1.

United States — Measures Affecting the Cross-

Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services
Short title: US — Gambling
Complainant: Antigua and Barbuda
Respondent: United States of America
Third Parties: Canada; Chinese Taipei; European Union;
Japan; Mexico; China
Agreements cited: Services (GATS): Art. II, VI,VIII, XI, XVI, XVII
(as cited in request for consultations)
Request for Consultationsreceived: 13 March 2003
Panel
Report circulated:10 November 2004Appellat
e Body
Reportcirculated:7 April 2005Article 21.3(c)
Arbitration
Report circulated:19 August 2005Article 21.5
Panel Reportcirculated:30 March 2007Recourse
to Article 22.6 Arbitration
Reportcirculated:21 December 2007
Short title: US — Gambling
Complainant: Antigua and Barbuda
Respondent: United States of America

Summary of the dispute to date  back to top

The summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010   

See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute

Consultations

Complaint by Antigua and Barbuda.

On 21 March 2003, Antigua and Barbuda requested consultations with the US regarding measures
applied by central, regional and local authorities in the US which affect the cross-border supply of
gambling and betting services. Antigua and Barbuda considered that the cumulative impact of the US
measures is to prevent the supply of gambling and betting services from another WTO Member to the
United States on a cross-border basis.

According to Antigua and Barbuda, the measures at issue may be inconsistent with the US obligations
under the GATS, and in particular Articles II, VI, VIII, XI, XVI and XVII thereof, and the US Schedule of
Specific Commitments annexed to the GATS.
On 12 June 2003, Antigua and Barbuda requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 24
June 2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.

2…

Short title: Chile — Price Band System

Complainant: Argentina
Respondent: Chile
Third Parties: Australia; Brazil; Canada; China; Colombia; Costa Rica;
European Union; Ecuador; El Salvador; Guatemala; Honduras;
Japan; Nicaragua; Paraguay; Peru; Thailand; Venezuela
(Bolivarian Republic of); United States of America
Agreements cited: Safeguards: Art. 3, 4, 5, 6, 2, 12
(as cited in request for Agriculture: Art. 4
consultations)
GATT 1994: Art. II, XIX:1
Request for 5 October 2000
Consultationsreceived:
Panel Reportcirculated: 3 May 2002
Appellate Body 23 September 2002
Reportcirculated:
Article 21.3(c) Arbitration 17 March 2003
Reportcirculated:
Article 21.5 Panel 8 December 2006
Reportcirculated:
Article 21.5 Appellate 7 May 2007
Body Reportcirculated:

ummary of the dispute to date  back to top

The summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010   

See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute

Consultations

Complaint by Argentina. 

On 5 October 2000, Argentina requested consultations with Chile concerning:

 the price band system established by Law 18.525 (as subsequently amended by Law 18.591 and
Law 19.546), as well as implementing regulations and complementary and/or amending
provisions; and
 
 the provisional safeguard measures adopted on 19 November 1999 by Decree No. 339 of the
Ministry of Economy and the definitive safeguard measures imposed on 20 January 2000 by
 Decree No. 9 of the Ministry of Economy on the importation of various products, including
wheat, wheat flour and edible vegetal oils.

Argentina considered that these measures raised questions concerning the obligations of Chile under
various agreements. According to Argentina, the provisions with which the measures relating to the
said price band system are inconsistent, include, but are not limited to, the following: Article II of the
GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. According to Argentina, the provisions with
which the safeguard measures are inconsistent, include, but are not limited to, the following: Articles
2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement, and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994.

On 19 January 2001, Argentina requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 1 February
2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.

3.

Armenia — Measures Affecting the Importation

and Internal Sale of Cigarettes and Alcoholic
Beverages
Short title:
Complainant: Ukraine
Respondent: Armenia
Third Parties:
Agreements cited: GATT 1994: Art. III:1, III:2,III:4
(as cited in request for consultations)
Request for Consultationsreceived: 20 July 2010

  

Summary of the dispute to date  back to top

The summary below was up-to-date at 29 July 2010 

Consultations

Complaint by Ukraine.

