Market access

El 07 de agosto de 2015, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Comunidades Europeas - Medidas antidumping definitivas sobre determinados elementos de fijación de hierro o acero procedentes de China - Recurso”.

L’Organe d’appel a publié, le 30 janvier 2012, ses rapports dans l’affaire Chine — Mesures relatives à l’exportation de diverses matières premières (WT/DS394/AB/R, WT/DS395/AB/R and WT/DS398/AB/R).

Le 19 août 2016, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire engagée par l’Union européenne “Fédération de Russie — Mesures visant l’importation de porcins vivants, de viande de porc et d’autres produits du porc en provenance de l’Union européenne” (WT/DS/475).

On 23 June 2009, the United States requested consultations with China with respect to China's restraints on the export from China of various forms of raw materials. The United States cites 32 measures through which China allegedly imposes restraints on the exports in question and note that there appear to be additional unpublished restrictive measures.

El 23 de agosto de 1999, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “India - Restricciones cuantitativas a las importaciones de productos agrícolas, textiles e industriales”.

L’Organe d’appel a publié, le 16 octobre 2008, ses rapports concernant les rapports des groupes spéciaux dans les affaires “Etats-Unis — Maintien de la suspension d’obligations dans le différend CE — Hormones” (DS320) et “Canada — Maintien de la suspension d’obligations dans le différend CE — Hormones” (DS321), respectivement.

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 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.

El 30 de octubre de 2000, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Communidades Europeas - Derechos antidumping sobre las importaciones de ropa de cama de algodón originarias de la India”.

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.