About the WTO

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.

On 20 December 2012, Japan requested consultations with China pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the DSU, Article XXII:1 of the GATT 1994, and Articles 17.2 and 17.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to the measures and claims set out below. On 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China pursuant to the same, above-mentioned provisions and with respect to the measures and claims set out below. In both complaints, the consultations concerned China's measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certain HP-SSST from Japan and the European Union respectively, as set forth in MOFCOM's Preliminary Determination notice, and MOFCOM's Final Determination notice, including any and all annexes and any amendments thereof.

Le 06 juin 2005, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Mexique - Mesures antidumping définitives visant la viande de bœuf et le riz”.

On 21 August 2012, Japan requested consultations with Argentina concerning certain measures imposed by Argentina on the importation of goods. Japan challenges: (i) the requirement to present for approval of a non-automatic import licence: Declaración Jurada Anticipada de Importación (DJAI); (ii) non-automatic licences required in the form of Certificados de Importación (CIs) for the importation of certain goods; (iii) requirements imposed on importers to undertake certain trade-restrictive commitments; and (iv) the alleged systematic delay in granting import approval or refusal to grant such approval, or the grant of import approval subject to importers undertaking to comply with certain allegedly trade-restrictive commitments.

On 10 February 1999, Japan requested consultations with the United States in respect of the US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, 15 U.S.C. 72 (1994), (“US 1916 Act”). Japan alleged that the US 1916 Act stipulates that the importation or sale of imported goods within the US market in certain circumstances is unlawful, constituting a criminal offence and inviting civil liability. Japan further alleged that judicial decisions under the US 1916 Act are made without the procedural safeguards provided for in the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Japan stated that a court action had been brought under the US 1916 Act against affiliates of Japanese companies. Japan contended that the US 1916 Act is inconsistent with Articles III, VI and XI of the GATT 1994, and the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

Le 7 juillet 2014, l’Organe d’appel de l’OMC a publié son rapport sur le différend “États-Unis — Mesures compensatoires et mesures antidumping visant certains produits en provenance de Chine” (DS449).