Market access

El 07 de marzo de 2003, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Comunidades Europeas - Derechos antidumping sobre los accesorios de tubería de fundición maleable procedentes del Brasil”.

Le 26 juin 2015, l’OMC a publié le rapport du groupe spécial dans le cadre de la procédure engagée par le Japon dans l’affaire “Ukraine — Mesures de sauvegarde définitives visant certains véhicules automobiles pour le transport de personnes” (DS468).

El 10 de agosto de 2018, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Unión europea y sus estados miembros - Determinadas medidas relativas a al sector de la energía”.

El 27 de junio de 2005, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Investigación en materia derechos compensatorios sobre los semiconductores para memorias dinámicas de acceso aleatorio (DRAM) procedentes de Corea”.

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.

El 07 de agosto de 2015, 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 - Recurso”.

L’Organe d’appel a publié, le 30 janvier 2012, ses rapports dans l’affaire Chine — Mesures relatives à l’exportation de diverses matières premières (WT/DS394/AB/R, WT/DS395/AB/R and WT/DS398/AB/R).

Le 19 août 2016, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire engagée par l’Union européenne “Fédération de Russie — Mesures visant l’importation de porcins vivants, de viande de porc et d’autres produits du porc en provenance de l’Union européenne” (WT/DS/475).

On 23 June 2009, the United States requested consultations with China with respect to China's restraints on the export from China of various forms of raw materials. The United States cites 32 measures through which China allegedly imposes restraints on the exports in question and note that there appear to be additional unpublished restrictive measures.

El 23 de agosto de 1999, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “India - Restricciones cuantitativas a las importaciones de productos agrícolas, textiles e industriales”.

L’Organe d’appel a publié, le 16 octobre 2008, ses rapports concernant les rapports des groupes spéciaux dans les affaires “Etats-Unis — Maintien de la suspension d’obligations dans le différend CE — Hormones” (DS320) et “Canada — Maintien de la suspension d’obligations dans le différend CE — Hormones” (DS321), respectivement.

On 8 October 1996, India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand requested consultations with the United States concerning a ban on importation of shrimp and shrimp products from these complainants imposed by the US under Section 609 of US Public Law 101-162. Violations of Articles I, XI and XIII of the GATT 1994, as well nullification and impairment of benefits, were alleged.

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.

El 30 de octubre de 2000, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Communidades Europeas - Derechos antidumping sobre las importaciones de ropa de cama de algodón originarias de la India”.

On 17 January 2001, Canada requested consultations with the US concerning Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (the “URAA”) and the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA. In Canada’s view, in a situation in which the DSB has ruled that the US has, in an anti-dumping or countervailing duty proceeding, acted inconsistently with US obligations under the AD or SCM Agreements, the US law prohibits the US from complying fully with the DSB ruling. Under US law, determinations whether to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties are made after the imports occur. With regard to imports that occurred prior to a date on which the US directs compliance with the DSB ruling, the measures require US authorities to disregard the DSB ruling in making such determinations, even where the determination whether to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties is made after the date fixed by the DSB for compliance. In such circumstances, determinations by the US to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties would be inconsistent with its obligations under the AD or SCM Agreements. Canada considered that these measures are inconsistent with US obligations under Article 21.3 of the DSU, in the context of Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.7 and 21.1 of the DSU; Article VI of the GATT 1994; Articles 10 and note 36, 19.2, 19.4 and note 51, 21.1, 32.1, 32.2, 32.3, and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement; Articles 1, 9.3, 11.1, 18.1-4 and note 12 of the AD Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

El 22 de agosto de 2014 se publicaron los informes del Grupo Especial en la diferencia entre la Argentina, los Estados Unidos, el Japón y la Unión Europea en relación con medidas de importación de la Argentina (DS438, DS444, DS445)”

On 30 July 1999, Korea requested consultations with the US in respect of Preliminary and Final Determinations of the US’s Department of Commerce (DOC) on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Korea dated 4 November 1998 and 31 March 1999 respectively, and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea dated 20 January 1999 and 8 June 1999 respectively. Korea considered that several errors were made by the US in those determinations which resulted in erroneous findings and deficient conclusions as well as the imposition, calculation and collection of anti-dumping margins which are incompatible with the obligation of the US under the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of GATT 1994 and in particular, but not necessarily exclusively, Article 2, Article 6 and Article 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Korea believed that the US did not act in conformity with the cited provisions, among others, in its treatment of the following: certain US sales made to a bankrupt company; the calculation of two distinct exchange rate periods for export sales; and currency conversion for certain normal value sales made in US dollars.

Le 27 juin 2019, l’OMC a distribué le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “États-Unis - Certaines mesures relatives au secteur des énergies renouvelables”, introduite par l’Inde (DS510).

On 25 November 1998, the EC requested consultations with the US in respect of Title III, chapter 1 (sections 301-310) of the US Trade Act of 1974 (the Trade Act), as amended, and in particular sections 306 and 305 of this Act.

On 12 August 1997, the EC requested consultations with Korea in respect of a definitive safeguard measure imposed by Korea on imports of certain dairy products. The EC contended that under the provisions of different governmental measures, Korea has imposed a safeguard measure in the form of an import quota on imports of certain dairy products. The EC considered that this measure is in violation of Articles 2, 4, 5 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguard Measures, as well as a violation of Article XIX of GATT 1994.

Le 2 septembre 2011, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial chargé d’examiner la plainte déposée par l’Indonésie au sujet de l’interdiction imposée par les États-Unis visant les cigarettes aux clous de girofle (DS406)

El 4 de septiembre de 2008, un Grupo Especial de la OMC emitió su informe con respecto a la reclamación de las CE relativa a las medidas compensatorias definitivas impuestas por México sobre el aceite de oliva procedente de las Comunidades Europeas (DS341).

On 3 April 2000, Pakistan requested consultations with the US in respect of a transitional safeguard measure applied by the United States, as of 17 March 1999, on combed cotton yarn (United States category 301) from Pakistan (see US Federal Register of 12 March 1999, document 99-6098). In accordance with Article 6.10 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), the United States had notified the TMB on 5 March 1999 that it had decided to unilaterally impose a restraint, after consultations as to whether the situation called for a restraint had failed to produce a mutually satisfactory solution. In April 1999, the TMB examined the US restraint pursuant to Article 6.10 of the ATC and recommended that the US restraint should be rescinded. On 28 May 1999, in accordance with Article 8.10 of the ATC, the United States notified the TMB that it considered itself unable to conform to the recommendations issued by the TMB. Despite a further recommendation of the TMB pursuant to Article 8.10 of the ATC that the United States reconsider its position, the United States continued to maintain its unilateral restraint and thus the matter remained unresolved. Pakistan claimed as follows: the transitional safeguards applied by the United States are inconsistent with the United States’ obligations under Articles 2.4 of the ATC and not justified by Article 6 of the ATC; the US restraint does not meet the requirements for transitional safeguards set out in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 7 of Article 6 of the ATC.

El 03 de diciembre de 2007, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Brasil - Medidas que afectan a las importaciones de neumáticos recauchutados”.

On 28 March 2019 the WTO’s Appellate Body issued its report on US compliance in the dispute brought by the European Union in “United States — Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft — Second complaint” (DS353).