Breadcrumb

Thailand

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 27, 2022, the European Union requested consultations with China with regard to measures allegedly imposed by or attributable to China on the importation of goods from, and exportation of goods to, the European Union and on trade in services between the European Union and China.

The European Union claimed that the measure or series of measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with:

• Articles I:1, V:6, X:3(a), XI:1, and XVII of the GATT 1994;

On February 18, 2022, the European Union requested consultations with China with regard to measures that allegedly adversely affect the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.

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

•    Articles 1.1, 28.1, 28.2, 41.1, and 44.1 of the TRIPS Agreement; and

•    Section 2(A)(2) of China's Accession Protocol.

The European Union also claimed that:

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 September 2, 2019, Chinese Taipei requested consultations with India regarding the tariff treatment that India accords to certain information and communications technology goods.

Chinese Taipei claimed that the measures appear to be inconsistent with Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994. On September 13, 2019, Japan requested to join the consultations. On September 17, 2019, the United States requested to join the consultations.

On April 2, 2019, the European Union requested consultations with India concerning the tariff treatment that India accords to certain goods in the information and communications technology sector.

The European Union claimed that the measures appear to be inconsistent with Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994.

On April 17, 2019, Singapore and Chinese Taipei, requested to join the consultations.

On April 18, 2019, Canada, Japan, Thailand and the United States requested to join the consultations. On April 19, 2019, China requested to join the consultations.

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 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: