Market access

On 23 February 2017, the WTO Appellate Body issued its report in the case “Russian Federation - Measures on the Importation of Live Pigs, Pork and Other Pig Products from the European Union”.

Le 15 février 2002, l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur l’affaire “États-Unis - Mesures de sauvegarde définitives à l’importation de tubes et tuyaux de qualité carbone soudés, de section circulaire, en provenance de Corée”.

On 15 October 2010, Costa Rica requested consultations with the Dominican Republic concerning the provisional and definitive safeguard measures imposed by the Dominican Republic on imports of polypropylene bags and tubular fabric and the investigation that led to the imposition of those measures. The products at issue are classified under subheadings 5407.20.20, 6305.33.10 and 6305.33.90 of the Dominican Republic Tariff.

On 18 November 1997, the European Communities requested consultations with the United States in respect of Sections 921-927 of the US Internal Revenue Code and related measures, establishing special tax treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” (FSC). The European Communities contended that these provisions were inconsistent with the United States' obligations under Articles III:4 and XVI of the GATT 1994, Articles 3.1(a) and (b) of the SCM Agreement, and Articles 3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture.

On 3 October 1996, the EC requested consultations with Indonesia, on 4 October 1996 and 29 November 1996, Japan requested consultations with Indonesia, and on 8 October 1996, the US requested consultations with Indonesia concerning Indonesia’s National Car Programme. The EC alleged that the exemption from customs duties and luxury taxes on imports of “national vehicles” and components thereof, and related measures were in violation of Indonesia’s obligations under Articles I and III of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement and Article 3 of the SCM Agreement. Japan contended that these measures were in violation of Indonesia’s obligations under Articles I:1, III:2, III:4 and X:3(a) of GATT 1994, as well as Articles 2 and 5.4 of the TRIMs Agreement. The US contended that the measures were in violation of Indonesia’s obligations under Article I and III of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement, Article 3, 6 and 28 of the SCM Agreement and Articles 3, 20 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement.

El 23 de septiembre de 2002, 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”.

On 1 March 2002, the United States requested consultations with Japan regarding restrictions allegedly imposed by Japan on imports of apples from the United States. The United States’ complaint arose from the maintenance by Japan of quarantine restrictions on apples imported into Japan, which restrictions were said to be necessary to protect against introduction of fire blight. Among the measures the United States complained of were the prohibition of imported apples from orchards in which any fire blight was detected, the requirement that export orchards be inspected three times yearly for the presence of fire blight and the disqualification of any orchard from exporting to Japan should fire blight be detected within a 500 meter buffer zone surrounding such orchard. The United States claimed that these measures might be inconsistent with the obligations of Japan under:

El 31 de julio de 2002, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Medidas compensatorias sobre determinados productos de las CE”.

On 1 March 2002, the United States requested consultations with Japan regarding restrictions allegedly imposed by Japan on imports of apples from the United States. The United States’ complaint arose from the maintenance by Japan of quarantine restrictions on apples imported into Japan, which restrictions were said to be necessary to protect against introduction of fire blight. Among the measures the United States complained of were the prohibition of imported apples from orchards in which any fire blight was detected, the requirement that export orchards be inspected three times yearly for the presence of fire blight and the disqualification of any orchard from exporting to Japan should fire blight be detected within a 500 meter buffer zone surrounding such orchard. The United States claimed that these measures might be inconsistent with the obligations of Japan under:

On 16 February 2012, Viet Nam requested consultations with the United States concerning a number of anti-dumping measures on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Viet Nam. In addition to two administrative reviews and the five year “sunset review”, the request for consultations concerns several US laws, regulations, administrative proceedings and practices, including zeroing.

El 21 de diciembre de 2000, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Medida de salvaguardia contra las importaciones de cordero fresco, refrigerado o congelado procedentes de Nueva Zelandia”.

On 12 July 2007, Panama requested consultations with Colombia on (i) indicative prices applicable to specific goods and (ii) restrictions on ports of entry for certain goods.

Le 6 juillet 2017, un groupe spécial de l’OMC a publié un rapport dans l’affaire “Union européenne — Mesures compensatoires visant certains types de polyéthylène téraphtalate en provenance du Pakistan” (DS486).

