On May 7, 2015, the Russian Federation requested consultations with the European Union regarding “cost adjustment” methodologies used by the European Union for the calculation of dumping margins in anti-dumping investigations and reviews.
The Russian Federation claimed that the measures are inconsistent with:
On June 18, 2018, Japan requested consultations with Korea concerning Korea’s determination to continue the imposition of anti-dumping duties on stainless steel bars from Japan, based on the conclusion of the third sunset review of anti-dumping duties on stainless steel bars from Japan, India and Spain.
Japan claimed that the measures appear to be inconsistent with:
On February 14, 2018, Korea requested consultations with the United States concerning certain anti-dumping and countervailing duty measures on products from Korea, and certain laws, regulations and other measures maintained by the United States with respect to the use of facts available in anti-dumping and countervailing duty proceedings.
Korea claimed that the measures appear to be inconsistent with:
On January 8, 2018, Viet Nam requested consultations with the United States concerning anti-dumping measures on fish fillets from Viet Nam and certain U.S. legal instruments.
In its request for consultations, Viet Nam claimed that certain so-called measures appear to be inconsistent with:
• Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 6, 9, 11, and 17.6(i), and Annex II, of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
• Articles I:1, VI:1, VI:2, and X:3(a) of the GATT 1994;
• Articles 3.7, 19.1, 21.1, 21.3, and 21.5 of the DSU;
• Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement; and
On January 8, 2018, Viet Nam requested consultations with the United States concerning anti-dumping measures on fish fillets from Viet Nam and certain U.S. legal instruments.
In its request for consultations, Viet Nam claimed that certain so-called measures appear to be inconsistent with:
• Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 6, 9, 11, and 17.6(i), and Annex II, of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
• Articles I:1, VI:1, VI:2, and X:3(a) of the GATT 1994;
• Articles 3.7, 19.1, 21.1, 21.3, and 21.5 of the DSU;
• Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement; and
On November 28, 2017, Canada requested consultations with the United States regarding certain anti-dumping measures applying the Differential Pricing Methodology to softwood lumber products from Canada.
Canada claimed that the measures appeared to be inconsistent with:
• Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, and 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and
• Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994.
On October 3, 2016, Turkey requested consultations with Morocco regarding the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures, and certain aspects of the underlying investigation, by Morocco on imports of certain hot-rolled steel from Turkey.
Turkey claims that the measures are inconsistent with:
• Articles 1, 3.1, 3.4, 5.10, 6.8, 6.9, 18.1, and paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 of Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and
• Articles 3.2 and 3.3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures; and
• Articles I:1, VI:6(a), X:3(a), and XI:1 of the GATT 1994.
On May 7, 2015, Russia requested consultations with Ukraine regarding anti-dumping measures imposed by Ukraine on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia.
On February 29, 2016, Russia requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on April 22, 2016, the DSB established a panel. The United States, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, China, the European Union, Japan, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Norway, and Qatar reserved their third-party rights.
On June 10, 2014, Indonesia requested consultations with the European Union regarding (a) provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community; and (b) anti-dumping measures imposed in 2013 by the European Union on imports of biodiesel originating in Indonesia.
On March 15, 2016, Japan requested consultations with Korea regarding measures imposing anti-dumping duties on valves for pneumatic transmission from Japan and the documents and factual information underlying the imposition of those duties.
Japan claims that the measures are inconsistent with:
• Articles 1, 3.1,3.2,3.4, 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.
