Agreement on Agriculture

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 March 13, 2020, Turkey requested consultations with the European Union concerning the provisional and definitive safeguard measures imposed by the European Union on imports of certain steel products and the investigation that led to the imposition of those measures.

Turkey claimed that the measures appear to be inconsistent with:

• Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1(b), 4.1(c), 4.2, 4.2(a), 4.2(b), 4.2(c), 5.1, 5.2, 6, 7.1, 7.4 and 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards; and

• Articles I:1, II:1(b), XIII:1, XIII:2 and XIX:1(a) 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: