United States

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.

El 14 de octubre de 2014, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “India - Medidas relativas a la importación determinados productos agropecuarios”.

On 29 August 2013, Korea requested consultations with the United States concerning anti–dumping and countervailing measures relating to large residential washers from Korea. Korea claims that the measures identified in its request for consultations are inconsistent with: - Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 5.8, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 11 and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; - Articles 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 10, 14 and 19.4 of the SCM Agreement; - Articles VI, VI:1, VI:2 and VI:3 of the GATT 1994; - Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

L’Organe d’appel de l’OMC a publié, le 5 septembre 2011, son rapport dans l’affaire “Etats-Unis — Mesures affectant les importations de certains pneumatiques pour véhicules de tourisme et camions légers en provenance de Chine” (WT/DS399/AB/R).

Le 24 juillet 2020, l’OMC a distribué le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire introduite par la Fédération de Russie “Union européenne - Méthodes d’ajustement des frais et certaines mesures antidumping visant les importations en provenance de Russie (deuxième plainte)” (DS494).

Le 11 août 2004, l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur l’affaire “États-Unis - Détermination finale de l’existence d’un dumping concernant certains bois d’œuvre résineux en provenance du Canada”.

El 07 de noviembre de 2000, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Imposición derechos antidumping a semiconductores para memorias dinámicas de acceso aleatorio (DRAM) de un megabit como mínimo procedentes de Corea - Recurso”.

On 1 March 2002, the United States requested consultations with Japan regarding restrictions allegedly imposed by Japan on imports of apples from the United States. The United States’ complaint arose from the maintenance by Japan of quarantine restrictions on apples imported into Japan, which restrictions were said to be necessary to protect against introduction of fire blight. Among the measures the United States complained of were the prohibition of imported apples from orchards in which any fire blight was detected, the requirement that export orchards be inspected three times yearly for the presence of fire blight and the disqualification of any orchard from exporting to Japan should fire blight be detected within a 500 meter buffer zone surrounding such orchard. The United States claimed that these measures might be inconsistent with the obligations of Japan under:

On 14 December 2018 the Appellate Body issued its report in the cases brought by Mexico and the United States in “United States - Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products — Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Mexico” (DS381).

El 13 de noviembre de 2006, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Comunidades Europeas - Determinadas cuestiones aduaneras”.

El 31 de julio de 2000, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Corea - Medidas que afectan a las importaciones de carne vacuna fresca, refrigerada y congelada”.

On 2 November 2005, the United States requested consultations with Turkey concerning the latter’s import restrictions on rice from the United States. According to the request, Turkey requires an import license to import rice but fails to grant such licenses to import rice at Turkey’s bound rate of duty. According to the request, Turkey also operates a tariff-rate quota for rice imports requiring that, in order to import specified quantities of rice at reduced tariff levels, importers must purchase specified quantities of domestic rice, including from the Turkish Grain Board (TMO), Turkish producers, or producer associations (“the domestic purchase requirement”). The request lists more than ten measures through which Turkey has allegedly maintained the foregoing restrictions on rice imports, including Decree No. 96/7794 related to the General Assessment of the Regime Regarding Technical Regulations and Standardization for Foreign Trade (Official Gazette, No. 22541, 1 February 1996, Repeated).

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.

On 7 April 1997, the US requested consultations with Japan in respect of the latter’s prohibition, under quarantine measures, of imports of certain agricultural products. The US alleged that Japan prohibits the importation of each variety of a product requiring quarantine treatment until the quarantine treatment has been tested for that variety, even if the treatment has proved to be effective for other varieties of the same product. The US alleged violations of Articles 2, 5 and 8 of the SPS Agreement, Article XI of GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. In addition, the US made a claim for nullification and impairment of benefits.

On 30 January 2002, Japan requested consultations with the United States in respect of the final determinations of both the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) and the United States International Trade Commission in the full sunset review of the anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Japan. These determinations were issued on 2 August 2000 and 21 November 2000, respectively. Japan claimed that these determinations were erroneous and based on deficient rulings, procedures and provisions pertaining to the United States Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and related regulations. Japan further claimed that the procedures and provisions of the Act and related regulations as well as the above determinations were inconsistent with, inter alia, Articles VI and X of GATT 1994; Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 (including Annex II), 11, 12, and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

Le 06 juin 2005, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Mexique - Mesures antidumping définitives visant la viande de bœuf et le riz”.

On 10 February 1999, Japan requested consultations with the United States in respect of the US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, 15 U.S.C. 72 (1994), (“US 1916 Act”). Japan alleged that the US 1916 Act stipulates that the importation or sale of imported goods within the US market in certain circumstances is unlawful, constituting a criminal offence and inviting civil liability. Japan further alleged that judicial decisions under the US 1916 Act are made without the procedural safeguards provided for in the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Japan stated that a court action had been brought under the US 1916 Act against affiliates of Japanese companies. Japan contended that the US 1916 Act is inconsistent with Articles III, VI and XI of the GATT 1994, and the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

On 07 December 2015, the WTO issued the dispute panel reports in the case "United States - Certain country of origin labelling (cool) requirements".

L’OMC a publié, le 09 avril 1999, le rapport d’arbitrage concernant l’affaire “Communautés Européennes - Régime applicable à l’importation, à la vente et à la distribution des bananes”.

L’OMC a publié, le 16 juin 2006, le rapport du groupe spécial qui avait examiné une plainte déposée par les États-Unis dans l’affaire “Communautés européennes — Certains questions douanières” (DS 315).

Le 21 mars, un groupe spécial de l’OMC a publié son rapport sur la mise en conformité dans le différend “États-Unis — Mesures compensatoires visant certains produits en provenance de Chine — Recours de la Chine à l’article 21:5 du Mémorandum d’accord sur le règlement des différends” (DS437)

On 21 March 2003, Antigua and Barbuda requested consultations with the US regarding measures applied by central, regional and local authorities in the US which affect the cross-border supply of gambling and betting services. Antigua and Barbuda considered that the cumulative impact of the US measures is to prevent the supply of gambling and betting services from another WTO Member to the United States on a cross-border basis. According to Antigua and Barbuda, the measures at issue may be inconsistent with the US obligations under the GATS, and in particular Articles II, VI, VIII, XI, XVI and XVII thereof, and the US Schedule of Specific Commitments annexed to the GATS.

On 12 July 1999, the WTO issued the dispute panel reports in the case "European Communities - Measures concerning meat and meat products (hormones) - Original complaint by the United States".

Le 26 mars 2014, l’OMC a publié les rapports de groupes spéciaux dans le différend Chine — Mesures relatives à l’exportation de terres rares, de tungsten et de molybdène (WT/DS431/R, WT/DS432/R et WT/DS433/R).

El 02 de abril de 2004, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “México - Medidas que afectan a los servicios de telecomunicaciones”.