Le 11 juillet 2011, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial qui avait examiné la plainte du Viet Nam dans le différend “États-Unis — Mesures antidumping visant certaines crevettes en provenance du Viet Nam” (DS404).

On 25 April 2017, the WTO issued the dispute panel reports in the case "United States - Measures concerning the importation, marketing and sale of tuna and tuna products".

Le 12 août 2009, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial qui avait examiné la plainte des États-Unis dans l’affaire “Chine — Mesures affectant les droits de commercialisation et les services de distribution pour certaines publications et certains produits de divertissement audiovisuels” (DS363).

El 17 de octubre de 1996, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Brasil - Medidas que afectan al coco desecado”.

Le 07 octobre 2005, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Mexique - Mesures fiscales concernant les boissons sans alcool et autres boissons”.

El 01 de octubre de 2008, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Continuación de la existencia y aplicación de la metodología de reducción a cero”.

On 5 January 1999, Mexico requested consultations with Guatemala concerning definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by the authorities of Guatemala on imports of grey Portland cement from Mexico and the proceedings leading thereto. Mexico alleged that the definitive anti-dumping measure is inconsistent with Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and its Annexes I and II, as well as with Article VI of the GATT 1994.

El 11 de diciembre de 2000, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Medidas aplicadas a la importación determinados productos procedentes de las Comunidades Europeas”.

On 29 August 2013, Korea requested consultations with the United States concerning anti–dumping and countervailing measures relating to large residential washers from Korea. Korea claims that the measures identified in its request for consultations are inconsistent with: - Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 5.8, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 11 and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; - Articles 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 10, 14 and 19.4 of the SCM Agreement; - Articles VI, VI:1, VI:2 and VI:3 of the GATT 1994; - Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

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.

El 03 de diciembre de 2010, 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”.

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 September 2012, China requested consultations with the United States concerning the following measures: (i) a new piece of legislation (Public Law 112-99) that explicitly allows for the application of countervailing measures to non-market economy countries; (ii) countervailing duty determinations or actions made or performed by US authorities between 20 November 2006 and 13 March 2012 in respect of Chinese products; (iii) anti-dumping measures associated with the concerned countervailing duty measures as well as the combined effect of these anti-dumping measures and the parallel countervailing duty measures; and (iv) the United States’ failure to provide the US Department of Commerce (USDOC) with legal authority to identify and avoid the double remedies in respect of investigations or reviews initiated on or between 20 November 2006 and 13 March 2012.

El Órgano de Apelación de la OMC publicó este 15 de enero de su informe sobre la diferencia “Argentina — Medidas que afectan a la importación de mercancías” (WT/DS438/444/445). Los reclamantes en esta diferencia eran la Unión Europea, los Estados Unidos y el Japón.

El 19 de diciembre de 2000, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Argentina - Medidas que afectan a la exportación de pieles de bovino y a la importación de cueros acabados”.

Le 29 septembre 2006, l’OMC a publié les rapports du Groupe spécial chargé d’examiner les plaintes déposées par les États-Unis, le Canada et l’Argentine, respectivement, dans l’affaire “Communautés européennes - Mesures affectant l’approbation et la commercialisation des produits biotechnologiques”(WT/DS291, WT/DS292 et WT/DS293).

On 20 June 2005, the European Communities requested consultations with Brazil on the imposition of measures that adversely affect exports of retreaded tyres from the EC to the Brazilian market.

On 14 September 2009, China requested consultations with the United States concerning increased tariffs on certain passenger vehicle and light truck tyres (subject tyres) from China. The decision was announced on 11 September 2009 following an investigation pursuant to section 421 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.). The USITC determined that there was market disruption as a result of rapidly increasing imports of subject tyres from China that were a significant cause of material injury to the domestic industry. Following a Presidential decision additional duties were imposed on subject tyres imports for a three year period in the amount of 35 per cent ad valorem in the first year, 30 per cent ad valorem in the second year and 25 per cent ad valorem in the third year (the tyres measure). This measure took effect on 26 September 2009.

El 15 de mayo de 2018, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Comunidades Europeas y determinados Estados miembros - Medidas que afectan al comercio de grandes aeronaves civiles - Recurso”.

