Trade and Investment

On January 16, 2003, the WTO Appellate Body (AB) ruled that the U.S. Continued Dumping and Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA) (also referred to as the "Byrd Amendment") is inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT (the "Anti-Dumping (AD) Agreement") and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  (the "SCM Agreement"). [1]

On November 10, a dispute-settlement panel of the World Trade Organization (WTO) condemned the United States for banning online gambling. [1]   It did so at the request of one of the smallest countries in the world, Antigua and Barbuda.  The case was triggered when in 2000 a U.S. court sentenced Jay Cohen, a U.S. national and founder of the World Sports Exchange, to 21 months in jail for selling gambling services to U.S. citizens from the island of Antigua, in violation of the 1961 Wire Communications Act. 

 

Introduction

 

In early April 2005, the WTO Appellate Body (AB) issued a ruling in an appeal of a case brought by Honduras against measures taken by the Dominican Republic in connection with the importation and internal sale of cigarettes.[1] One of the measures was a requirement that a tax stamp be affixed to all cigarettes.

 

In mid-March 2005, a World Trade Organization (WTO) panel ruled on a case of interest to many WTO members.[1] The case, brought by Australia and the United States, challenged the WTO consistency of a European Union (EU) regulation[2] related to the protection of geographical indications (GIs) for agricultural products and foodstuffs. The widespread interest stems from concern that at a time when WTO negotiations are focusing on liberalizing trade in agricultural products, the EU regulation effectively limits import competition for much of its farm and food sector.

 

On March 3, 2005, the WTO Appellate Body (AB) issued a landmark decision[1] interpreting key WTO provisions on agricultural subsidies and upholding a prior panel ruling finding various US cotton subsidies to be WTO illegal. In September 2004 the panel, in a challenge by Brazil, had ruled that various US agricultural programs constituted illegal subsidies under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, the Agreement on Agriculture and Article XVI of the GATT 1994.[2]