Industry News

USTR Calls for Comments on WTO Dispute
September 17, 2012

On August 20, 2012, China requested that the World Trade Organization (WTO) establish a dispute settlement panel with the United States concerning countervailing duty determinations and orders issued by the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) on imports of products from China. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) issued a Federal Register notice on September 17, 2012, inviting interested persons to submit written comments concerning issues raised in the dispute. In order to be assured of timely consideration by the USTR, comments should be submitted on or before November 2, 2012.

China requested a dispute settlement panel concerning the determinations to initiate countervailing duty investigations and the preliminary and final countervailing duty determinations and countervailing duty orders issued by the DOC on the following imports from China:

  • Lightweight Thermal Paper
  • Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure  Pipe
  • Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe
  • Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts
  • Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof
  • Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks
  • Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods
  • Pre-Stressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand
  • Certain Steel Grating
  • Wire Decking
  • Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks
  • Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard Lind and Pressure Pipe
  • Certain Coated paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses
  • Drill Pipe
  • Aluminum Extrusions
  • Multilayered Wood Flooring
  • Certain Steel Wheels
  • Steel Wire
  • High Pressure Steel Cylinders
  • Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells
  • Utility Scale Wind Towers
  • Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks

China also requested the establishment of a panel with respect to to the DOC’s use of “rebuttable presumption,” under which the DOC considers majority government ownership of an enterprise sufficient to determine that an enterprise is a “public body” within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, unless the party is able to demonstrate that majority government ownership does not result in “control” of the enterprise.

For further information, please continue to visit or contact a Barnes/Richardson attorney.


Sign up for Daily Report

Just enter your Email below and sign up to get our Daily reports