India

On 21 March 1996, India requested consultations with Turkey concerning Turkey’s imposition of quantitative restrictions on imports of a broad range of textile and clothing products. India claimed that those measures are inconsistent with Articles XI and XIII of GATT 1994, as well as ATC Article 2. Earlier, India had requested to be joined in the consultations between Hong Kong and Turkey on the same subject matter (WT/DS29).

Le 22 février, l’OMC a distribué le rapport du Groupe spécial chargé d’examiner l’affaire introduite par le Japon “Corée — Interdictions d’importer, et prescriptions en matière d’essais et de certification pour les radionucléides” (DS495).

El 21 de diciembre de 2001, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “India - Medidas que afectan al sector del automóvil”.

On 8 October 1996, India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand requested consultations with the United States concerning a ban on importation of shrimp and shrimp products from these complainants imposed by the US under Section 609 of US Public Law 101-162. Violations of Articles I, XI and XIII of the GATT 1994, as well nullification and impairment of benefits, were alleged.

On 8 October 1996, India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand requested consultations with the United States concerning a ban on importation of shrimp and shrimp products from these complainants imposed by the US under Section 609 of US Public Law 101-162. Violations of Articles I, XI and XIII of the GATT 1994, as well nullification and impairment of benefits, were alleged.

On 18 April 2019 the WTO circulated the panel report in the case brought by the United States in “China - Tariff Rate Quotas for Certain Agricultural Products” (DS517).

Le 21 décembre 2001, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Inde - Mesures concernant le secteur automobile”.

Le 6 novembre 2018, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Inde — Certaines mesures visant les importations de produits en fer et en acier” (DS518), introduite par le Japon.

Le 11 juillet 2019, l’OMC a distribué deux rapports du Groupe spécial chargé des affaires “États-Unis — Certaines mesures visant les produits en acier et en aluminium” (DS550) et “États-Unis — Certaines mesures visant les produits en acier et en aliminium” (DS551) introduites par le Canada et le Mexique, respectivement.

On 30 July 2018 the WTO circulated the panel report in the case brought by Ukraine in “Russia - Measures affecting the importation of railway equipment and parts thereof.

Le 18 août 2017, un groupe spécial de l’OMC a publié un rapport dans les affaires introduites par le Viet Nam et le Taipei chinois “Indonésie — Mesure de sauvegarde concernant certains produits en fer ou en acier” (DS490 and 496).

Le 16 septembre 2016, l’Organe d’appel de l’OMC a publié son rapport dans l’affaire “Inde — Certaines mesures relatives aux cellules solaires et aux modules solaires” (DS456) soumise par les Etats-Unis.

On 5 March 2002, India requested consultations with the EC concerning the conditions under which the EC accords tariff preferences to developing countries under its current scheme of generalized tariff preferences (“GSP scheme”). India presented this request pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU, Article XXIII:1 of the GATT 1994 and paragraph 4(b) of the so-called Enabling Clause. India considered that the tariff preferences accorded by the EC under the special arrangements, (i) for combating drug production and trafficking and (ii) for the protection of labour rights and the environment, create undue difficulties for India’s exports to the EC, including for those under the general arrangements of the EC’s GSP scheme, and nullify or impair the benefits accruing to India under the most favoured nation provisions of Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 and paragraphs 2(a), 3(a) and 3(c) of the Enabling Clause. In India’s view, the conditions under which the EC accorded tariff preferences under the special arrangements could not be reconciled with the requirements provided in paragraphs 2(a), 3(a) and 3(c) of the Enabling Clause.

On 15 November 2019 the WTO circulated the compliance panel report in the case brought by India in “United States — Countervailing Measures on Certain Hot Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India - Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by India” (DS436).

Le 25 avril 1997, l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur l’affaire “Etats-Unis - Mesure affectant les importations de chemises, chemisiers et blouses, de laine, tisses en provenance d’Inde”.

El 28 de febrero de 2019, la OMC distribuyó el informe del Grupo Especial encargado de examinar el asunto “China — Ayuda interna para los productores agropecuarios” (DS511), planteado por los Estados Unidos.

Le 19 mars 2002, l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur l’affaire “Inde - Mesures concernant le secteur automobile”.

Le 5 juillet, l’OMC a distribué le rapport du Groupe spécial chargé d’examiner l’affaire “États-Unis — Mesures compensatoires visant le papier supercalendré en provenance du Canada” (DS505), introduite par le Canada.

On 6 February 2020 the Appellate Body issued its report in the case brought by Canada in “United States - Countervailing Measures on Supercalendered Paper from Canada” (DS505).

Le 14 juillet 2014, l’OMC a publié le rapport du groupe spécial chargé du différend “États-Unis — Mesures compensatoires visant certains produits plats en acier au carbone laminés à chaud en provenance d’Inde” (DS436).

On 15 July 1997, the US requested consultations with India in respect of quantitative restrictions maintained by India on importation of a large number of agricultural, textile and industrial products. The US contended that these quantitative restrictions, including the more than 2,700 agricultural and industrial product tariff lines notified to the WTO, are inconsistent with India’s obligations under Articles XI:1 and XVIII:11 of GATT 1994, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, and Article 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.

El 18 de abril de 2019 la OMC distribuyó el informe del Grupo Especial encargado de examinar el asunto planteado por los Estados Unidos en la diferencia “China - Contingentes arancelarios aplicables a determinados productos agropecuarios” (DS517).

Le 25 mai 2021, l’OMC a distribué le rapport du Groupe spécial chargé d’examiner l’affaire “Canada — Mesures régissant la vente de vin” (DS537) introduite par l’Australie.

On 28 February 2019 the WTO circulated the panel report in the case brought by the United States in “China — Domestic Support for Agricultural Producers” (DS511)

On 11 January 2002, India requested consultations with the United States in respect of its rules of origin applicable to imports of textiles and apparel products as set out in Section 334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Section 405 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 and the customs regulations implementing these provisions. India argued that, prior to the abovementioned Section 334, the rule of origin applicable to textiles and apparel products was the “substantial transformation” rule. India considered that Section 334 changed the system by identifying specific processing operations which would confer origin to the various types of textiles and apparel products. In India’s view, these changes appear to have been made to protect the United States textiles and clothing industry from import competition. India indicated that the changes introduced by Section 334 had already been challenged by the European Communities on the grounds that they were incompatible with the United States’ obligations under the Agreement on Rules of Origin and other WTO Agreements (WT/DS151). India explained that that dispute was settled through a procès-verbal whereby the United States agreed to introduce legislation amending Section 334. According to India, the changes introduced by the amending legislation, i.e. Section 405, were aimed at taking account of the particular export interests of the European Communities. India is of the view that the changes introduced by Sections 334 and 405 have resulted in extraordinary complex rules under which the criteria that confer origin vary between similar products and processing operations. India argued that the structure of the changes, the circumstances under which they were adopted and their effect on the conditions of competition for textiles and apparel products suggest that they serve trade policy purposes. On those grounds, India questioned the compatibility of those changes with paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin.