About the WTO

Le 24 février 2016, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial sur le différend “Inde — Certaines mesures relatives aux cellules solaires et aux modules solaires” (WT/DS456), qui avait été soumis par les États-Unis.

Le 17 octobre 1996, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Bresil - Mesures visant la noix de coco dessechee”.

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.

On 10 November 2000, the EC requested consultations with the US concerning the continued application by the United States of countervailing duties on a number of products. In particular, the EC claimed that the application of the “same person” methodology by the US, and the continued imposition of duties based on it, are in breach of Articles 10, 19 and 21 of the SCM Agreement, because there is no proper determination of a benefit to the producer of the goods under investigation, as required by Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement. The EC included in this request for consultations 14 US countervailing duty orders1 where this “same person” methodology was applied. All these cases involve alleged non-recurring subsidies granted to firms prior to a change of ownership;

Le 10 novembre 2020, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial de la mise en conformité dans l’affaire “Indonésie — Mesures concernant l’importation de viande de poulet et de produits à base de poulet” introduite par le Brésil (DS484).

El 13 de julio de 1998, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Comunidades Europeas - Medidas que afectan a la importación determinados productos avícolas”.

On 17 March 1999, the EC requested consultations with the US in respect of definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of wheat gluten from the European Communities. The EC contended that by a Proclamation of 30 May 1998, and a Memorandum of the same date, by the US President, under which the US imposed definitive safeguard measures in the form of a quantitative limitation on imports of wheat gluten from the EC, effective as of 1 June 1998. The EC considered these measures to be in violation of Articles 2, 4, 5 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards; Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Articles I and XIX of GATT 1994.

Le 06 avril 1999, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Inde - Restrictions quantitatives à l’importation de produits agricoles, textiles et industriels”.

On 11 October 2002, Brazil requested consultations with the European Communities concerning EC Commission Regulation No. 1223/2002 (“Regulation No. 1223/2002”), of 8 July 2002, which provides a new description of frozen boneless chicken cuts under the EC Combined Nomenclature (“CN”) code 0207.14.10. According to Brazil, this new description includes a salt content to the product that did not exist before and subjects the imports of these products to a higher tariff than that applicable to salted meat (CN code 0210) in the EC’s Schedules under the GATT 1994.

Le 31 mars 1998, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Japon - Mesures affectant les pellicules et papiers photographiques destinés aux consommateurs”.

On 11 January 2002, India requested consultations with the United States in respect of its rules of origin applicable to imports of textiles and apparel products as set out in Section 334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Section 405 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 and the customs regulations implementing these provisions. India argued that, prior to the abovementioned Section 334, the rule of origin applicable to textiles and apparel products was the “substantial transformation” rule. India considered that Section 334 changed the system by identifying specific processing operations which would confer origin to the various types of textiles and apparel products. In India’s view, these changes appear to have been made to protect the United States textiles and clothing industry from import competition. India indicated that the changes introduced by Section 334 had already been challenged by the European Communities on the grounds that they were incompatible with the United States’ obligations under the Agreement on Rules of Origin and other WTO Agreements (WT/DS151). India explained that that dispute was settled through a procès-verbal whereby the United States agreed to introduce legislation amending Section 334. According to India, the changes introduced by the amending legislation, i.e. Section 405, were aimed at taking account of the particular export interests of the European Communities. India is of the view that the changes introduced by Sections 334 and 405 have resulted in extraordinary complex rules under which the criteria that confer origin vary between similar products and processing operations. India argued that the structure of the changes, the circumstances under which they were adopted and their effect on the conditions of competition for textiles and apparel products suggest that they serve trade policy purposes. On those grounds, India questioned the compatibility of those changes with paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin.

On 11 July 2019 the WTO circulated two panel report in the cases brought by the United States in “Canada — Additional Duties on Certain Products from the United States” (DS557) and “Mexico — Additional Duties on Certain Products from the United States” (DS560).

Le 27 octobre 1998, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Japon - Mesures visant les produits agricoles”.

Le 25 avril 2017, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial chargé de l’affaire “Chine — Mesures antidumping visant les importations de pâte de cellulose en provenance du Canada” suite à la plainte déposée par le Canada (DS483).

Le 17 mars 2000, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Canada - Protection conférée par un brevet pour les produits pharmaceutiques”.

Le 14 mars 1997, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Canada - Certaines mesures concernant les periodiques”.

On 14 September 2001, Chile requested consultations with Argentina in respect of a definitive safeguard measure which Argentina applies on imports of peaches preserved in water containing added sweetening matter, including syrup, preserved in any other form or in water. According to Chile Argentina’s definitive safeguard measure is inconsistent with Articles 2, 4, 5 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994.

On 5 October 2000, Argentina requested consultations with Chile concerning: the price band system established by Law 18.525 (as subsequently amended by Law 18.591 and Law 19.546), as well as implementing regulations and complementary and/or amending provisions; and the provisional safeguard measures adopted on 19 November 1999 by Decree No. 339 of the Ministry of Economy and the definitive safeguard measures imposed on 20 January 2000 by Decree No. 9 of the Ministry of Economy on the importation of various products, including wheat, wheat flour and edible vegetal oils. Argentina considered that these measures raised questions concerning the obligations of Chile under various agreements. According to Argentina, the provisions with which the measures relating to the said price band system are inconsistent, include, but are not limited to, the following: Article II of the GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. According to Argentina, the provisions with which the safeguard measures are inconsistent, include, but are not limited to, the following: Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement, and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994

On 18 November 1997, the European Communities requested consultations with the United States in respect of Sections 921-927 of the US Internal Revenue Code and related measures, establishing special tax treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” (FSC). The European Communities contended that these provisions were inconsistent with the United States' obligations under Articles III:4 and XVI of the GATT 1994, Articles 3.1(a) and (b) of the SCM Agreement, and Articles 3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture.

On 6 November 2018 the WTO circulated the panel report in the case brought by Japan in “India - Certain Measures on Imports of Iron and Steel Products” (DS518).

El 16 de mayo de 2012, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Medidas relativas a la importación, comercialización y venta de atún y productos de atún”.

El 28 de septiembre de 2007, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Corea - Derechos antidumping sobre las importaciones determinado papel procedentes de Indonesia - Recurso”.

L’OMC a publié, le 17 février 2003, le rapport d’arbitrage concernant l’affaire “Canada - Crédits à l’exportation et garanties de prêts accordés pour les aéronefs régionaux”.

The European Union and Argentina each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina (Panel Report). The Panel was established on 25 April 2014 to consider a complaint by Argentina with respect to two measures of the European Union: (i) the anti-dumping measure imposed by the European Union on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina; and (ii) the second subparagraph of Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (Basic Regulation).

Le 29 novembre 2004, l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur 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 18 November 1999, Japan requested consultations with the United States in respect of the preliminary and final determinations of the US Department of Commerce and the US International Trade Commission on the anti-dumping investigation of Certain Hot Rolled Steel Products from Japan issued on 25 and 30 November 1998, 12 February 1999, 28 April 1999 and 23 June 1999. Japan considered that these determinations are erroneous and based on deficient procedures under the US Tariff Act of 1930 and related regulations. The Japanese complaint also concerned certain provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930 and related regulations. Japan claimed violations of Articles VI and X of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2, 3, 6 (including Annex II), 9 and 10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

Le 22 février 1999, l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur l’affaire “Japon - Mesures visant les produits agricoles”.

El 12 de marzo de 2001, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Tailandia - Derechos antidumping sobre los perfiles de hierro y acero sin alear y vigas doble T procedentes de Polonia”.

Le 13 décembre 2018, l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport dans les affaires introduites par l’Union européenne et le Japon “Brésil — Certaines mesures concernant la taxation et les impositions” (DS472 et DS497).

On 21 December 2007, the WTO issued the dispute panel reports in the case "United States - Measures affecting the cross-border supply of gambling and betting services".

