Règlement des différends

On 27 November 1995, the Philippines requested consultations with Brazil in respect of a countervailing duty imposed by Brazil on the Philippine’s exports of desiccated coconut. The Philippines claimed that this duty was inconsistent with WTO and GATT rules.

On 10 August 2018 the WTO circulated the panel report in the case brought by the Russian Federation in “European Union and its Member States — Certain Measures Relating to the Energy Sector.

Le 31 mai 2001, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “États-Unis - Mesure de sauvegarde transitoire appliquée aux fils de coton peignés en provenance du Pakistan”.

On 30 June 2003, Korea requested consultations with the United States concerning the US authorities’ affirmative preliminary and final countervailing duty determinations, the preliminary injury determination and any subsequent determinations that may be made during the injury investigation, on DRAMs and DRAM modules from Korea. Korea is also challenging all related laws and regulations, including Section 771 of the US Tariff Act of 1930 and 19 CFR 351 respectively.

On 24 April 2006, Thailand requested consultations with the United States concerning anti-dumping measures on imports of frozen warmwater shrimp. Thailand requests consultations on the United States’ application in the Preliminary, Final and Amended Final Determinations of the practice known as “zeroing” negative dumping margins, the effect of which was to artificially create margins of dumping, and the consequent imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand.

Le 07 avril 2004, l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur l’affaire “Communautés européennes - Conditions d’octroi de préférences tarifaires aux pays en développement”.

Le 20 août 2001, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “États-Unis - Traitement fiscal des “sociétés de ventes à l’étranger” - Recours”.

El 15 de noviembre de 2010, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Tailandia - Medidas aduaneras y fiscales sobre los cigarrillos procedentes de Filipinas”.

El 26 de noviembre de 2004, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “República Dominicana - Medidas que afectan a la importación y venta interna de cigarrillos”.

On 26 May 2006, Mexico requested consultations with the United States concerning a series of final anti-dumping determinations by the US Department of Commerce concerning imports of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Mexico for the period between January 1999 and June 2004. It also addresses: (i) certain sections of the US Tariff Act of 1930, as amended; (ii) the Statement of Administrative Action that accompanied the Uruguay Round Agreements; (iii) specific sections of the US Department of Commerce’s regulations codified at Title 19 of the US Code of Federal Regulations; (iv) the 1997 edition of the Import Administration Antidumping Manual; and (v) the methodology employed by the US Department of Commerce to determine the overall margin of dumping for the product subject to the original investigation and administrative reviews, whereby the Department disregarded (“zeroed”) negative dumping margins.

El 20 de julio de 2015, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Perú - Derecho adicional sobre las importaciones determinados productos agropecuarios”.

El 12 de agosto de 2016, la OMC emitió el informe del Grupo Especial sobre el caso planteado por la Unión Europea: “Rusia — Trato arancelario determinados productos agrícolas y manufacturados” (WT/DS/485).

Le 06 avril 2004, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Canada - Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of Imported Grain”.

On 19 December 2013, Argentina requested consultations with the European Union regarding (a) provisional and definitive anti-dumping measures imposed on biodiesel originating in, inter alia, Argentina, as well as the investigation underlying the measures; and, (b) a provision in Council Regulation (EC) 1225/2009 of November 2009, which refers to the adjustment or establishment of costs associated with the production and sale of products under investigation in the determination of dumping margins. Argentina claimed that the measures were inconsistent with: - Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 9.3, 18 and 18.4 of the Anti–Dumping Agreement; - Article VI of the GATT 1994; and - Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. On 9 January 2014, the Russian Federation requested to join the consultations. On 15 January 2014, Indonesia requested to join the consultations. Subsequently, the European Union informed the DSB that it had accepted the request of Indonesia to join the consultations.

Le 29 janvier 1999, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “États-Unis - Droit antidumping sur les semi-conducteurs pour mémoires RAM dynamiques (DRAM) de un mégabit ou plus, originaires de Corée”.

El 07 de mayo de 2007, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Chile - Sistema de bandas de precios y medidas de salvaguardia aplicados a determinados productos agrícolas - Recurso”.

Le 22 octobre 2001, l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur l’affaire “États-Unis - Prohibition à l’importation de certaines crevettes et de certains produits à base de crevettes - Recours”.

On 13 June 1996, the United States requested consultations with Japan concerning Japan’s laws, regulations and requirements affecting the distribution, offering for sale and internal sale of imported consumer photographic film and paper. The US alleged that: the Japanese Government treated imported film and paper less favourably through these measures, in violation of GATT Articles III and X. These measures nullify or impair benefits accruing to the US (a non-violation claim).

