This story is from August 16, 2023
WTO rules against China retaliatory tariffs on US imports
GENEVA: World Trade Organization experts ruled Wednesday that tariffs imposed by China on billions' worth of US imports in retaliation for Washington's steel and aluminium tariffs violated international trade rules.
A WTO panel set up to help resolve one of numerous disputes within the tit-for-tat trade war between the world's two biggest economies found that China's "additional duties measure is inconsistent" with various articles of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
Washington hailed the ruling, with Sam Michel, a spokesman for the US trade representative, saying it recognised that China "illegally retaliated with sham 'safeguard' tariffs".
The case revolves around China's decision in April 2018 to impose tariffs on 128 US imports, worth $3 billion, including fruits and pork.
That move came shortly after the administration of former US President Donald Trump announced steep tariffs on steel and aluminium imports from China and a number of other countries.
Marking a departure from a decades-long US-led drive for free trade, Trump justified the steep tariffs with claims that massive flows of imports to the United States threatened national security.
The administration of his successor, President Joe Biden, has taken a less combative tone but has stuck with the tariffs.
Separate panels set up by the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body to settle complaints filed over the US steel and aluminium tariffs ruled late last year they too violated international trade rules.
Washington has appealed those rulings, which also determined that the inconsistencies found were not justified by the security exceptions provided for in the GATT, as they were not applied in a time of war or during a case of serious international tension.
Wednesday's panel ruling did not delve back into whether Washington was justified in claiming national security exemptions.
But it acknowledged the US tariffs had been imposed evoking such objectives, and not as so-called safeguard measures imposed to protect domestic industry.
It therefore found that an agreement allowing for retaliation against unjust safeguard measures did not apply in this case, as China maintained.
The panel recommended that "China bring its WTO- inconsistent measure into conformity with its obligations under the GATT".
"China's decision to pursue this dispute highlights its hypocrisy by both suing the United States in the WTO and at the same time unilaterally retaliating with tariffs," Michel said.
"The panel rightly rejected China's argument that the US Section 232 actions are safeguard measures that may be 'rebalanced' under WTO rules."
China can now appeal Wednesday's ruling, but it remains unclear where the cases can go from there.
The WTO's appeals tribunal -- also known as the supreme court of world trade -- has been frozen since late 2019, after the United States under Trump blocked the appointment of new judges and demanded a dramatic overhaul.
By filing appeals into a void, countries can in effect block others' ability to move forward and request financial compensation for activities deemed illegal by the DSB.
Washington hailed the ruling, with Sam Michel, a spokesman for the US trade representative, saying it recognised that China "illegally retaliated with sham 'safeguard' tariffs".
The case revolves around China's decision in April 2018 to impose tariffs on 128 US imports, worth $3 billion, including fruits and pork.
That move came shortly after the administration of former US President Donald Trump announced steep tariffs on steel and aluminium imports from China and a number of other countries.
Marking a departure from a decades-long US-led drive for free trade, Trump justified the steep tariffs with claims that massive flows of imports to the United States threatened national security.
The administration of his successor, President Joe Biden, has taken a less combative tone but has stuck with the tariffs.
Washington has appealed those rulings, which also determined that the inconsistencies found were not justified by the security exceptions provided for in the GATT, as they were not applied in a time of war or during a case of serious international tension.
Wednesday's panel ruling did not delve back into whether Washington was justified in claiming national security exemptions.
But it acknowledged the US tariffs had been imposed evoking such objectives, and not as so-called safeguard measures imposed to protect domestic industry.
It therefore found that an agreement allowing for retaliation against unjust safeguard measures did not apply in this case, as China maintained.
The panel recommended that "China bring its WTO- inconsistent measure into conformity with its obligations under the GATT".
"China's decision to pursue this dispute highlights its hypocrisy by both suing the United States in the WTO and at the same time unilaterally retaliating with tariffs," Michel said.
"The panel rightly rejected China's argument that the US Section 232 actions are safeguard measures that may be 'rebalanced' under WTO rules."
China can now appeal Wednesday's ruling, but it remains unclear where the cases can go from there.
The WTO's appeals tribunal -- also known as the supreme court of world trade -- has been frozen since late 2019, after the United States under Trump blocked the appointment of new judges and demanded a dramatic overhaul.
By filing appeals into a void, countries can in effect block others' ability to move forward and request financial compensation for activities deemed illegal by the DSB.
Top Comment
A
Aier
497 days ago
How much more rediculous can the WTO become? They are pushing themselves into extinction.Read allPost comment
Popular from World
- F*** yourself in the face: Why Elon Musk has declared MAGA civil war over H-1B visas
- 'Russian air defence active when plane crashed': Russian President Putin 'apologises' to Azerbaijan counterpart Aliyev
- Afghan forces hit back after deadly Pakistani airstrikes
- 'Concerning': Elon Musk criticises Bezos' ex-wife MacKenzie Scott for $16 billion donation
- 'You didn't': X users to Elon Musk after he says: 'We named Tesla after Nikola Tesla'
end of article
Trending Stories
- 'Congress didn't even bother to call CWC meet': Pranab Mukherjee’s daughter hits out at party amid Manmohan Singh memorial row
- Zoho CEO Sridhar Vembu to Indians: To earn true respect in the world, Indians have to ….
- 'New low in politics': BJP slams Rahul for attacking Centre over Manmohan Singh's last rites, memorial
- Who was Robert Brooks? Handcuffed New York inmate brutally beaten to death by correctional officers; Shocking video of final moments released
- Elon Musk responds to tech CEO who asked if foreign-born workers are really taking jobs away from Americans
- 'Concerning': Elon Musk criticises Bezos' ex-wife MacKenzie Scott for $16 billion donation
- Baba Vanga's Prophetic timeline: Predictions from 2025 to the end of the world
Visual Stories
- How to make spicy Chicken Seek Kebabs at home
- 10 tips to make a healthy Pizza at home
- 10 national parks in India for an unforgettable New Year adventure
- 5 veggies one can easily grow in the balcony garden with ease (and how)
- 8 Interesting South Indian recipes that are worth trying
TOP TRENDS
UP NEXT