Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    S.No. Case-ID Short Title Complainant 1 DS33 US - Wool Shirts and Blouses India

    Uploaded by

    Mayank Gupta
    India requested consultations with various WTO members, including the United States, Turkey, and the European Communities, regarding trade disputes over textiles, shrimp, bed linen, steel, tariff preferences, rules of origin, and countervailing duties on carbon steel. The disputes involved claims that the measures at issue were inconsistent with provisions of the GATT, ATC, SCM Agreement, ADA, and other WTO agreements. Third parties such as Canada, the EU, and other WTO members participated in some of the disputes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    S.No. Case-ID Short Title Complainant 1 DS33 US - Wool Shirts and Blouses India

    Uploaded by

    Mayank Gupta
    20 views12 pages
    India requested consultations with various WTO members, including the United States, Turkey, and the European Communities, regarding trade disputes over textiles, shrimp, bed linen, steel, tariff preferences, rules of origin, and countervailing duties on carbon steel. The disputes involved claims that the measures at issue were inconsistent with provisions of the GATT, ATC, SCM Agreement, ADA, and other WTO agreements. Third parties such as Canada, the EU, and other WTO members participated in some of the disputes.

    Original Description:

    WTO

    Original Title

    Workbook1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    India requested consultations with various WTO members, including the United States, Turkey, and the European Communities, regarding trade disputes over textiles, shrimp, bed linen, steel, tariff preferences, rules of origin, and countervailing duties on carbon steel. The disputes involved claims that the measures at issue were inconsistent with provisions of the GATT, ATC, SCM Agreement, ADA, and other WTO agreements. Third parties such as Canada, the EU, and other WTO members participated in some of the disputes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as xlsx, pdf, or txt
    20 views12 pages

    S.No. Case-ID Short Title Complainant 1 DS33 US - Wool Shirts and Blouses India

    Uploaded by

    Mayank Gupta
    India requested consultations with various WTO members, including the United States, Turkey, and the European Communities, regarding trade disputes over textiles, shrimp, bed linen, steel, tariff preferences, rules of origin, and countervailing duties on carbon steel. The disputes involved claims that the measures at issue were inconsistent with provisions of the GATT, ATC, SCM Agreement, ADA, and other WTO agreements. Third parties such as Canada, the EU, and other WTO members participated in some of the disputes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as xlsx, pdf, or txt
    of 12

    S.No.

    Case-ID Short title Complainant

    1 DS33 US Wool Shirts and Blouses India

    2 DS32 US Wool Coats India

    3 DS34 Turkey Textiles India

    4 DS58 US Shrimp India; Malaysia; Pakistan; Thailand

    5 DS141 EC Bed Linen India


    6 DS206 US Steel Plate India

    7 DS217US Australia;
    Offset Act
    Brazil;
    (ByrdChile;
    Amendment)
    European Communities; India; Indonesia; Japan; Korea, Republic of; T

    8 DS243 US Textiles Rules of Origin India


    9 DS246 EC Tariff Preferences India

    10 DS436 US Carbon Steel (India) India


    Respondent Third-Parties

    United States Canada; European Communities; Norway; Pakistan; Turkey

    United States Canada; Costa Rica; European Communities; Norway; Pakistan; Turkey

    Turkey
    Hong Kong, China; Japan; Philippines; Thailand; United States

    Australia; Canada; Colombia; Costa Rica; European Communities; Ecuador;


    United States El Salvador; Guatemala; Hong Kong, China; Japan; Mexico; Nigeria;
    Philippines; Senegal; Singapore; Sri Lanka; Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic
    of; Pakistan; Thailand

    European
    Communities Egypt; Japan; Korea, Republic of; United States
    United States Chile; European Communities; Japan

    United States Argentina; Canada; Costa Rica; Hong Kong, China; Israel; Mexico; Norway

    United States Bangladesh; China; European Communities; Pakistan; Philippines


    European
    Communities Bolivia, Plurinational State of; Brazil; Colombia; Costa Rica; Cuba; Ecuador

    United States Australia; Canada; China; European Union; Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of; Turke
    Agreements cited Request for Consultations

    Textiles and Clothing: Art. 2, 6, 8 3/14/1996

    Textiles and Clothing: Art. 2, 6, 8 3/14/1996

    GATT 1994: Art. XI, XIII, XXIV 3/21/1996


    Textiles and Clothing: Art. 2

    GATT 1994: Art. I, XI, XIII, XX 10/8/1996

    Anti-dumping (Article VI of GATT 1994):


    Art. 2, 2.2.2, 3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4, 4.1, 5, 8/3/1998
    5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.8, 6, 12, 12.2.2, 15
    GATT 1994: Art. I, VI
    Anti-dumping (Article VI of GATT 1994):
    Art. 1, 2, 2.2, 2.4, 3, 5, 6, 6.8, 9.3, 12, 15,
    18, 18.4, Annex II
    GATT 1994: Art. VI, VI:1, VI:2(a), X 10/4/2000
    Subsidies and Countervailing Measures:
    Art. 10, 11, 15, 22, 27
    Agreement Establishing the World Trade
    Organization: Art. XVI, XVI:4

    Anti-dumping (Article VI of GATT 1994):


