisional countervailing measures on imports of olive oil originating in the European Communities.

According to the request for consultations from the European Communities, Mexico’s initiation of the foregoing countervailing duty investigation and its subsequent imposition of provisional measures are inconsistent with Mexico’s obligations under inter alia Articles 10, 11 (in particular paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 9) 15, 16 and 17 (in particular Article 17.1(a) and (b)) of the SCM Agreement, and Article 13 and/or Article 21.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture.

According to the request from the European Communities, the foregoing inconsistencies are claimed in such aspects as:

• the initiation of an investigation in the absence of sufficient evidence that a domestic industry is suffering injury as a result of subsidised imports;
   
• the failure to review the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence in the application to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to initiate an investigation;
   
• the failure to establish whether the application was made by or on behalf of the domestic industry of the like product;
   
• the failure to reject the application and to terminate promptly the investigation as soon as the Mexican authorities should have been satisfied that there was insufficient evidence to initiate and/or proceed with the investigation;
   
• the imposition of provisional countervailing measures: despite the failure to correctly define the domestic industry; despite the failure to initiate the investigation in accordance with the provisions of the SCM Agreement and the Agreement on Agriculture; despite the non-existence of material injury or material retardation; and despite the failure to establish a causal link between the allegedly subsidised imports and the alleged injury.