Market access

Le 31 mars 2000, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “États-Unis - Loi antidumping de 1916”.

Le 15 janvier 2015, l’Organe d’appel de l’OMC a remis son rapport sur le différend “Argentine — Mesures affectant les importations de marchandises” (WT/DS438/444/445). Les plaignants dans cette affaire étaient l’Union européenne, les États-Unis et le Japon.

El 9 de noviembre de 2017, el Órgano de Apelación de la OMC emitió su informe en las diferencias “Indonesia — Importación de productos hortícolas, animales y productos del reino animal” (DS477 y DS478) planteadas por Nueva Zelandia y los Estados Unidos.

On 28 March 2017, the WTO issued the panel report in the case brought by China in “European Union - Measures Affecting Tariff Concessions on Certain Poultry Meat Products”.

On 6 October 1998, the EC requested consultations with India concerning certain measures affecting the automotive sector being applied by India. The EC stated that the measures include the documents entitled “Export and Import Policy, 1997-2002”, “ITC (HS Classification) Export and Import Policy 1997-2002” (“Classification”), and “Public Notice No. 60 (PN/97-02) of 12 December 1997, Export and Import Policy April 1997-March 2002”, and any other legislative or administrative provision implemented or consolidated by these policies, as well as MoUs signed by the Indian Government with certain manufacturers of automobiles. The EC contended that: under these measures, imports of complete automobiles and of certain parts and components were subject to a system of non-automatic import licenses. in accordance with Public Notice No. 60, import licenses might be granted only to local joint venture manufacturers that had signed an MoU with the Indian Government, whereby they undertook, inter alia, to comply with certain local content and export balancing requirements. The EC alleged violations of Articles III and XI of GATT 1994, and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement.

On 10 November 2000, the EC requested consultations with the US in respect of countervailing duties imposed by the US on imports of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (“corrosion resistant steel”), dealt with under US case number C-428-817. This dispute related, in particular, to the final results of a full sunset review of the above measure, carried out by the US Department of Commerce (“DOC”) and published in the US Federal Register No. 65 FR 47407 of 2 August 2000. In this decision, the DOC found that revocation of the countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. The EC considered that this finding is inconsistent with the obligations of the US under the SCM Agreement and, in particular, in breach of Articles 10, 11.9 and 21 (notably 21.3) thereof.

El 30 de agosto de 2017, la OMC hizo públicos los informes del Grupo Especial que se ocupó de los asuntos “Brasil — Determinadas medidas relativas a la tributación y las cargas” planteados por la Unión Europea y el Japón (DS472 y DS497, respectivamente).

On 4 October 1996, the US requested consultations with Argentina concerning the imposition of specific duties on these items in excess of the bound rate and other measures by Argentina. The US contended that these measures violate Articles II, VII, VIII and X of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, Article 1 to 8 of the Agreement on the Implementation of Article VII of GATT 1994, and Article 7 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.

El 20 de noviembre de 2015, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Medidas relativas a la importación, comercialización y venta de atún y productos de atún - Recurso”.

On 6 April 1998, Poland requested consultations with Thailand concerning the imposition of final anti-dumping duties on imports of angles, shapes and sections of iron or non-alloy steel and H-beams. Poland asserted that provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed by Thailand on 27 December 1996, and a final anti-dumping duty of 27.78% of CIF value for these products, produced or exported by any Polish producer or exporter, was imposed on 26 May 1997. Poland further asserted that Thailand refused two requests by Poland for disclosure of findings. Poland contended that these actions by Thailand violate Articles 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.