Market access

El 18 de septiembre de 2000, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Comunidades Europeas - Medidas que afectan al amianto y a los productos que contienen amianto”.

On 1 December 2008, Canada requested consultations with the United States concerning certain mandatory country of origin labelling (COOL) provisions in the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 as amended by the 2008 Farm Bill and as implemented through an Interim Final Rule of 28 July 2008. These include the obligation to inform consumers at the retail level of the country of origin in respect of covered commodities, including beef and pork. The eligibility for a designation of a covered commodity as exclusively having a US origin can only be derived from an animal that was exclusively born, raised and slaughtered in the United States. This would exclude such a designation in respect of beef or pork derived from livestock that is exported to the United States for feed or immediate slaughter.

Le 16 mai, l’Organe d’appel de l’OMC a publié son rapport dans l’affaire “Union européenne — Mesures compensatoires visant certains types de polyéthyène téréphthalate en provenance du Pakistan” (DS486)

On 6 November 2000, Turkey requested consultations with Egypt concerning an anti-dumping investigation by the Egyptian Ministry of Trade and Supply with respect to imports of rebar from Turkey. The investigation was completed and the final report released on 21 October 1999. As a result of the investigation, anti-dumping duties were imposed, ranging from 22.63-61.00 per cent ad valorem. Turkey considered that: Egypt made determinations of injury and dumping in that investigation without a proper establishment of the facts and based on an evaluation of the facts that was neither unbiased nor objective; during the investigation of material injury or threat thereof and the causal link, Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.1 and 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and during the investigation of sales at less than normal value, Egypt violated Article X:3 of the GATT 1994, as well as Articles 2.2, 2.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.6, 6.7 and 6.8, and Annex II, Paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 and Annex I, Paragraph 7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

On 5 October 1995, Canada requested consultations with Australia in respect of Australia’s prohibition of imports of salmon from Canada based on a quarantine regulation. Canada alleged that the prohibition is inconsistent with Articles XI and XIII of the GATT 1994, and also inconsistent with the SPS Agreement.

On 8 October 1997, the United States requested consultations with Canada in respect of export subsidies allegedly granted by Canada on dairy products and the administration by Canada of the tariff-rate quota on milk. The United States contended that these export subsidies by Canada distort markets for dairy products and adversely affect US sales of dairy products. The United States alleged violations of Articles II, X and X1 of the GATT 1994, Articles 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10 of the Agreement on Agriculture, Article 3 of the SCM Agreement, and Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Import Licensing Agreement.

Le 16 janvier 2003, l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur l’affaire “États-Unis - Loi de 2000 sur la compensation pour continuation du dumping et maintien de la subvention”.

El 06 de marzo de 2006, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “México - Medidas fiscales sobre los refrescos y otras bebidas”.

On 1 June 1999, the US requested consultations with the EC in respect of the alleged lack of protection of trademarks and geographical indications (GIs) for agricultural products and foodstuffs in the EC. The US contended that EC Regulation 2081/92, as amended, does not provide national treatment with respect to geographical indications and does not provide sufficient protection to pre-existing trademarks that are similar or identical to a geographical indication. The US considered this situation to be inconsistent with the EC’s obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, including but not necessarily limited to Articles 3, 16, 24, 63 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement...

On 20 December 2002, Canada requested consultations with the United States regarding the investigation of the USITC in Softwood Lumber from Canada (Invs. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928 (Final)) and the final definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties applied as a result of the USITC’s final determination made on 2 May 2002, notice of which was published in the United States Federal Register on 22 May 2002 (Volume 67, Number 99 at pp. 36022-36023) that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of softwood lumber from Canada that the Department of Commerce has determined are subsidized and sold in the United States at less than fair value. Canada claimed that, through these measures, the United States has violated its obligations under Article VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994, Articles 1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 12 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles 10, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4, 15.5, 15.7, 15.8, 22 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.

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.

On 4 June 1997 and 15 December 1997, the EC requested consultations with Chile in respect of Chile’s Special Sales Tax on spirits, which allegedly imposes a higher tax on imported spirits than on Pisco, a locally brewed spirit. The EC’s second request (WT/DS110), takes issue with the modification to the law on taxation on alcoholic beverages passed by Chile to address the concerns of the EC in WT/DS87. The EC contended that this differential treatment of imported spirits violates Article III:2 of GATT 1994.

L’Organe d’appel a remis, le 4 avril 2012, son rapport dans l’affaire “Etats-Unis — Mesures affectant la production et la vente de cigarettes aux clous de girofle” (WT/DS406/AB/R).

El 22 de octubre de 2001, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Prohibición de importar ciertos camarones y sus productos - Recurso”.

On 8 November 2004, the European Communities filed a request for consultations with the United States asserting that the United States should have removed its retaliatory measures since the EC has removed the measures found to be WTO-inconsistent in the EC — Hormones case.

El 5 de julio de 2011 la OMC distribuyó los informes del Grupo Especial que examinó las reclamaciones de los Estados Unidos, la Unión Europea y México en la diferencia “China — Medidas relativas a la exportación de diversas materias primas” (DS394, DS395 y DS398, respectivamente).

