Market access

El 24 de febrero de 2004 la OMC hizo público el informe arbitral sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Ley Antidumping de 1916”.

On 19 June 1996, Canada requested consultations with Brazil under Article 4 of the SCM Agreement, which provides for special procedures for export subsidies. Canada claimed that export subsidies granted under the Brazilian Programa de Financiamento às Exportações (PROEX) to foreign purchasers of Brazil’s Embraer aircraft are inconsistent with Articles 3, 27.4 and 27.5 of the SCM Agreement.

L’OMC a publié, le 3 décembre 2010, le rapport du Groupe spécial qui avait examiné une plainte de la Chine dans l’affaire “Communautés européennes — Mesures antidumping définitives visant certains éléments de fixation en fer ou en acier en provenance de Chine” (DS397).

El 31 de enero de 2012, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo Especial que examinó las reclamaciones de Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala y Honduras en el asunto “República Dominicana — Medidas de salvaguardia sobre las importaciones de sacos de polipropileno y tejido tubular” (DS415, DS416, DS417 y DS418).

Le 08 avril 2003, l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur l’affaire “Communautés européennes - Droits antidumping sur les importations de linge de lit en coton en provenance de l’Inde - Recours”.

Le 28 mars 2017, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans le cadre de la procédure engagée par la Chine au sujet de l’affaire “Union européenne — Mesures affectant les concessions tarifaires concernant certains produits à base de viande de volaille”.

El 26 de febrero de 2013, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “China - Derechos antidumping definitivos sobre los aparatos de rayos X para inspecciones de seguridad procedentes de la Unión Europea”.

El 15 de septiembre de 2011, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Medidas relativas a la importación, comercialización y venta de atún y productos de atún”.

On 12 April 2012, India requested consultations with the United States with regard to the imposition of countervailing duties by the United States on certain hot rolled carbon steel flat products from India (“subject goods”).

On 24 October 2008, Mexico requested consultations with the United States with respect to the following measures: (i) the United States Code, Title 16, Section 1385 (“Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act”), (ii) the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Section 216.91 (“Dolphin‑safe labeling standards”) and Section 216.92 (“Dolphin‑safe requirements for tuna harvested in the ETP [Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean] by large purse seine vessels”) and (iii) the ruling in Earth Island Institute v. Hogarth, 494 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2007).

El 20 de octubre de 2014 la OMC emitió los informes del Grupo Especial sobre el cumplimiento en las diferencias “Estados Unidos — Determinadas prescripciones en materia de etiquetado indicativo del país de origen (EPO) — Recurso del Canadá y México al párrafo 5 del artículo 21 del ESD” (DS384 y DS386).

On 27 September 2002 Brazil requested consultations with the United States regarding prohibited and actionable subsidies provided to US producers, users and/or exporters of upland cotton, as well as legislation, regulations, statutory instruments and amendments thereto providing such subsidies (including export credits), grants, and any other assistance to the US producers, users and exporters of upland cotton (“US upland cotton industry”). Brazil contended that these measures were inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the following provisions: Articles 5(c), 6.3(b), (c) and (d), 3.1(a) (including item (j) of the Illustrative List of Export Subsidies in Annex I), 3.1(b), and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement; Articles 3.3, 7.1, 8, 9.1 and 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Article III:4 of GATT 1994. Brazil was of the view that the US statutes, regulations, and administrative procedures listed above were inconsistent with these provisions as such and as applied. On 9 October and 11 October 2002, Zimbabwe and India, respectively, requested to join the consultations. On 14 October 2002, Argentina and Canada requested to join the consultations. The United States informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Argentina and India to join the consultations.

El 29 de enero de 1996, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Pautas para la gasolina reformulada y convencional”.

El 14 de diciembre de 1999, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Argentina - Medidas de salvaguardia impuestas a las importaciones de calzado”.

On 31 July 2009, China requested consultations with the European Communities concerning Article 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 384/96 (the EC's Basic Anti‑Dumping Regulation) which provides that in case of imports from non-market economy countries, the duty shall be specified for the supplying country concerned and not for each supplier and that an individual duty will only be specified for exporters that demonstrate that they fulfil the criteria listed in that provision.

El 30 de septiembre de 2015, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Argentina - Medidas relativas al comercio de mercancías y servicios”.

On 16 March 2004, the United States requested consultations with Mexico concerning certain tax measures imposed by Mexico on soft drinks and other beverages that use any sweetener other than cane sugar.

El 16 de noviembre de 2007, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Comunidades Europeas - Medida antidumping sobre el salmón de piscifactoría procedente de Noruega”.

El 30 de octubre de 2008, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “India - Derechos adicionales y derechos adicionales suplementarios sobre las importaciones procedentes de los Estados Unidos”.

On 9 November 2017 the WTO, Appellate Body issued its report in the cases brought by New Zealand and the United States in “Indonesia - Importation of Horticultural Products, Animals and Animal Products”.

Le 16 juillet 2004, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “États-Unis - Réexamens à l’extinction des mesures antidumping visant les produits tubulaires destinés à des pays pétroliers en provenance d’Argentine”.

On 26 November 2008, Thailand requested consultations with the United States with respect to the application by the United States of the practice known as “zeroing” of negative dumping margins in the United States' determination of the margins of dumping in its anti-dumping investigation of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand. Specifically, Thailand requests consultations concerning the USDOC's use in the Final Determination and Amended Final Determination of the practice of “zeroing” negative anti-dumping margins in calculating overall weighted-average margins of dumping in this investigation. Thailand alleges that the effect of this practice was to create artificially margins of dumping where none would otherwise have been found or, at a minimum, to inflate margins of dumping. Thailand considers the USDOC's use of this practice of “zeroing” in the Final Determination, the Amended Final Determination, and the Order to be inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under Article VI of the GATT 1994, and, in particular, under Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

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.

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.

On 12 July 2019 the WTO circulated the panel report in the compliance case initiated by the Philippines in “Thailand — Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines — Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the Philippines” (DS371).