In an usual move, the World Trade Organisation said punitive tariffs imposed by the U.S. Nike Air Max 90 BR Heren between 2007 and 2012 on the import of steel products, solar panels and certain other goods from India and China were improperly levied. Trade diplomats said the two cases, both under scrutiny for nearly two years by the separate panels, reflected a widespread concern in the 160-member WTO over what many see as illegal U.S. protection of its own producers. Nike Free Run 2 Goedkoop Welcomed by China’s Ministry of Commerce, the WTO panel found the US has insufficient evidence to prove hefty tariffs on Chinese firms producing items like kitchen shelving, grass cutters and even citric acid. Nike Lunar Schoenen Goedkoop In the US$7.2 billion Chinese case, the US claims it levied tariffs on the goods due to subsidies imposed by public Chinese companies. According to Reuters, a statement from China’s Ministry of Commerce said “China urges the United States to respect the WTO rulings and correct its wrongdoings of abusively using trade remedy measures, and to ensure an environment of fair competition for Chinese enterprises”. Nike Air Max 90 VT Heren In the April 2012 Indian case, a separate panel of judges also rejected the U.S. Nike Air Max 90 Honeycomb Heren argument that supply from state-owned National Mineral Development Corporation allowed Indian steel exporters to be treated as public bodies. Large steel makers such as Tata, Jindal and Essar are supplied by the state-run iron-ore mining firm, NMDC. While the case wasn’t as clear cut as the Chinese, India claimed, the United States had “acted inconsistently” in terms of some provisions of the SCM agreement and had unfairly reduced Indian trade revenue. Air Max 2015 Zwart Blauw Rood Goedkoop The WTO’s agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures, dubbed the SCM in trade jargon, as per the 1964 Marrakesh Agreement, states that duties can only be levied when the exporters are “public bodies.” The US – which has argued it imposed the tariffs to combat artificially low prices on products from India and China’s state-subsidised industries – has the right to appeal the ruling within 60 days.