On 20 July 2010, Ukraine requested consultations with Armenia regarding Armenia's measures affecting
the importation and internal sale of cigarettes and alcoholic beverages.  Ukraine alleged that Armenia's
law “On Presumptive Tax for Tobacco Products” of 24 March 2000 levies discriminatory internal taxes
on imported tobacco products and is therefore in violation of Article III of the GATT 1994 and
paragraph 1.2 of Armenia's Protocol of Accession to the WTO.  Moreover, the law imposes customs
duties on such imported tobacco products at a rate of 24 per cent, which is higher than Armenia's WTO
bound rate of 15 per cent.  As to imported alcoholic beverages, Ukraine alleges that Armenia's law “On
Excise Tax” of 7 July 2000 applies higher excise taxes on imported alcoholic beverages than on like
domestic products.  Ukraine considers that this is also inconsistent with Armenia's obligations under
Article III of the GATT 1994.

4.

hort title: Korea — Various Measures on Beef

Complainant: Australia
Respondent: Korea (Republic of)
Third Parties: Canada; New Zealand; United States of America
Agreements cited: Import Licensing: Art. 1, 3
(as cited in request for consultations) Agriculture: Art. 3, 4, 6, 7
GATT 1994: Art. II, III, X, XI, XVI,XVII
Request for Consultations received: 13 April 1999
Panel Report circulated: 31 July 2000
Appellate Body Reportcirculated: 11 December 2000

Summary of the dispute to date  back to top

The summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010   

See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute

Consultations

Complaint by Australia.

On 1 February 1999, the US requested consultations with Korea in respect of a Korean regulatory
scheme that allegedly discriminates against imported beef by inter alia, confining sales of imported
beef to specialised stores (dual retail system), limiting the manner of its display, and otherwise
constraining the opportunities for the sale of imported beef. The US alleged that Korea imposes a
mark-up on sales of imported beef, limits import authority to certain so-called  “super-groups” and the
Livestock Producers Marketing Organization (“LPMO”), and provides domestic support to the cattle
industry in Korea in amounts which cause Korea to exceed its aggregate measure of support as
reflected in Korea’s schedule. The US contended that these restrictions apply only to imported beef,
thereby denying national treatment to beef imports, and that the support to the domestic industry
amounts to domestic subsidies that contravene the Agreement on Agriculture. The US alleged violations
of Articles II, III, XI, and XVII of GATT 1994; Articles 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and
Articles 1 and 3 of the Import Licensing Agreement.

On 13 April 1999, Australia requested consultations with Korea on the same basis as the US request.

On 15 April 1999, the US requested the establishment of a panel in respect of WT/DS161. At its
meeting on 28 April 1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
5.

Short title: US — Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China)

Complainant: China
Respondent: United States of America
Third Parties: Argentina; Australia; Bahrain (Kingdom of); Brazil; Canada;
European Union; India; Japan; Kuwait; Mexico; Norway; Saudi
Arabia; Chinese Taipei; Turkey
Agreements cited: Subsidies and Countervailing Measures:
(as cited in request for Art.1, 2, 10, 12, 13, 14, 19, 32
consultations)
Anti-dumping (Article VI of GATT 1994): Art.1, Annex
II, 6, 2, 9, 18
GATT 1994: Art. I, VI
Request for 19 September 2008
Consultationsreceived:

  

Summary of the dispute to date  back to top

The summary below was up-to-date at 6 April 2010 

Consultations

Complaint by China. 

On 19 September 2008, China requested consultations concerning the definitive anti-dumping and
countervailing duties imposed by the United States pursuant to the final anti-dumping and
countervailing duty determinations and orders issued by the US Department of Commerce in several
investigations.

