Article 19.1 of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Understanding obliges the Member to amend or withdraw the duty, found to be inconsistent with any agreement.

India and the European Union have been negotiating a bilateral free trade agreement known as the Broad-based Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA) since 2007, with the last round happening in 2013.

Among the plethora of trade related issues that may arise on the first day of Brexit, an important issue is that of the continuation of existing trade remedy measures by the EU.

A key feature of anti-dumping investigations is the protection available to commercially sensitive information that interested parties provide to an investigating authority, with the idea that such sensitive information should remain in the safe hands of the authority.

Recent Panel Report in Canada–Welded Pipe has reinforced the disciplines for applying “facts available” standard under the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement and has clarified the extent of analysis expected from investigating authorities while applying the standard.

With only two more ratifications pending, India’s Category A commitments submitted to the WTO at time of ratification of the Trade Facilitation Agreement, last year, would shortly become binding and enforceable.

WTO’s Appellate Body report in the dispute European Union - Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina (DS 473) is the topic for discussion in the article covered in this issue of International Trade Amicus.

Specific provisions of Section 15 of the Protocol of Accession of China to the WTO expired on 11th December, 2016.

Article VI:5 of GATT prevents a situation of double remedy/compensation for the “same situation” of “dumping” or “export subsidization” in relation to concurrent Anti-dumping and Countervailing duty investigations.

Law as enshrined in Article 2.4.2 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 permits use of an alternative methodology for computation of the dumping margin if there is targeted dumping.