WTO: 2015 NEWS ITEMS

DISPUTE SETTLEMENT


MORE:
> Disputes in the WTO
> Find disputes cases
> Find disputes documents

> Disputes chronologically
> Disputes by subject
> Disputes by country

  

NOTE:
This summary has been prepared by the WTO Secretariat’s Information and External Relations Division to help public understanding about developments in WTO disputes. It is not a legal interpretation of the issues, and it is not intended as a complete account of the issues. These can be found in the reports themselves and in the minutes of the Dispute Settlement Body’s meetings.

DS482: Canada — Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Certain Carbon Steel Welded Pipe from the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu

Chinese Taipei recalled that, at the previous DSB meeting it had explained the inconsistency of Canada’s anti-dumping measures and its relevant laws with the WTO Agreements. Since then, there had been no signal of intention to remove the measures and modify the relevant laws. In that regard, Chinese Taipei had no choice but to request, for the second time, the establishment of a panel to examine this dispute. Canada expressed its disappointment that Chinese Taipei had made a second request for panel establishment. Canada was of the view that its measures are consistent with its obligations under the WTO Agreement. The DSB established a panel and China, EU, Korea, Norway, United Arab Emirates and the United States reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel’s proceedings.

DS483: China — Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Cellulose Pulp from Canada

Canada was of the view that China’s measures were inconsistent with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994. China said it was disappointed that Canada had requested panel establishment and was convinced that the concerned measure was consistent with its WTO obligations. The DSB established a panel and Chile, EU, Japan, Korea, Norway and the United States reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel’s proceedings.

DS485: Russia — Tariff Treatment of Certain Agricultural and Manufacturing Products

The EU requested the DSB to establish a panel to examine the tariff treatment Russia accords to certain goods in both agricultural and manufacturing sectors. The EU had held consultations with Russia but the measures remained in place and continued to hamper trade. According to the EU, the measures raised important systemic concerns. The EU noted that Russia subjects a number of goods to import duties that exceed the bound levels recorded in its Schedule, contrary to Article II of the GATT. Russia said that it regretted the EU’s decision to request a panel. Russia had participated in the consultations in good faith and was convinced that the matter could be resolved through further consultations. In that regard, Russia was not in a position to agree to the establishment of a panel. The DSB deferred the establishment of a panel to examine this dispute.

DS488: United States — Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea

Korea said that US anti-dumping measures on certain oil country tubular goods from Korea were inconsistent with the US obligations under the WTO Agreements. In particular, Korea was challenging the legality of the US Department of Commerce’s (USDOC) use of constructed value to determine normal value; USDOC’s calculation of constructed value profit; UDSOC’s finding of affiliation between the company NEXTEEL and NEXTEEL’s supplier/customer; and procedural claims under the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994. Korea noted that, despite consultations held with the US, there was no mutually satisfactory resolution and the US measures continued to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to Korea directly or indirectly under the cited Agreements. The United States said that it was disappointed that Korea had chosen to request the establishment of a panel in this dispute. As it had explained to Korea, the US believed that the identified measures are fully consistent with its obligations under the WTO Agreement. The US was therefore not in a position to agree to the establishment of a panel. The DSB deferred the establishment of a panel to examine this dispute.

 

back to top

Next meeting 

The next regular meeting of the DSB is scheduled for the 25 of March 2015

RSS news feeds

> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact webmaster@wto.org giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.