India

On January 24, 2023, Indonesia requested consultations with the European Union with respect to countervailing and anti-dumping measures imposed by the European Union on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products from Indonesia.

Indonesia claimed that the countervailing measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with:

• Articles 1.1, 1.1(a)(1), 1.1(a)(1)(ii),footnote 1, 1.1(a)(1)(iv), 1.1(b), 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1(a), 10, 12, 12.1, 12.7, 12.8, 14, 19, 19.3, 22.3 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement;

• Article 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;

On January 27, 2022, the European Union requested consultations with China with regard to measures allegedly imposed by or attributable to China on the importation of goods from, and exportation of goods to, the European Union and on trade in services between the European Union and China.

The European Union claimed that the measure or series of measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with:

• Articles I:1, V:6, X:3(a), XI:1, and XVII of the GATT 1994;

On February 18, 2022, the European Union requested consultations with China with regard to measures that allegedly adversely affect the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.

The European Union claimed that the measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with:

•    Articles 1.1, 28.1, 28.2, 41.1, and 44.1 of the TRIPS Agreement; and

•    Section 2(A)(2) of China's Accession Protocol.

The European Union also claimed that:

On June 24, 2021, China requested consultations with Australia with respect to anti-dumping and countervailing measures imposed by Australia on imports of certain products originating in China, inter alia, wind towers, deep drawn stainless steel sinks and railway wheels.

China claimed that the anti-dumping measures on wind towers, deep drawn stainless steel sinks and railway wheels appear to be inconsistent with:

• Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and

• Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994.

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 June 22, 2021, Australia requested consultations with China with respect to anti-dumping and countervailing measures on bottled wine in containers of 2 litres or less imported from Australia. Australia claimed that these measures appear to be inconsistent with:

On June 11, 2021, Japan requested consultations with China with respect to measures imposing anti-dumping duties on stainless steel billets, hot-rolled coils, and hot-rolled plates from Japan.

Japan claimed that these measures appear to be inconsistent with:

• Articles 1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.9, 12.2, and 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and

• Article VI of the GATT 1994.

On August 19, 2021, Japan requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on August 30, 2021, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.

On December 16, 2020, Australia requested consultations with China regarding certain measures imposing anti-dumping duties and countervailing duties on barley imported from Australia.

Australia claimed that the measures appear to be inconsistent with:

• Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.4.2, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.2(i), 5.2(iv), 5.3, 5.4, 5.8, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5.1, 6.6, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.13, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 12.2 and 12.2.2 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;