China considers that these measures, which include the conduct of the underlying anti-dumping and
countervailing duty investigations, are inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under,
inter alia, Articles I and VI of the GATT 1994, Articles 1, 2, 10, 12, 13, 14, 19 and 32 of the SCM
Agreement, Articles 1, 2, 6, 9 and 18 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Article 15 of the Protocol on
the Accession of the People's Republic of China (the Protocol of Accession).

On 9 December 2008, China requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 22 December
2008, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.

India — Anti-Dumping Measure on Batteries from

Bangladesh
Summary of the dispute to date  back to top
  
The summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010 

Consultations Find all

documents from
Complaint by Bangladesh. this case
(Searches Documents
Online, most recent
This is the first dispute involving an LDC Member as a principal party to a dispute. On 28 documents appear on
January 2004, Bangladesh requested consultations with India concerning a certain anti-dumping top)
measure imposed by India on imports of lead acid batteries from Bangladesh. Bangladesh is
particularly concerned about the following aspects of the investigation by the Indian authority > quick help with
leading to the imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duties: downloading
> comprehensive
help on Documents
 Initiation of the investigation, notwithstanding the unsubstantiated claim of the Online
applicants that the application was “by or on behalf of the domestic industry”; and
failure to immediately terminate the investigation, notwithstanding the negligible > all documents
volume of imports from Bangladesh;   
 
 determination of margin (determination of normal value; apparent adoption of > Problems viewing this
constructed value; determination of export price; and comparison between normal page?
value and export price); Please
contactwebmaster@wto.
  org giving details of the
 determination of injury and causation (examination of import volume, the effect on operating system a
prices, and the impact on domestic producers of like products; inclusion of imports
from Bangladesh in the assessment of the effects of imports; evaluation and
examination of relevant factors; and examination of the causal link between the
imports and the alleged injury);
 
 treatment of evidence (failure to consider information submitted by the interested
parties from Bangladesh; treatment of information submitted by the applicants as
confidential; failure to disclose to the interested parties the “essential facts under
consideration which form the basis for the decision to apply definitive measures” and
other relevant information)
 
 failure to provide the parties and give public notice of “all relevant information on the
matters of fact and law and reasons which have led to the imposition of final
measures”.

Bangladesh considers that the foregoing Indian measure is inconsistent with: Article VI of
GATT 1994, including Articles VI:1, VI:2 and VI:6(a); Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3,
3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 5.4, 5.8, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.8 (including para. 3 of Annex II), 6.9 and 12.2 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement. Furthermore, Bangladesh considers that, as a result of the imposition of
the anti-dumping duties, India may be acting inconsistently with its obligations under Articles
I:1 and II:1 of GATT 1994. Bangladesh also considers that the benefits accruing to it directly or
indirectly under the WTO Agreement are being nullified or impaired pursuant to Articles
XXIII:1(a) and XXIII:1(b), respectively, of GATT 1994.

On 11 February 2004, the European Communities requested to join the consultations.

 
Mutually agreed solution

On 20 February 2006, the parties informed the DSB of a mutually satisfactory solution to the
matter raised by Bangladesh.  The measure which was addressed in the request for consultations
has been terminated by India’s Customs Notification No. 01/2005 dated 4 January 2005.

Belgium — Measures Affecting

Commercial Telephone Directory Service
Current status  back to top

In consultations on 2 May 1997 

Key facts  back to top

Short title:
Complainant: United States of America
Respondent: Belgium
Third Parties:
Agreements cited: Services (GATS):
(as cited in request for consultations) Art. II, VI,VIII, XVII
Request for 2 May 1997
Consultationsreceived:
  

Summary of the dispute to date  back to top

The summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010 

Consultations

Complaint by the United States.

On 2 May 1997, the US requested consultations with Belgium in respect of certain

measures of the Kingdom of Belgium governing the provision of commercial
telephone directory services. These measures include the imposition of conditions
for obtaining a license to publish commercial directories, and the regulation of the
acts, policies, and practices of BELGACOM N.V. with respect to telephone directory
services. The US alleged violations of Articles II, VI, VIII and XVII of GATS, as well as
nullification and impairment of benefits accruing to it under the specific GATS
commitments 

urrent status  back to top

Implementation notified by respondent on 25 September 1997 

Key facts  back to top

Short title: US — Gasoline

Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: United States of America
Third Parties:
Agreements cited: Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT):
(as cited in request for consultations) Art. 2
GATT 1994: Art. I, III
Request for 10 April 1995
Consultationsreceived:
  

Summary of the dispute to date  back to top

The summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010 

Consultations

Complaints by Venezuela and Brazil.

Venezuela requested consultations on 24 January 1995 and Brazil on 10 April 1995.

Complainants alleged that a US gasoline regulation discriminated against
complainants’ gasoline in violation of GATT Articles I and III and Article 2 of the
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT).

ey facts  back to top
Short title:
Complainant: Costa Rica
Respondent: Trinidad and Tobago
Third Parties:
Agreements cited: Anti-dumping (Article VI of GATT 1994):
(as cited in request for Art. 1, Annex I, Annex II, 3, 5, 6, 2, 10,12, 18
consultations)
Request for 17 January 2000
Consultationsreceived:
 

Summary of the dispute to date  back to top

The summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010 

Consultations

Complaint by Costa Rica.

On 17 January 2000, Costa Rica requested consultations with Trinidad and Tobago in
respect of Legal Notice No. 237 of the Ministry of Trade and Industry of Trinidad and
Tobago, pursuant to which provisional anti-dumping duties are imposed on the
importation of macaroni and spaghetti from Costa Rica, the actions preceding that
decision (see WT/DS185) as well as the 1992 Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties
Act of 1992, as amended by the Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties
(Amendment) Act of 1995 and the Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties
Regulations of 1996. Costa Rica claimed that these measures are inconsistent
particularly with certain paragraphs of Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 18 as well
as Annex I and II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

10

Key facts  back to top

Short title:
Complainant: Singapore
Respondent: Malaysia
Third Parties:
Agreements cited: Import Licensing: Art.3
(as cited in request for consultations) GATT 1994: Art. X, XI
Request for Consultationsreceived: 10 January 1995
  

Summary of the dispute to date  back to top

The summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010 

Consultations

Complaint by Singapore.

On 10 January 1995, Singapore requested consultations with Malaysia regarding the

prohibition of imports of polyethylene and polypropylene instituted and maintained
by the Malaysian Government under the Customs (Prohibition of Imports)
(Amendments) (No. 5) Order 1994 dated 16 March 1994.  On 16 March 1995,
Singapore requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 29 March 1995,
the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 10 April 1995,
Singapore decided not to request the establishment of a panel at that meeting but
was not in a position to withdraw its complaint.

11

Key facts  back to top

Short title: Canada — Aircraft

Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: Canada
Third Parties: European Union; United States of
America
Agreements cited: Subsidies and Countervailing
(as cited in request for consultations) Measures: Art. 3, 3.1(a), 3.2
Request for Consultations received: 10 March 1997
Panel Report circulated: 14 April 1999
Appellate Body Reportcirculated: 2 August 1999
Article 21.5 Panel 9 May 2000
Reportcirculated:
Article 21.5 Appellate Body 21 July 2000
Report circulated:
  

Summary of the dispute to date  back to top

The summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010   

See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Appellate Body and Panel Reports Adopted

Complaint by Brazil.

On 10 March 1997, Brazil requested consultations with Canada in respect of certain

subsidies granted by the Government of Canada or its provinces intended to support
the export of civilian aircraft. The request was made pursuant to Article 4 of the
Subsidies Agreement. Brazil contended that these measures are inconsistent with
Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement.

At its meeting on 23 July 1998, the DSB established a panel. The US reserved its third
party rights. On 16 October 1998, Brazil requested the Director-General to determine
the composition of the Panel. On 22 October 1998, the Panel was composed. The
report of the panel was circulated to Members on 14 April 1999. The Panel found
that certain of Canada’s measures were inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of
the Subsidies Agreement, but rejected Brazil’s claim that EDC assistance to the
Canadian regional aircraft industry constitutes export subsidies.

On 3 May 1999, Canada notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The report of the Appellate Body was
circulated to Members on 2 August 1999. The Appellate Body upheld the findings of
the panel.

The DSB adopted the Appellate Body and Panel Reports on 20 August 1999.

12

Key facts  back to top

Short title: Chile — Price Band System

Complainant: Argentina
Respondent: Chile
Third Parties: Australia; Brazil; Canada; China; Colombia;
Costa Rica; European Union; Ecuador; El
Salvador; Guatemala; Honduras; Japan;
Nicaragua; Paraguay; Peru; Thailand;
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of); United
States of America
Agreements cited: Safeguards: Art. 3, 4, 5, 6, 2, 12
(as cited in request for Agriculture: Art. 4
consultations)
GATT 1994: Art. II, XIX:1
Request for 5 October 2000
Consultationsreceived:
Panel Reportcirculated: 3 May 2002
Appellate Body 23 September 2002
Reportcirculated:
Article 21.3(c) Arbitration 17 March 2003
Reportcirculated:
Article 21.5 Panel 8 December 2006
Reportcirculated:
Article 21.5 Appellate 7 May 2007
Body Reportcirculated:
 

Summary of the dispute to date  back to top

The summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010   

See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute

Consultations

Complaint by Argentina. 

On 5 October 2000, Argentina requested consultations with Chile concerning:

 the price band system established by Law 18.525 (as subsequently amended
by Law 18.591 and Law 19.546), as well as implementing regulations and
complementary and/or amending provisions; and
 
 the provisional safeguard measures adopted on 19 November 1999 by Decree
No. 339 of the Ministry of Economy and the definitive safeguard measures
imposed on 20 January 2000 by Decree No. 9 of the Ministry of Economy on
the importation of various products, including wheat, wheat flour and edible
vegetal oils.

Argentina considered that these measures raised questions concerning the

obligations of Chile under various agreements. According to Argentina, the provisions
with which the measures relating to the said price band system are inconsistent,
include, but are not limited to, the following: Article II of the GATT 1994, and Article
4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. According to Argentina, the provisions with which
the safeguard measures are inconsistent, include, but are not limited to, the
following: Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement, and Article
XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994.

On 19 January 2001, Argentina requested the establishment of a panel. At its

meeting on 1 February 2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.

13

Current status  back to top

Settled or terminated (withdrawn, mutually agreed solution) on27 March 2006 

 
Key facts  back to top

Short title: Egypt — Matches

Complaina Pakistan
nt:
Responden Egypt
t:
Third
Parties:
Agreement Anti-dumping (Article VI of GATT 1994): Art.1, Annex
s cited: II, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.1, 6.1.3,6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, 6.6, 6.
(as cited in 8, 6.9,6.13, 12.1, 12.2, 12.2.2, 2.1, 2.2, 18,2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4
request for
GATT 1994: Art. XXIII:1(a), VI:2, VI:1
consultations)
Request for 21 February 2005
Consultatio
nsreceived:
Mutually 29 March 2006
Agreed
Solutionnot
ified:
 

Summary of the dispute to date  back to top

The summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010 

Consultations

Complaint by Pakistan.

On 21 February 2005, Pakistan requested consultations with Egypt regarding

definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Egypt on matchboxes from Pakistan
pursuant to Decree No. 667/2003 of 18 November 2003, as well as any amendments
or extensions thereof. According to Pakistan, these measures appear to be
inconsistent with Egypt’s obligations under the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping
Agreement.

