Market access

El 4 de diciembre de 2019, la OMC distribuyó el informe del Grupo Especial que entendió en la diferencia planteada por Indonesia, a saber, “Australia - Medidas antidumping sobre el papel de formato A4 para copiadora” (DS529).

Le 11 mars 2011, l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport dans l’affaire “États-Unis — Droits antidumping et droits compensateurs définitifs visant certains produits en provenance de la Chine” (DS379)

On 6 February 2013, the United States requested consultations with India concerning certain measures of India relating to domestic content requirements under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (“NSM”) for solar cells and solar modules.

El 18 de diciembre de 2014, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Medidas en materia derechos compensatorios sobre determinados productos procedentes de China”.

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.

El 08 de junio de 2007, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “México - Derechos antidumping sobre las tuberías de acero procedentes de Guatemala”.

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 October 2004, the United States requested consultations with the Governments of Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Spain (the “member States”), and with the European Communities (“EC”) concerning measures affecting trade in large civil aircraft.

El 25 de noviembre de 1997, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Argentina - Medidas que afectan a las importaciones de calzado, textiles, prendas de vestir y otros artículos”.

El 17 de junio de 2011, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Tailandia - Medidas aduaneras y fiscales sobre los cigarrillos procedentes de Filipinas”.

Le 25 novembre 2013, l’OMC a publié les rapports des groupes spéciaux dans le différend “Communautés européennes — Mesures prohibant l’importation et la commercialisation de produits dérivés du phoque” (DS400 et DS401).

Le 12 juin 2007, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Brésil - Mesures visant l’importation de pneumatiques rechapés”.

Le 09 janvier 2007, l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur l’affaire “États-Unis - Mesures relatives à la réduction à zéro et aux réexamens à l’extinction”.

On 13 September 2002, Canada requested consultations under Article 4.8 of the DSU (urgency procedure) with the United States concerning the final affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value (dumping) with respect to certain softwood lumber products from Canada (Inv. No. A-122-838) announced by the US Department of Commerce (USDOC) on 21 March 2002 pursuant to Section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended on 22 May 2002 (Final Determination). The measures at issue include the initiation of the investigation, the conduct of the investigation and the Final Determination. Canada considered these measures and, in particular, the determinations made and methodologies adopted therein by the DOC under authority of the United States Tariff Act of 1930, to violate Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.8, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.9 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles VI and X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.

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.

On 11 July 2019 the WTO circulated two panel report in the cases brought by the United States in “Canada — Additional Duties on Certain Products from the United States” (DS557) and “Mexico — Additional Duties on Certain Products from the United States” (DS560).

Le 29 mai 2000, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “États-Unis - Loi antidumping de 1916”.

Le 17 septembre 1998, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Corée - Taxes sur les boissons alcooliques”.

On 14 September 2001, Chile requested consultations with Argentina in respect of a definitive safeguard measure which Argentina applies on imports of peaches preserved in water containing added sweetening matter, including syrup, preserved in any other form or in water. According to Chile Argentina’s definitive safeguard measure is inconsistent with Articles 2, 4, 5 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994.

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

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 20 July 2018 the WTO circulated the panel report in the case brought by Russia in “Ukraine — Anti-Dumping Measures on Ammonium Nitrate.

On 3 September 2003, Korea requested consultations with the European Communities concerning certain measures by the EC and its member States in favour of their shipbuilding industry which, according to Korea, are inconsistent with their WTO obligations. These measures are as follows: - EC Regulation 1177/2002 (“TDM Regulation”) and EC Regulation 1540/98, as well as the EC member States’ implementing provisions. These measures provide for subsidies in favour of commercial vessels in various forms; - The provision by the EC and the member States of subsidies in support of commercial vessels built in the EC, in form of (a) operational aid granted on a contractual basis in forms such as grants, export credits, guarantees or tax breaks, (b) restructuring aid, (c) regional or other investment aid, (d) research and development aid, (e) environmental protection aid and (f) insolvency and closure aid.

