A propos de l’OMC

The complaint concerned a French Government Order laying down the official name and trade description of scallops. Complainants claimed that this Order will reduce competitiveness on the French market as their product will no longer be able to be sold as “Coquille Saint-Jacques” although there is no difference between their scallops and French scallops in terms of colour, size, texture, appearance and use, i.e. it is claimed they are “like products”. Violations of GATT Articles I and III and TBT Article 2 were alleged.

Le 11 mars 2016, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire introduite par la Corée “États-Unis - Mesures antidumping et mesures compensatoires visant les gros lave-linge à usage domestique en provenance de Corée” (DS464).

Le 11 juillet 2019, l’OMC a distribué deux rapports du Groupe spécial chargé des affaires “États-Unis — Certaines mesures visant les produits en acier et en aluminium” (DS550) et “États-Unis — Certaines mesures visant les produits en acier et en aliminium” (DS551) introduites par le Canada et le Mexique, respectivement.

On 6 March 2007, the United States requested consultations with India with respect to “additional duties” or “extra additional duties” that India applies to imports from the United States, which include (but are not limited to) wines and distilled products (HS2204, 2205, 2206 and 2208.

On 7 November 2001, Brazil requested consultations with Argentina in respect of the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Argentina on imports of poultry from Brazil, classified under Mercosur tariff line 0207.11.00 and 0207.12.00. These measures were adopted by the Ministry of Economy of Argentina in Resolution 574 from 21 July 2000, published in the Argentinean Official Gazette on 24 July 2000. Brazil considered that the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed, as well as the investigation conducted by the Argentinean Authorities might have been flawed and based on erroneous or deficient procedures, inconsistent with Argentina’s obligations under Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Article VI of the GATT 1994, and Articles 1 and 7 of the Customs Valuation Agreement.

Le 18 mai 2015, l’Organe d’appel de l’OMC a publié son “rapport sur la mise en conformité” dans l’affaire États-Unis — Certaines prescriptions en matière d’étiquetage indiquant le pays d’origine (EPO) (WT/DS384/386). Dans ce différend, les plaignants étaient le Canada et le Mexique.

On 2 November 2005, the United States requested consultations with Turkey concerning the latter’s import restrictions on rice from the United States. According to the request, Turkey requires an import license to import rice but fails to grant such licenses to import rice at Turkey’s bound rate of duty. According to the request, Turkey also operates a tariff-rate quota for rice imports requiring that, in order to import specified quantities of rice at reduced tariff levels, importers must purchase specified quantities of domestic rice, including from the Turkish Grain Board (TMO), Turkish producers, or producer associations (“the domestic purchase requirement”). The request lists more than ten measures through which Turkey has allegedly maintained the foregoing restrictions on rice imports, including Decree No. 96/7794 related to the General Assessment of the Regime Regarding Technical Regulations and Standardization for Foreign Trade (Official Gazette, No. 22541, 1 February 1996, Repeated).

On 30 July 2018 the WTO circulated the panel report in the case brought by Ukraine in “Russia - Measures affecting the importation of railway equipment and parts thereof.

On 7 April 1997, the US requested consultations with Japan in respect of the latter’s prohibition, under quarantine measures, of imports of certain agricultural products. The US alleged that Japan prohibits the importation of each variety of a product requiring quarantine treatment until the quarantine treatment has been tested for that variety, even if the treatment has proved to be effective for other varieties of the same product. The US alleged violations of Articles 2, 5 and 8 of the SPS Agreement, Article XI of GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. In addition, the US made a claim for nullification and impairment of benefits.

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.