Le 17 novembre 2014, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial sur l’affaire introduite par le Viet Nam au sujet des mesures antidumping appliquées par les États-Unis à certaines crevettes vietnamiennes (DS429).

El 10 de noviembre de 2003, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Medidas de salvaguardia definitivas sobre las importaciones determinados productos de acero”.

On 28 May 1998, Canada requested consultations with the EC in respect of measures imposed by France, in particular Decree of 24 December 1996, with respect to the prohibition of asbestos and products containing asbestos, including a ban on imports of such goods. Canada alleged that these measures violate Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the SPS Agreement, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, and Articles III, XI and XIII of GATT 1994. Canada also alleged nullification and impairment of benefits accruing to it under the various agreements cited.

Le 28 février 2001, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “États-Unis - Mesures antidumping appliquées à certains produits en acier laminés à chaud en provenance du Japon”.

El 14 de agosto de 2003, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Examen por extinciónde los derechos antidumping sobre los productos planos de acero alcarbono resistentes a la corrosión procedentes del Japón”.

On 27 2019 June the WTO circulated the panel report in the case brought by India in “United States - Certain Measures Relating to the Renewable Energy Sector” (DS510).

Le 31 mai 2000, l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur l’affaire “Canada - Certaines mesures affectant l’industrie automobile”.

On 30 March 2006, the European Communities and the United States, and on 13 April 2006, Canada, requested consultations with China regarding China's imposition of measures that adversely affect exports of automobile parts from the European Communities, the United States and Canada to China. The measures include the following: (a) Policy on Development of Automotive Industry (Order No. 8 of the National Development and Reform Commission, 21 May 2004); (b) Measures for the Administration of Importation of Automotive Parts and Components for Complete Vehicles (Decree No. 125), which entered into force on 1 April 2005); and, (c) Rules for Determining Whether Imported Automotive Parts and Components Constitute Complete Vehicles (General Administration of Customs Public Announcement No. 4, which entered into force on 1 April 2005; as well as any amendments, replacements, extensions, implementing measures or other measures related.

Le 13 juillet 1998, l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur l’affaire “Communautés européennes - Mesures affectant l’importation de certains produits provenant de volailles”.

Le 14 avril 1999, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Brésil - Programme de financement des exportations pour les aéronefs”.

El 15 de junio de 2001, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Prohibición de importar ciertos camarones y sus productos - Recurso”.

On 27 September 2002, Australia and Brazil requested consultations with the European Communities concerning the export subsidies provided by the EC in the framework of its Common Organisation of the Market for the sugar sector. The requests concerned Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the EC’s common organization of the markets in the sugar sector, and all other legislation, regulations, administrative policies and other instruments relating to the EC regime for sugar and sugar containing products including the rules adopted pursuant to the procedure referred to in Article 42(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/2001, and any other provision related thereto. On 14 March 2003, Thailand requested consultations with the European Communities on the same matter.

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 11 March 1996, the United States requested consultations with Canada concerning certain measures prohibiting or restricting the importation into Canada of certain periodicals. The US claimed that the measures are in contravention of GATT Article XI. The US further alleged that the tax treatment of so-called “split-run” periodicals and the application of favourable postage rates to certain Canadian periodicals are inconsistent with GATT Article III.

El 09 de mayo de 2000, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Brasil - Programa de financiación de las exportaciones para aeronaves - Recurso”.

On 7 October 2002, Argentina requested consultations with the US regarding the final determinations of the US Department of Commerce (“DOC”) and the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) in the sunset reviews of the anti-dumping duty order on OCTG from Argentina, issued on 7 November 2000 (65 Federal Register 66701) and June 2001 (USITC Pub. No. 3434), respectively, and the DOC’s determination to continue the anti-dumping duty order on OCTG from Argentina, issued on 25 July 2001 (66 Federal Register 38630). Argentina considered that general US laws, regulations, policies and procedures related to the administration of sunset reviews and the application of anti-dumping measures were inconsistent either on their face or as applied with Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 18 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA); Articles VI and X of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. Furthermore, Argentina claimed that the sunset review conducted by the DOC is inconsistent with Articles 2, 5, 5.8, 11.3, 11.4, 12.1, and 12.3 of the ADA. It also claimed that the sunset review conducted by the ITC was inconsistent with Articles 3 and 11.3 of the ADA.

El 27 de abril de 2009, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Colombia - Precios indicativos y restricciones de los puertos de entrada”.

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”.

L’OMC a publié, le 13 décembre 2010, le rapport du Groupe spécial qui avait examiné la plainte déposée par la Chine dans l’affaire “Etats Unis — Mesures affectant les importation de certains pneumatiques pour véhicules de tourisme et camions légers en provenance de Chine” (DS399).

Le 12 mars 1998, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Communautés européennes - Mesures affectant l’importation de certains produits provenant de volailles”.

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.

Un groupe spécial de l’OMC a publié, le 22 janvier 2010, son rapport sur une plainte déposée par la Thaïlande dans l’affaire “États-Unis — Mesures antidumping visant les sacs en polyéthylène pour le commerce de détail en provenance de Thaïlande” (DS383).

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”.

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).