On August 11, 2023, Indonesia requested consultations with the European Union with respect to the definitive countervailing duties on imports of biodiesel from Indonesia, as well as the underlying investigation that led to the imposition of these duties.
Indonesia claimed that the definitive countervailing duties on imports of biodiesel from Indonesia and the investigation leading to their imposition appear to be inconsistent with:
Breadcrumb
China
On May 17, 2023, Argentina requested consultations with the United States with respect to (i) the definitive anti-dumping measure imposed on oil country tubular goods(OCTG) from Argentina, and (ii) certain provisions of the United States' legislation regarding cross-cumulation of imports in assessing injury caused by imports in anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations.
Argentina claimed that the definitive anti-dumping measure on OCTG from Argentina appears to be inconsistent with:
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 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 November 22, 2019, the European Union requested consultations with Indonesia regarding various measures concerning certain raw materials necessary for the production of stainless steel, as well as a cross-sectoral import duty exemption scheme conditional upon the use of domestic over imported goods.
On November 15, 2019, the European Union requested consultations with Colombia regarding the anti-dumping duties imposed by Colombia on imports of potatoes, prepared or preserved (otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid), frozen (frozen fries), originating in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany.
The European Union claimed that the measures appear to be inconsistent with:
On October 30, 2020, Hong Kong, China requested consultations with the United States regarding certain measures concerning the origin marking requirement applicable to goods produced in Hong Kong, China.
Hong Kong, China claimed that measures appear to be inconsistent with:
On May 10, 2019, Japan requested consultations with India regarding the tariff treatment that India allegedly accords to certain goods in the information and communications technology sector.
Japan claimed that the measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994.