About the WTO

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”.

La OMC ha emitido hoy (31 de agosto de 2009) dos informes relativos a los procedimientos de arbitraje con respecto a la diferencia entre los Estados Unidos y el Brasil sobre el algodón (DS267).

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 24 de agosto de 1998, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “India - Protección mediante patente de los productos farmacéuticos y los productos químicos para la agricultura”.

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 8 May 1998, the US requested consultations with Mexico in respect of an anti-dumping investigation of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) grades 42 and 55 from the US, conducted by Mexico. The US alleged that on 27 February 1997, the Government of Mexico published a notice initiating this anti-dumping investigation on the basis of an application dated 14 January 1997 from the Mexican National Chamber of Sugar and Alcohol Producers. The US further alleged that on 23 January 1998, Mexico issued a notice of final determination of dumping and injury in that investigation, and consequently imposed definitive anti-dumping measures on these imports from the United States. The US contended that the manner in which the application for an anti-dumping investigation was made, as well as the manner in which a determination of threat of injury was made, is inconsistent with Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

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.