On April 11, 2001 the US and the EU reached an agreement (the "Agreement") in the decade-long dispute over the EU's banana import regime. The Agreement requires the EU to abandon its proposal to institute on July 1 a "first-come-first-served" licensing regulation and to move in 2 stages to a tariff-only system by 2006.
Agriculture has traditionally been a primary source of economic tension between the United States and the European Union. The dispute over the EU's banana regime has been among the most contentious in recent years. It is also among the more legally and politically complex.
On November 10, 2003 the World Trade Organization Appellate Body issued its report in the complaint brought by Brazil, China, the European Communities, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, and Switzerland against the US imposition of safeguard measures on certain steel products.  The Appellate Body upheld a prior Panel ruling that the US measures were inconsistent with the WTO Safeguards Agreement and GATT 1994.  Consequently the Appellate Body recommended that the WTO Dispute Settlement Body request the US to bring its measures into conformity.  
On September 24, 2003, members of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China urged a U.S. trade official to consider challenging China's fixed currency exchange rate at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Rep. James A. Leach (R-Iowa), chairman of the Commission, put forward the idea that China's currency could be "a subsidies issue under the WTO, so it's not exactly a non-WTO issue." 
President Bush, on April 25, announced that he would not grant safeguard relief from imports of Chinese wire garment hangers requested by the US industry under Section 421 of the Trade Act of 1974.1 In doing so the President rejected a unanimous recommendation from the US International Trade Commission that duties be raised for a three-year period.2 This is the second time relief has been sought under Section 421, and the second time relief has been denied by the Bush Administration.3
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").