• Home

    • SCM Agreement

    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 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;

    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 April 2, 2019, the European Union requested consultations with Turkey regarding various measures concerning the production, importation and marketing of pharmaceutical products. The measures identified by the European Union include the following alleged acts: a localization requirement, a technology transfer requirement, an import ban on localized products, and a prioritization measure.

    The European Union claimed that:

    •  The localization requirement and the prioritization measure appear to be inconsistent with Article III:4 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 January 29, 2019, the European Union requested consultations with the United States concerning the imposition of countervailing and anti-dumping duties on ripe olives from Spain, as well as the legislation that was the basis for the imposition of those duties.

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

    • Articles 1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 10, 12.1, 12.5, 12.8, 14, 15.1, 15.2, 15.5, 19.1, 19.3, 19.4 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement;

    • Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and

    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:

    Subscribe to SCM Agreement