Le 11 mai 2017, l’Organe d’appel de l’OMC a publié son rapport dans l’affaire “États-Unis — Certaines méthodes et leur application aux procédures antidumping visant la Chine” (DS471).

The European Union and Argentina each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina (Panel Report). The Panel was established on 25 April 2014 to consider a complaint by Argentina with respect to two measures of the European Union: (i) the anti-dumping measure imposed by the European Union on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina; and (ii) the second subparagraph of Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (Basic Regulation).

El 11 de julio de 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 22 février 1999, l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur l’affaire “Japon - Mesures visant les produits agricoles”.

El 12 de marzo de 2001, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Tailandia - Derechos antidumping sobre los perfiles de hierro y acero sin alear y vigas doble T procedentes de Polonia”.

On 21 December 2007, the WTO issued the dispute panel reports in the case "United States - Measures affecting the cross-border supply of gambling and betting services".

El 21 de marzo de 2018, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Medidas en materia derechos compensatorios sobre determinados productos procedentes de China”.

El 16 de diciembre de 2016, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Unión Europea - Medidas antidumping sobre las importaciones determinados alcoholes grasos procedentes de Indonesia”.

Le 29 janvier 1996, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “États-Unis - Normes concernant l’essence nouvelle et ancienne formules”.

Le 07 novembre 2000, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “États-Unis - Droit antidumping sur les semi-conducteurs pour mémoires RAM dynamiques (DRAM) de un mégabit ou plus, originaires de Corée - Recours”.

El 18 de noviembre de 2011, la OMC publicó el informe del Grupo Especial que había examinado las reclamaciones del Canadá y México, respectivamente, con respecto al asunto “Estados Unidos — Determinadas prescripciones en materia de etiquetado indicativo del país de origen (EPO)” (DS384 y DS386).

El 13 de julio de 2007, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Japón - Derechos compensatorios sobre memorias dinámicas de acceso aleatorio procedentes de Corea”.

Le 26 septembre 2002, l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur l’affaire “Communautés européennes - Désignation commerciale des sardines”.

El 28 de agosto de 2000, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Ley Antidumping de 1916”.

On 2 October 2006, the European Communities requested consultations with the United States concerning its continued application of the “zeroing” methodology. In particular, the request for consultations concerns (i) the implementing regulation (19 CFR Section 351) of the US Department of Commerce, especially section 351.414(c)(2); and (ii) the Import Administration Antidumping Manual (1997 edition), including the computer program(s) to which it refers. The European Communities claims that, based on these regulations, the US Department of Commerce continued to apply the “zeroing” methodology in the determinations of the margin of dumping in the final results of the anti-dumping administrative reviews concerning various EC goods, and any assessment instructions issued pursuant to those final results.

On 3 July 1998, Japan requested consultations with Canada in respect of measures being taken by Canada in the automotive industry. Japan contended that under Canadian legislation implementing an automotive products agreement (Auto Pact) between the US and Canada, only a limited number of motor vehicle manufacturers are eligible to import vehicles into Canada duty free and to distribute the motor vehicles in Canada at the wholesale and retail distribution levels. Japan further contended that this duty-free treatment is contingent on two requirements: Canadian value-added (CVA) content requirement that applies to both goods and services; and manufacturing and sales requirement. Japan alleges that these measures are inconsistent with Articles I:1, III:4 and XXIV of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement, Article 3 of the SCM Agreement, and Articles II, VI and XVII of GATS.

El 24 de julio de 2001, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Medidas antidumping sobre determinados productos de acero laminado en caliente originarios del Japón”.

L’Organe d’appel a publié, le 4 février 2009, son rapport concernant la plainte des Communautés européennes dans l’affaire “Etats-Unis — Maintien en existence et en application de la méthode de réduction à zéro” (DS350).