Accès aux marchés

On 24 November 2009, Korea requested consultations with the United States regarding their use of zeroing in three anti–dumping cases involving certain products from Korea, namely, stainless steel plate in coils, stainless steel sheet and strip in coils, and diamond sawblades and parts thereof. Korea claimed that the effect of the use of zeroing by the US Department of Commerce (USDOC) in these three cases has been either to artificially create margins of dumping where none would otherwise have been found, or to inflate margins of dumping. In its consultation request, Korea alleged that the USDOC's use of zeroing in its final determinations, amended final determinations, and anti-dumping duty orders in the three cases in question was inconsistent with the United States' obligations under Article VI of GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, and 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. On 3 December 2009, Japan requested to join the consultations.

Le 24 février 2016, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial sur le différend “Inde — Certaines mesures relatives aux cellules solaires et aux modules solaires” (WT/DS456), qui avait été soumis par les États-Unis.

Le 17 octobre 1996, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Bresil - Mesures visant la noix de coco dessechee”.

On 10 November 2000, the EC requested consultations with the US concerning the continued application by the United States of countervailing duties on a number of products. In particular, the EC claimed that the application of the “same person” methodology by the US, and the continued imposition of duties based on it, are in breach of Articles 10, 19 and 21 of the SCM Agreement, because there is no proper determination of a benefit to the producer of the goods under investigation, as required by Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement. The EC included in this request for consultations 14 US countervailing duty orders1 where this “same person” methodology was applied. All these cases involve alleged non-recurring subsidies granted to firms prior to a change of ownership;

El 13 de julio de 1998, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Comunidades Europeas - Medidas que afectan a la importación determinados productos avícolas”.

On 17 March 1999, the EC requested consultations with the US in respect of definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of wheat gluten from the European Communities. The EC contended that by a Proclamation of 30 May 1998, and a Memorandum of the same date, by the US President, under which the US imposed definitive safeguard measures in the form of a quantitative limitation on imports of wheat gluten from the EC, effective as of 1 June 1998. The EC considered these measures to be in violation of Articles 2, 4, 5 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards; Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Articles I and XIX of GATT 1994.

Le 06 avril 1999, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Inde - Restrictions quantitatives à l’importation de produits agricoles, textiles et industriels”.

On 11 October 2002, Brazil requested consultations with the European Communities concerning EC Commission Regulation No. 1223/2002 (“Regulation No. 1223/2002”), of 8 July 2002, which provides a new description of frozen boneless chicken cuts under the EC Combined Nomenclature (“CN”) code 0207.14.10. According to Brazil, this new description includes a salt content to the product that did not exist before and subjects the imports of these products to a higher tariff than that applicable to salted meat (CN code 0210) in the EC’s Schedules under the GATT 1994.

Le 31 mars 1998, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Japon - Mesures affectant les pellicules et papiers photographiques destinés aux consommateurs”.

On 11 January 2002, India requested consultations with the United States in respect of its rules of origin applicable to imports of textiles and apparel products as set out in Section 334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Section 405 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 and the customs regulations implementing these provisions. India argued that, prior to the abovementioned Section 334, the rule of origin applicable to textiles and apparel products was the “substantial transformation” rule. India considered that Section 334 changed the system by identifying specific processing operations which would confer origin to the various types of textiles and apparel products. In India’s view, these changes appear to have been made to protect the United States textiles and clothing industry from import competition. India indicated that the changes introduced by Section 334 had already been challenged by the European Communities on the grounds that they were incompatible with the United States’ obligations under the Agreement on Rules of Origin and other WTO Agreements (WT/DS151). India explained that that dispute was settled through a procès-verbal whereby the United States agreed to introduce legislation amending Section 334. According to India, the changes introduced by the amending legislation, i.e. Section 405, were aimed at taking account of the particular export interests of the European Communities. India is of the view that the changes introduced by Sections 334 and 405 have resulted in extraordinary complex rules under which the criteria that confer origin vary between similar products and processing operations. India argued that the structure of the changes, the circumstances under which they were adopted and their effect on the conditions of competition for textiles and apparel products suggest that they serve trade policy purposes. On those grounds, India questioned the compatibility of those changes with paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin.