Anti-dumping, subsidies, safeguards

On 3 May 2002, Canada requested consultations with the United States. The request concerned the final affirmative countervailing duty determination by the US Department of Commerce (File No. C‑122839) issued on 25 March 2002, with respect to certain softwood lumber from Canada. The measures at issue include the initiation and conduct of the investigation, the final determination, provision of expedited reviews, and other matters related to these measures. Canada contended that these measures were inconsistent with, and violate the United States’ obligations under Articles 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 22 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement and Articles VI:3 and X:3 of the GATT 1994.

On 17 January 2001, Canada requested consultations with the US concerning Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (the “URAA”) and the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA. In Canada’s view, in a situation in which the DSB has ruled that the US has, in an anti-dumping or countervailing duty proceeding, acted inconsistently with US obligations under the AD or SCM Agreements, the US law prohibits the US from complying fully with the DSB ruling. Under US law, determinations whether to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties are made after the imports occur. With regard to imports that occurred prior to a date on which the US directs compliance with the DSB ruling, the measures require US authorities to disregard the DSB ruling in making such determinations, even where the determination whether to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties is made after the date fixed by the DSB for compliance. In such circumstances, determinations by the US to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties would be inconsistent with its obligations under the AD or SCM Agreements. Canada considered that these measures are inconsistent with US obligations under Article 21.3 of the DSU, in the context of Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.7 and 21.1 of the DSU; Article VI of the GATT 1994; Articles 10 and note 36, 19.2, 19.4 and note 51, 21.1, 32.1, 32.2, 32.3, and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement; Articles 1, 9.3, 11.1, 18.1-4 and note 12 of the AD Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

El 22 de agosto de 2014 se publicaron los informes del Grupo Especial en la diferencia entre la Argentina, los Estados Unidos, el Japón y la Unión Europea en relación con medidas de importación de la Argentina (DS438, DS444, DS445)”

On 30 July 1999, Korea requested consultations with the US in respect of Preliminary and Final Determinations of the US’s Department of Commerce (DOC) on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Korea dated 4 November 1998 and 31 March 1999 respectively, and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea dated 20 January 1999 and 8 June 1999 respectively. Korea considered that several errors were made by the US in those determinations which resulted in erroneous findings and deficient conclusions as well as the imposition, calculation and collection of anti-dumping margins which are incompatible with the obligation of the US under the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of GATT 1994 and in particular, but not necessarily exclusively, Article 2, Article 6 and Article 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Korea believed that the US did not act in conformity with the cited provisions, among others, in its treatment of the following: certain US sales made to a bankrupt company; the calculation of two distinct exchange rate periods for export sales; and currency conversion for certain normal value sales made in US dollars.

Le 27 juin 2019, l’OMC a distribué le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “États-Unis - Certaines mesures relatives au secteur des énergies renouvelables”, introduite par l’Inde (DS510).

On 12 August 1997, the EC requested consultations with Korea in respect of a definitive safeguard measure imposed by Korea on imports of certain dairy products. The EC contended that under the provisions of different governmental measures, Korea has imposed a safeguard measure in the form of an import quota on imports of certain dairy products. The EC considered that this measure is in violation of Articles 2, 4, 5 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguard Measures, as well as a violation of Article XIX of GATT 1994.

Le 22 juin 2001, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Mexique - Enquête antidumping concernant le sirop de maïs à haute teneur en fructose en provenance des États-Unis - Recours”.

El 17 de febrero de 2003 la OMC hizo público el informe arbitral sobre el caso “Canadá - Créditos a la exportación y garantías de préstamos para las aeronaves regionales”.

Le 10 mai 2000, l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur l’affaire “États-Unis - Imposition de droits compensateurs sur certains produits en acier au carbone, plomb et bismuth laminés à chaud originaires du Royaume-Uni”.

El 10 de mayo de 2000, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Establecimiento derechos compensatorios sobre determinados productos de acero al carbono aleado con plomo y bismuto y laminado en caliente originarios del Reino Unido”.