L’OMC a publié, le 29 février 2008, les rapports des groupes spéciaux sur les plaintes déposées par la Thaïlande et l’Inde, respectivement, dans les affaires “Etats-Unis — Mesures antidumping visant les crevettes en provenance de Thaïlande” (DS343) et “Etats-Unis — Directive sur les cautions en douane pour les marchandises assujetties à des droits antidumping/compensateurs” (DS345).

On 15 July 1997, the US requested consultations with India in respect of quantitative restrictions maintained by India on importation of a large number of agricultural, textile and industrial products. The US contended that these quantitative restrictions, including the more than 2,700 agricultural and industrial product tariff lines notified to the WTO, are inconsistent with India’s obligations under Articles XI:1 and XVIII:11 of GATT 1994, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, and Article 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.

On 6 July 2017, a WTO dispute panel issued a report in the case “European Union - Countervailing Measures on Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate from Pakistan".

Le 31 juillet 2000, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “États-Unis - Mesures de sauvegarde définitives à l’importation de gluten de froment en provenance des Communautés européennes”.

On 11 August 2011, the European Union requested consultations with Canada regarding Canada's measures relating to domestic content requirements in the feed-in tariff program (the “FIT Program”).

On 18 November 1997, the European Communities requested consultations with the United States in respect of Sections 921-927 of the US Internal Revenue Code and related measures, establishing special tax treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” (FSC). The European Communities contended that these provisions were inconsistent with the United States' obligations under Articles III:4 and XVI of the GATT 1994, Articles 3.1(a) and (b) of the SCM Agreement, and Articles 3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture.

El 11 de julio 2019, la OMC distribuyó los dos informes de los asuntos planteados por los Estados Unidos: “Canadá — Derechos adicionales sobre determinados productos procedentes de los Estados Unidos” (DS557) y “México — Derechos adicionales sobre determinados productos procedentes de los Estados Unidos” (DS560).

Le 14 janvier 2002, l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur l’affaire “États-Unis - Traitement fiscal des “sociétés de ventes à l’étranger” - Recours”.

El 02 de agosto de 2013, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “China - Medidas en materia derechos antidumping y compensatorios sobre los productos de pollo de engorde procedentes de los Estados Unidos”.

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.

On 15 September 2011, the WTO issued the dispute panel reports in the case "United States - Measures concerning the importation, marketing and sale of tuna and tuna products".

On 30 August 2017, the WTO issued the panel reports in the cases brought by the European Union and Japan in “Brazil - Certain Measures Concerning Taxation And Charges”.

El 30 de julio de 2018, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Rusia - Medidas que afectan a la importación de equipo ferroviario y sus partes”.

El 05 de febrero de 1998, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Comunidades Europeas - Clasificación aduanera determinado equipo informático”.

On 22 December 1995, Costa Rica requested consultations with the United States concerning US restrictions on textile imports from Costa Rica. Costa Rica alleged that these restrictions were in violation of the ATC agreement.

On 30 January 2002, Japan requested consultations with the United States in respect of the final determinations of both the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) and the United States International Trade Commission in the full sunset review of the anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Japan. These determinations were issued on 2 August 2000 and 21 November 2000, respectively. Japan claimed that these determinations were erroneous and based on deficient rulings, procedures and provisions pertaining to the United States Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and related regulations. Japan further claimed that the procedures and provisions of the Act and related regulations as well as the above determinations were inconsistent with, inter alia, Articles VI and X of GATT 1994; Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 (including Annex II), 11, 12, and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

On 15 September 2010, the United States requested consultations with China with respect to measures imposing countervailing duties and anti-dumping duties on grain oriented flat-rolled electrical steel (“GOES”) from the United States as set forth in Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) Notice No. 21 [2010], including its annexes. The subsidy that China determined to confer a benefit are the “Buy America” provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and also State government procurement laws. The United States alleged that China appears to be acting inconsistently with its obligations under: - Articles 10, 11.2, 11.3, 12.3, 12.4.1, 12.7, 12.8, 15.1, 15.2, 15.5, 19, 22.2(iii), 22.3 and 22.5 of the SCM Agreement, - Articles 1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 6.9 and 12.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and - Article VI of the GATT 1994.

Le 23 août 1999, l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur l’affaire “Inde - Restrictions quantitatives à l’importation de produits agricoles, textiles et industriels”.