    Art. 1, 5.4, 8, 18.1, 18.4
    GATT 1994: Art. VI:3, X:3, XXIII:1, VI:2
    Subsidies and Countervailing Measures: 12/21/2000
    Art. 4.10, 7.9, 10, 11.4, 18, 32.1, 32.5
    Agreement Establishing the World Trade
    Organization: Art. XVI:4

    Rules of Origin: Art. 2 1/11/2002


    GATT 1994: Art. I:1 3/5/2002

    GATT 1994: Art. I, VI


    Subsidies and Countervailing Measures:
    Art. 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21, 4/12/2012
    22, 32
    Agreement Establishing the World Trade
    Organization: Art. XVI:4
    Summary
    India requested consultations with the United States concerning
    the transitional safeguard measure imposed by the United States.
    India claimed that the safeguard measure is inconsistent with
    Articles 2, 6 and 8 of the ATC.

    India requested the establishment of a panel, claiming that the


    transitional safeguard measures on these textile products by the
    United States were inconsistent with ATC Articles 2, 6 and 8

    India requested consultations with Turkey concerning Turkeys


    imposition of quantitative restrictions on imports of a broad range
    of textile and clothing products. India claimed that those measures
    are inconsistent with Articles XI and XIII of GATT 1994, as well as
    ATC Article 2. Earlier, India had requested to be joined in the
    consultations between Hong Kong and Turkey on the same subject
    matter (WT/DS29).

    India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand requested consultations with


    the United States concerning a ban on importation of shrimp and
    shrimp products from these complainants imposed by the US
    under Section 609 of US Public Law 101-162. Violations of Articles
    I, XI and XIII of the GATT 1994, as well nullification and impairment
    of benefits, were alleged.

    India requested consultations with the EC in respect of Council


    Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997 on imports of
    cotton-type bed-linen from India. India asserted that the EC
    initiated anti-dumping proceedings against imports of cotton- type
    bed-linen from India by publishing a notice of initiation in
    September 1996. Provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed by
    EC Council Regulation No 1069/97 of 12 June 1997. This was
    followed by the imposition of definitive duties in accordance with
    the above-mentioned EC Council Regulation No 2398/97 of 28
    November 1997
    India requested consultations with the United States concerning:
    final affirmative determinations of sales of certain cut-to-length
    carbon quality steel plate products from India at less than fair value
    by US Department of Commerce (DOC) on 13 December 1999 and
    affirmed on 10 February 2000; interpretation and use of provisions
    relating to facts available in the anti-dumping and countervailing
    duty investigations by DOC; and determination and interpretation
    by the US International Trade Commission (ITC) of negligibility,
    cumulation and material injury caused by the said Indian steel
    imports.

    The complainants requested consultations with the US concerning


    the amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930 signed on 28 October
    2000 with the title of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act
    of 2000 (the Act) usually referred to as the Byrd Amendment.
    According to the complainants the Act is inconsistent with the
    obligations of the United States under several provisions of the
    GATT, the AD Agreement, the SCM Agreement, and the WTO
    Agreement. In particular, the Act is alleged to be inconsistent with
    the obligations of the United States under: (i) Article 18.1 of the
    ADA in conjunction with Article VI:2 of the GATT and Article 1 of
    the ADA; (ii) Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement, in conjunction
    with Article VI:3 of the GATT and Articles 4.10, 7.9 and 10 of the
    SCM Agreement; (iii) Article X(3)(a) of the GATT; (iv) Article 5.4 of
    the ADA and Article 11.4 of the SCM Agreement; (v) Article 8 of the
    ADA and Article 18 of the SCM Agreement; (vi) Article 5 of the SCM
    Agreement; and (vii) Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement
    establishing the WTO, Article 18.4 of the ADA and Article 32.5 of
    the SCM Agreement

    On 11 January 2002, India requested consultations with the United


    States in respect of its rules of origin applicable to imports of
    textiles and apparel products as set out in Section 334 of the
    Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Section 405 of the Trade and
    Development Act of 2000 and the customs regulations
    implementing these provisions.
    On 5 March 2002, India requested consultations with the EC
    concerning the conditions under which the EC accords tariff
    preferences to developing countries under its current scheme of
    generalized tariff preferences (GSP scheme).
    India presented this request pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU,
    Article XXIII:1 of the GATT 1994 and paragraph 4(b) of the so-called
    Enabling Clause.

    On 12 April 2012, India requested consultations with the United


    States with regard to the imposition of countervailing duties by the
    United States on certain hot rolled carbon steel flat products from
    India (subject goods).

    India challenges countervailing duties levied on those products


    through various instruments, as well as provisions of the US Tariff
    Act and Code of Federal Regulations on customs duties. India
    claims that the countervailing duty investigation and related
    measures are inconsistent with Articles I and VI of the GATT 1994
    and with Articles 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21 and 22 of the
    SCM Agreement. India also claims that the challenged provisions of
    US Law are inconsistent as such with Articles 12, 14, 15, 19 and
    32 of the SCM Agreement.

    On 7 May 2012, Canada requested to join the consultations.

    On 12 July 2012, India requested the establishment of a panel. At


    its meeting on 23 July 2012, the DSB deferred the establishment of
    a panel.

    You might also like