El 20 de agosto de 2001, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Trato fiscal aplicado a las “empresas de ventas en el extranjero” - Recurso”.

Le 23 juin 2005, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Japon - Mesures visant l’importation de pommes - Recours”.

On 31 October 2018 the WTO circulated the panel report in the case brought by Turkey in “Morocco - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel from Turkey” (DS513).

Le 15 juillet 2002, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “États-Unis - Article 129 c) 1) de la Loi sur les Accords du Cycle d’Uruguay”.

On 17 November 2005, Ecuador requested consultations with the United States concerning the final affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value with respect to certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador published by the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) on 23 December 2004, the amended final determination of sales at less than fair value on 1 February 2005 and the accompanying anti-dumping duty order. According to Ecuador, it has concerns particularly about the DOC’s practice of “zeroing” negative anti-dumping margins, based on which the DOC issued the foregoing determinations and order. Ecuador considers that the foregoing determinations and order are inconsistent with Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 5.8, 6.10, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

On 5 October 2000, Argentina requested consultations with Chile concerning: - the price band system established by Law 18.525 (as subsequently amended by Law 18.591 and Law 19.546), as well as implementing regulations and complementary and/or amending provisions; and - the provisional safeguard measures adopted on 19 November 1999 by Decree No. 339 of the Ministry of Economy and the definitive safeguard measures imposed on 20 January 2000 by Decree No. 9 of the Ministry of Economy on the importation of various products, including wheat, wheat flour and edible vegetal oils. Argentina considered that these measures raised questions concerning the obligations of Chile under various agreements. According to Argentina, the provisions with which the measures relating to the said price band system are inconsistent, include, but are not limited to, the following: Article II of the GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. According to Argentina, the provisions with which the safeguard measures are inconsistent, include, but are not limited to, the following: Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement, and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994

Le 2 décembre 2019, l’OMC a distribué le rapport du Groupe spécial chargé de la mise en conformité dans l’affaire soumise par l’Union européenne intitulée “Communautés européennes et certains États membres - Mesures affectant le commerce des aéronefs civils gros porteurs - Recours de l’UE à l’article 21:5 du Mémorandum d’accord sur le règlement des différends“( DS316).

Le 10 août, l’OMC a distribué le rapport du Groupe spécial concernant la procédure engagée par la Fédération de Russie dans l’affaire “Union européenne et ses États membres — Certaines mesures relatives au secteur de l’énergie” (DS476).

On 30 June 1998, the EC requested consultations with the US in respect of the alleged imposition of countervailing duties on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel (leaded bars) from the UK. The EC asserted that the US imposed countervailing duties of 1.69 per cent on United Engineering Steels Ltd (UES) for the review period 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1994, and of 2.4 per cent for the review period 1 January 1995 to 20 March 1995, on the basis of subsidies which had been granted to British Steel Corporation (BSC). The EC also contended that the US imposed countervailing duties on British Steel plc (BSplc) / British Steel Engineering Steels LTD (BSES) for the review period 1 January 1996 to 31 December 1996 on the basis of subsidies granted to BSC before its privatization in 1988. The EC alleged that these impositions of countervailing duties constitute a violation of Articles 1.1(b), 10, 14 and 19.4 of the Subsidies Agreement.

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 22 March 2018, the WTO Appellate Body issued its report in the case “Russia — Anti-Dumping Duties on Light Commercial Vehicles from Germany and Italy.

Le 05 mai 2000, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Canada - Durée de la protection conférée par un brevet”.

Complaints by the United States. These are in respect of the alleged reclassification by the European Communities, for tariff purposes, of certain Local Area Network (LAN) adapter equipment and personal computers with multimedia capability. The US alleged that these measures violate Article II of GATT 1994.

On 21 September 2004, the United States requested consultations with the European Communities concerning the Communities’ administration of laws and regulations pertaining to the classification and valuation of products for customs purposes and its failure to institute tribunals or procedures for the prompt review and correction of administrative action on customs matters.

El 22 de febrero de 1999, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Japón - Medidas que afectan a los productos agropecuarios”.

On 20 December 2012, Japan requested consultations with China pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the DSU, Article XXII:1 of the GATT 1994, and Articles 17.2 and 17.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to the measures and claims set out below. On 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China pursuant to the same, above-mentioned provisions and with respect to the measures and claims set out below. In both complaints, the consultations concerned China's measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certain HP-SSST from Japan and the European Union respectively, as set forth in MOFCOM's Preliminary Determination notice, and MOFCOM's Final Determination notice, including any and all annexes and any amendments thereof.

Le 28 septembre 2007, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial de la mise en conformité concernant l’affaire “Corée — Droits antidumping sur les importations de certains papiers en provenance d’Indonésie” (DS312).

