Costa Rica

On January 11, 2021, Costa Rica requested consultations with Panama regarding measures on the importation of a number of products originating in Costa Rica, including: strawberries, dairy products, bovine, pork, poultry and turkey meat products, fish food, fresh pineapple, and plantains and bananas.

Costa Rica claimed that the measures appear to be inconsistent with:

• Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 6.1, 7, 8 and Annexes B and C of the SPS Agreement;

• Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and

On July 23, 2021, Costa Rica requested consultations with the Dominican Republic with respect to antidumping measures imposed on the importation of corrugated or deformed steel bars or rods for the reinforcement of concrete originating in Costa Rica.

Costa Rica claimed that the measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with:

• Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 5.1, 5.3, 5.8, 6.1, 6.1.3, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.9, 9.3 and 12.1.1 and Annex I of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and

• Articles VI and VI:2 of the GATT 1994.

On January 15, 2021, Malaysia requested consultations with the European Union (EU), France and Lithuania with respect to certain measures imposed by the EU and EU Member States concerning palm oil and oil palm crop-based biofuels from Malaysia.

Malaysia claimed that certain measures imposed by the EU (the EU renewable energy target, the criteria for determining the high ILUC-risk feedstock, and the sustainability and GHG emission savings criteria) appear to be inconsistent with:

On December 9, 2019, Indonesia requested consultations with the European Union regarding certain measures imposed by the European Union and its member States concerning palm oil and oil palm crop-based biofuels from Indonesia. 

Indonesia claimed that the measures imposed by the European Union appear to be inconsistent with:

• Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.8, 2.9, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2, 5.6, 5.8, 12.1 and 12.3 of the TBT Agreement; and

• Articles I:1, III:4, X:3(a) and XI:1 of the GATT 1994.

On March 15, 2019, Guatemala requested consultations with India concerning domestic support measures allegedly maintained by India in favor of producers of sugarcane and sugar (domestic support measures), as well as all export subsidies that India allegedly provides for sugarcane and sugar (export subsidy measures). Guatemala claimed that the domestic support measures appear to be inconsistent with: • Articles 3.2, 6.3 and 7.2(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture.

On February 27, 2019, Australia requested consultations with India concerning support allegedly provided by India in favor of producers of sugarcane and sugar (domestic support measures), as well as all export subsidies that India allegedly provides for sugar and sugarcane (export subsidy measures).

Australia claimed that the domestic support measures appear to be inconsistent with:

• Articles 3.2, 6.3 and 7.2(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture; and

• Article XVI of the GATT.

Australia claimed that the export subsidy measures appear to be inconsistent with:

On February 27, 2019, Brazil requested consultations with India concerning domestic support allegedly provided by India in favor of agricultural producers of sugarcane and sugar (domestic support measures), as well as all export subsidies that India allegedly provides for sugar and sugarcane (export subsidy measures).

Brazil claimed that the domestic support measures appear to be inconsistent with:

• Articles 3.2, 6.3 and 7.2(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture.

Brazil claimed that the export subsidy measures appear to be inconsistent with: