Off the wire
Austria reports more racism-related incidents last year  • British stocks down 0.32 pct Wednesday  • 557 cases of swine flu detected in Russia over past week  • WTI crude futures settle higher  • UN chief welcomes safe return of abducted girls in Nigeria  • UN chief condemns attack in Afghanistan during Nowruz celebrations  • Angola lose to South Africa on penalties in four-nation tournament  • New 10 billion cubic meters gas field discovered in northern Russia  • Moscow insists on participation in ex-spy poisoning investigation  • UN chief appoints Thiaw as special advisor for Sahel  
You are here:  

2nd LD Writethru: U.S. revised countervailing measures on Chinese imports inconsistent with WTO rules: panel report

Xinhua,March 22, 2018 Adjust font size:

GENEVA, March 21 (Xinhua) -- The World Trade Organization (WTO) on Wednesday announced in a panel report that revised countervailing measures imposed by the United States on imports of certain products from China were inconsistent with WTO laws.

The panel also found that the American recourse to third country prices for assessing the benefit granted to Chinese exporters was inconsistent with WTO rules.

In 2016, China requested consultations with the U.S. to challenge the full compliance of Washington with a 2014 WTO ruling against its countervailing measures on 22 products from China.

These had come about after China had gone to the WTO in 2012 to contest U.S. anti-subsidy tariffs on Chinese exports including several metal products, steel wheels, solar panels, wind towers, steel cylinders and aluminum extrusions.

China challenged various aspects of certain countervailing duty investigations and the preliminary and final determinations that led to the imposition of countervailing duties.

Among the findings, the WTO panel found that China had demonstrated that the American revised determinations were inconsistent with the subsidies and countervailing measures (SCM) agreement.

The panel found that the United States had not complied with the requirement to "take account of the length of time during which the subsidy program has been in operation" and failed to adequately explain its conclusions regarding the existence of the relevant subsidy program. Enditem