In particular, Pakistan considers that the imposition of these anti-dumping duties and
the investigation leading thereto violate the following provisions:

 Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of GATT 1994;

 
 Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.1.3, 6.2, 6.4,
6.5, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, 6.6, 6.8 read with Annex II, 6.9, 6.13, 12.2, 12.2.2 and 18
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

On 9 June 2005, Pakistan requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on

20 June 2005, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.

14

Colombia — Customs Measures on Importation

of Certain Goods from Panama

Current status  back to top
This summary has been prepared
by the Secretariat under its own
responsibility. The summary is for Settled or terminated (withdrawn, mutually agreed
general information only and is not solution) on1 December 2006 
intended to affect the rights and
obligations of Members.
 
  
Key facts  back to top
See also:
> The basics: how disputes are
settled in WTO Short title:
> Computer based training on
dispute settlement Complainant: Panama
> Text of the Dispute Settlement Respondent: Colombia
Understanding
Third Parties:
Other disputes involving: Agreements Customs valuation (Article VII
> Customs 
> Panama  cited: of GATT 1994):
> Colombia  (as cited in request Art. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 2
for consultations)
> General Agreement on Tariffs GATT 1994:
and Trade 1994  Art. X:3(a), I:1, II:1, V:6,X:1, 
> Agreement on Implementation of
Article VII of the General XI:1, XIII:1
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Request for 20 July 2006
1994
Consultationsre
ceived:
  

Summary of the dispute to date  back to top

The summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010 

Consultations

Complaint by Panama.

On 20 July 2006, Panama requested consultations with

Colombia with respect to certain Colombian customs
measures on the importation of certain goods from Panama.
First, Panama considers that Colombia, through its Customs
Code and 11 specific resolutions, has established and applies
indicative unit prices or estimated prices exclusively for the
customs valuation of certain goods that originate in, and/or are
imported from, Panama and specified other countries or
customs territories.  Panama considers that this indicative or
estimated price mechanism leads to reference prices, and
Colombian importers of the affected goods are required to
determine and pay customs duties and other duties or charges
and taxes on the basis of such reference prices; otherwise, if
the reference prices are not followed, in effect the goods
cannot be imported into Colombia.  Panama claims that the
mechanism is not based on the valuation methods set out in
the Customs Valuation Agreement, and that the mechanism
appears to be inconsistent with Colombia's obligations under:

 Articles 1 to 7, 13 and the General Notes in

Annex I of the Customs Valuation Agreement; 
  
 Articles I:1, II:1(a) and (b), X:1, X:3(a), XI:1 and
XIII:1 of the GATT 1994.

Second, Panama considers that, through three specific

resolutions, Colombia has established a requirement that all
goods falling under Chapters 50 to 64 of Colombia's Customs
Tariff (textile and footwear products) that originate in, and/or
are imported from, Panama or China shall enter into Colombia
only through specified ports of entry.  This restriction on the
ports of entry applies only to relevant goods coming from
Panama or China and not to goods imported directly from
third countries or customs territories.  Panama claims that the
restriction on the ports of entry appears to be inconsistent with
Colombia's obligations under Articles I:1, V:6, XI:1 and
XIII:1 of the GATT 1994.

Third, Panama considers that, through a specific resolution,

Colombia has established a requirement that commercial
invoices of goods coming from the Free Zone of Colon shall
include, in addition to the regular requirements, the name of
the buyer in Colombia, his address and his Tax Identification
Number (“NIT”). This requirement applies only to goods
coming from the Free Zone of Colon and not to goods
originating in third countries or customs territories. Panama
claims that this requirement appears to be inconsistent with
Colombia's obligations under Articles I:1, V:6, XI:1 and
XIII:1 of the GATT 1994.

Panama claims that the measures at issue, as well as any

related acts, amendments or extensions, and any related
practices appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to
 Panama under the cited agreements.

On 3 August 2006, Guatemala and the Philippines requested

to join the consultations. On 4 August 2006, China; Hong
Kong, China; Pakistan; Chinese Taipei and Thailand
requested to join the consultations. Subsequently, Colombia
informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of China; 
Guatemala;  Hong Kong, China;  Pakistan;  the Philippines; 
Chinese Taipei;  and Thailand to join the consultations.

