Panel Established on US Countervailing and Anti-dumping Measures on Chinese Products

Panel established on 17 December 2012 on US/China dispute on countervailing and anti-dumping measures on Chinese products. Other requests involving Argentina and Dominican Republic were rejected. Mexico asked its request to be removed from the agenda.

DS449: United States - Countervailing and Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Products from China

China reiterated its concern that the US was not administering its trade remedy laws in a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner and that the US Public Law 112-99 was inconsistent with the GATT 1994, the SCM Agreement and the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The US regretted the China had chosen to pursue its request for panel establishment and noted that its measures were consistent with its WTO obligations. The DSB established a panel to examine this dispute. Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Viet Nam and Turkey reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel’s proceedings.

DS441: Australia - Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging

The Dominican Republic said that Australia’s measures regulating the plain packaging of tobacco products appeared to be inconsistent with Australia’s obligations under the TRIPS Agreement and the TBT Agreement. The measures restricted the essential functions of a trade mark and geographical origin of certain products of special reputation. Additionally, there was no scientific proof that these measures would reduce the use of tobacco. Australia said that its tobacco plain packaging was a sound, well-considered measure designed to achieve a legitimate objective, the protection of public health. In its view, the plain packaging legislation did not undermine the protection afforded under the TRIPS Agreement nor was the measure more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil its legitimate objective. The measure was origin neutral, even-handed in its application, non-discriminatory and applied to all tobacco products. Thus, Australia was not in a position to agree to the establishment of a panel. Honduras, Ukraine, Trinidad and Tobago, Cuba Zimbabwe and Nicaragua shared the Dominican Republic’s concern regarding the effect of Australia’s measures. New Zealand, Uruguay and Norway supported Australia’s measure and noted the sovereign right of Members to regulate and protect public health. Further to Australia’s objection, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.

DS438; DS444 and DS445: Argentina - Measures Affecting the Importation of Goods

The EU, the US and Japan said that certain measures for the importation of goods appeared to be inconsistent with Argentina’s obligations under the GATT 1994 and the Import Licensing Agreement. In particular, they referred to three types of measures: (i) non-automatic import licensing measures which subject the importation of goods into Argentina to the Certificados de Importacion (CIs); (ii) requirements from importers to submit a Declaración Jurada Anticipada de Importación (DJAI); and (iii) requirements on importers to undertake trade balancing or similar commitments as a condition for importation. These measure affected trade and investment flows into the country. The complainants therefore requested the establishment of a panel. Argentina noted that it had consulted with the complainants and had hoped to resolve the dispute in the consultation phase. Argentina did not agree that its measures were WTO-inconsistent and argued that the effect of the application of such licenses did not imply a restriction on trade. Therefore, it was not in apposition to accept the request for panel establishment

DS443: European Union and a Member State– Certain Measures Concerning the Importation of Biodiesels

Argentina referred to a measure by the Spanish Government that provided that biodiesel from outside the Community cannot be computed for the purpose of the compliance with mandatory biofuel targets, resulting in discrimination between products of EU origin and products of other origins. Argentina recognized that the individual call for the allocation of quotas for biodiesel production had been cancelled, but was concerned that the main measure had not been revoked, with negative effects on Argentine biodiesel producers. In its view, the measure at issue was inconsistent with Article III of GATT 1994 and Article 2 of the TRIM Agreement. As the consultations held with the EU failed to settle this dispute, Argentina requested the establishment of a panel. The EU considered the request to be inappropriate, as the measure in question was under revision and was not in effect. For this reason, the EU opposed the establishment of a panel. Further to the EU’s objection, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.