Following-up on Joel's post, here are some details on the U.S. case against Chinese subsidies, gathered from around the web.
First, there is USTR's press release, which explains that:
Several of the subsidy programs at issue appear to grant export subsidies, which provide incentives for foreign investors in China and their Chinese partners to export to the United States and other markets. These subsidies offer significant benefits and are available for all products made in China, including, for example, steel, wood, paper, and other manufactured products. The companies targeted for many of these subsidies, i.e., companies with some foreign participation, accounted for nearly 60 percent of China’s exports of manufactured goods in 2005, according to a WTO report. Other subsidy programs at issue provide incentives for companies in China to purchase domestic equipment and accessories, instead of buying from U.S. exporters.
...
China applies a series of measures that, by allowing for refunds, reductions, or exemptions from taxes and other payments owed to the government, appear designed to subsidize exports of manufactured goods or to support the purchase of domestic over imported equipment and certain other manufacturing inputs. These measures appear to be contrary to a number of WTO rules, including the explicit prohibitions against export subsidies and import substitution subsidies set forth in the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
Various news reports are here, here, here and here. The FT (the first link) answers Joel's question in the affirmative: "The action by the Bush administration was viewed as part of a strategy to win Congressional approval for the renewal of the president’s fast-track trade negotiating authority when it expires on June 30."
Congressional reaction to the filing of the complaint was, not surprisingly, positive. See the House Ways and Means statement and Senate Finance Committee Chairman's statement. The National Association of Manufacturers is also pleased.
ADDED: More from USTR: remarks of Susan Schwab and USTR Fact Sheet on the case (based on the Fact Sheet, it looks like this case is exclusively about prohibited subsidies, with some GATT and TRIMs Agreement claims also included in relation to the import substitution subsidies).
Also, steelmaker Nucor and the US-China Business Council are happy with the filing.
ADDED #2: NPR's report is here. I haven't seen a reaction from Chinese officials yet. The only item is this from Xinhua: "The Chinese mission to the WTO in Geneva confirmed the case on Friday, but declined to give any comments."
ADDED #3: China expresses its view of the complaint: "It's a pity for the United States to seek consultation process at the World Trade Organization (WTO) over China's industrial subsidies, a spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Commerce said Saturday."
ADDED #4: Attempts to resolve this are already starting: "China is considering removing or reducing value-added tax (VAT) rebates on some steel products, government sources said on Monday, apparently accelerating the timetable for changes following a U.S. complaint to the WTO over the country's export subsidies." The same article mentions the EU's views on the case:
In Brussels, a European Commission spokesman said the European Union was not planning to bring a case against Beijing at the WTO at this stage but would join the WTO consultations called by the United States as a third party.
Spokesman Peter Power said the EU executive, which has acted jointly with Washington against China on auto parts, was still looking into the WTO-compatibility of certain subisidies granted by the Chinese authorities.
"We will not bring a case to the WTO at this stage," he said.
ADDED #5: Japan mulls joining the U.S. in the complaint. Peter Morici says the U.S. would have been better served pursuing a CVD complaint unilaterally.
ADDED #6: Here's a link to the U.S. consultations request.