Le 20 septembre 2006, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “États-Unis - Mesures relatives à la réduction à zéro et aux réexamens à l’extinction”.

Le 03 décembre 2007, l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur l’affaire “Brésil - Mesures visant l’importation de pneumatiques rechapés”.

El 16 de enero de 1998, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Communidades Europeas - Medidas queafectan a la carne y los productos cárnicos (hormonas)”.

El 09 de abril de 1999 la OMC hizo público el informe arbitral sobre el caso “Communidades Europeas - Régimen de la importación, venta y distribución de bananos”.

Le 03 mai 2002, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Chili - Système des fourchettes de prix et mesures de sauvegarde appliquées à certains produits agricoles”.

El 25 de abril de 2005, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “República Dominicana - Medidas que afectan a la importación y venta interna de cigarrillos”.

On 24 October 2008, Mexico requested consultations with the United States with respect to the following measures: (i) the United States Code, Title 16, Section 1385 (“Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act”), (ii) the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Section 216.91 (“Dolphin–safe labeling standards”) and Section 216.92 (“Dolphin–safe requirements for tuna harvested in the ETP [Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean] by large purse seine vessels”) and (iii) the ruling in Earth Island Institute v. Hogarth, 494 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2007).

Le 17 juin 2011, l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport dans l’affaire Thaïlande — Mesures douanières et fiscales visant les cigarettes en provenance des Philippines (WT/DS371/AB/R).

On 7 February 2008, the Philippines requested consultations with Thailand concerning a number of Thai fiscal and customs measures affecting cigarettes from the Philippines. Such measures include Thailand's customs valuation practices, excise tax, health tax, TV tax, VAT regime, retail licensing requirements and import guarantees imposed upon cigarette importers. The Philippines claims that Thailand administers these measures in a partial and unreasonable manner and thereby violates Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.

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 11 juillet 1996, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Japon - Taxes sur les boissons alcooliques”.

On 11 May 2017, the WTO Appellate Body issued its report in the case “United States - Certain Methodologies and their Application To Anti-Dumping Proceedings Involving China”.

El 15 de julio de 2002, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Artículo 129(c)(1) de la Ley de los Acuerdos de la Ronda Uruguay”.

On 4 March 1999, the EC requested consultations with the US in respect of the US decision, effective as of 3 March 1999, to withhold liquidation on imports from the EC of a series of products together valued at over $500 million on an annual basis, and to impose a contingent liability for 100% duties on each individual importation of affected products. On 2 March 1999, the arbitrators charged with determining the level of suspension of concessions, requested by the United States in response to the failure by the EC to implement the recommendations of the DSB in respect of the EC’s banana regime (WT/DS27), had asked for additional data from the parties and informed the parties that they were unable to issue their report within the 60-day period envisaged by the DSU. The EC contends that the measure made effective by the US as of 3 March 1999 deprives EC imports into the United States, of the products in question, of the right to a duty not in excess of the rate bound in the US Schedule. The EC further contended that, by requiring the deposit of a bond to cover the contingent liability for 100% duties, US Customs effectively impose 100% duties on each individual importation. The EC alleged violations of Articles 3, 21, 22 and 23 of the DSU, and Articles I, II, VIII and XI of GATT 1994. The EC also alleged nullification and impairment of benefits under GATT 1994, as well as the impediment of the objectives of the DSU and GATT 1994. The EC had requested urgent consultations pursuant to Article 4.8 of the DSU.

On 4 March 1999, the EC requested consultations with the US in respect of the US decision, effective as of 3 March 1999, to withhold liquidation on imports from the EC of a series of products together valued at over $500 million on an annual basis, and to impose a contingent liability for 100% duties on each individual importation of affected products. On 2 March 1999, the arbitrators charged with determining the level of suspension of concessions, requested by the United States in response to the failure by the EC to implement the recommendations of the DSB in respect of the EC’s banana regime (WT/DS27), had asked for additional data from the parties and informed the parties that they were unable to issue their report within the 60-day period envisaged by the DSU. The EC contends that the measure made effective by the US as of 3 March 1999 deprives EC imports into the United States, of the products in question, of the right to a duty not in excess of the rate bound in the US Schedule. The EC further contended that, by requiring the deposit of a bond to cover the contingent liability for 100% duties, US Customs effectively impose 100% duties on each individual importation. The EC alleged violations of Articles 3, 21, 22 and 23 of the DSU, and Articles I, II, VIII and XI of GATT 1994. The EC also alleged nullification and impairment of benefits under GATT 1994, as well as the impediment of the objectives of the DSU and GATT 1994. The EC had requested urgent consultations pursuant to Article 4.8 of the DSU.