Mutually agreed solution

On 1 December 2006, Panama informed the DSB that,

pursuant to Article 3.6 of the DSU, Panama and Colombia had
reached a mutually agreed solution to the issues raised by
Panama in its request for consultations.

15

Current status  back to top   

Settled or terminated (withdrawn, mutually agreed

solution) on7 June 2001  Find all documents from
this case
  (Searches Documents Online, most
recent documents appear on top)

Key facts  back to top > quick help with downloading

> comprehensive help on Documents
Online
Short title:
Complainant: United States of > all documents
America   
Respondent: Denmark
> Problems viewing this page?
Third Parties: Please
Agreements cited: Intellectual contactwebmaster@wto.org giving
details of the operating system a
(as cited in request for Property (TRIPS):
consultations)
Art. 50, 63, 65
Request for 14 May 1997
Consultationsreceived:
Mutually Agreed 13 June 2001
Solutionnotified:
  
Summary of the dispute to date  back to top

The summary below was up-to-date

at 24 February 2010 

Consultations

Complaint by the United States.

This request, dated 14 May 1997, is in respect of

Denmark’s alleged failure to make provisional measures
available in the context of civil proceedings involving
intellectual property rights. The US contends that this
failure violates Denmark’s obligations under Articles 50,
63 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement.

Mutually agreed solution

On 7 June 2001, the parties to the dispute notified to the

DSB a mutually satisfactory solution on the matter.

16

france — Certain Income Tax Measures

Constituting Subsidies
ey facts  back to top

Short title:
Complainant: United States of America
Respondent: France
Third Parties:
Agreements cited: Subsidies and Countervailing Measures:
(as cited in request for consultations) Art. 3
Request for 5 May 1998
Consultations received:
  

Summary of the dispute to date  back to top

The summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010 

Consultations

Complaint by the United States.

On 5 May 1998, the US requested consultations with France in respect of prohibited

subsidies provided by France. The United States alleges that, based on unofficial
English translations of the relevant legislation and descriptions in secondary sources,
it is its understanding that under French income tax law, a French company may
deduct temporarily, certain start-up expenses of its foreign operations through a tax-
deductible reserve account. The US also believed that a French company may
establish a special reserve equal to ten percent of its receivable position at year end
for medium-term credit risks in connection with export sales. The US contended that
each of these measures constitutes an export subsidy, and that the deduction for
start-up expenses constitutes an import substitution 

17

Current status  back to top

Panel composed on 5 July 2010 

Key facts  back to top

Short title: Philippines — Distilled Spirits

Complainant: European Communities
Respondent: Philippines
Third Parties: Australia; China; India; Mexico; Thailand;
Chinese Taipei; United States of America
Agreements cited: GATT 1994: Art. III:1, III:2
(as cited in request for
consultations)
Request for 29 July 2009
Consultationsreceived:
  

Summary of the dispute to date  back to top

The summary below was up-to-date at 29 July 2010 

Consultations

Complaint by the European Communities.  (See also DS403)

On 29 July 2009, the European Communities requested consultations with the

Philippines concerning the Philippines' current Excise Tax regime on distilled spirits,
which has been in place since 1997.  The European Communities contends that the
regime discriminates against imported distilled spirits by taxing them at a
substantially higher rate than domestic spirits.  The European Communities cites a
number of specific measures under the regime in its request.

The European Communities considers that these measures are inconsistent with the
Philippines' obligations under GATT 1994, in particular Article III:2.  On 10 August
2009, the United States requested to join the consultations.  Subsequently, the
Philippines informed the DSB that it had accepted the request of the United States to
join the consultations. 

On 10 December 2009, the European Communities requested the establishment of a

panel. At its meeting on 21 December 2009, the DSB deferred the establishment of a
panel.