El 21 de marzo de 2018, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Medidas en materia derechos compensatorios sobre determinados productos procedentes de China”.

El 16 de diciembre de 2016, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Unión Europea - Medidas antidumping sobre las importaciones determinados alcoholes grasos procedentes de Indonesia”.

Le 29 janvier 1996, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “États-Unis - Normes concernant l’essence nouvelle et ancienne formules”.

Le 07 novembre 2000, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “États-Unis - Droit antidumping sur les semi-conducteurs pour mémoires RAM dynamiques (DRAM) de un mégabit ou plus, originaires de Corée - Recours”.

On 19 May 2000, Canada requested consultations with the US regarding certain US measures that treat a restraint on exports of a product as a subsidy to other products made using or incorporating the restricted product if the domestic price of the restricted product is affected by the restraint. The measures at issue included provisions of the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) (H.R. 5110, H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., 656, in particular at 925-926 (1994)) and the Explanation of the Final Rules, US Department of Commerce, Countervailing Duties, Final Rule (63 Federal Register 65,348 at 65,349-51 (Nov. 25, 1998)) interpreting section 771(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 USC. § 1677(5)), as amended by the URAA. Canada’s claims were as follows: Canada considered that these measures were inconsistent with US obligations under Articles 1.1, 10, (as well as Articles 11, 17 and 19, as they relate to the requirements of Article 10), and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement because these measures provide that the US will impose countervailing duties against practices that are not subsidies within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement. Canada also considered that the US has failed to ensure that its laws, regulations and administrative procedures are in conformity with its WTO obligations as required by Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

Le 07 mars 2003, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Communautés européennes - Droits antidumping sur les accessoires de tuyauterie en fonte malléable en provenance du Brésil”.

El 29 de enero de 1999, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Imposición derechos antidumping a semiconductores para memorias dinámicas de acceso aleatorio (DRAM) de un megabit como mínimo procedentes de Corea”.

On 30 August 2002, the WTO issued the dispute panel reports in the case "United States - Tax treatment for "foreign sales corporations"".

El 21 de julio de 2000, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Brasil - Programa de financiación de las exportaciones para aeronaves - Recurso”.

On 21 December 2000 and 21 May 2001 respectively, the complainants requested consultations with the US concerning the amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930 signed on 28 October 2000 with the title of “Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000” (the “Act”) usually referred to as “the Byrd Amendment”. According to the complainants the Act is inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under several provisions of the GATT, the AD Agreement, the SCM Agreement, and the WTO Agreement. In particular, the Act is alleged to be inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under: (i) Article 18.1 of the ADA in conjunction with Article VI:2 of the GATT and Article 1 of the ADA; (ii) Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement, in conjunction with Article VI:3 of the GATT and Articles 4.10, 7.9 and 10 of the SCM Agreement; (iii) Article X(3)(a) of the GATT; (iv) Article 5.4 of the ADA and Article 11.4 of the SCM Agreement; (v) Article 8 of the ADA and Article 18 of the SCM Agreement; (vi) Article 5 of the SCM Agreement; and (vii) Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO, Article 18.4 of the ADA and Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement.

El 29 de noviembre de 2010, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Australia - Medidas que afectan a la importación de manzanas procedentes de Nueva Zelandia”.

El 24 de julio de 2001, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Medidas antidumping sobre determinados productos de acero laminado en caliente originarios del Japón”.

El 24 de octubre de 2000, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Guatemala - Medida antidumping definitiva aplicada al cemento Portland gris procedente de México”.

El 20 de diciembre de 2007, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Medidas antidumping definitivas sobre el acero inoxidable procedente de México”.

On 20 December 2002, Canada requested consultations with the United States regarding the investigation of the USITC in Softwood Lumber from Canada (Invs. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928 (Final)) and the final definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties applied as a result of the USITC’s final determination made on 2 May 2002, notice of which was published in the United States Federal Register on 22 May 2002 (Volume 67, Number 99 at pp. 36022-36023) that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of softwood lumber from Canada that the Department of Commerce has determined are subsidized and sold in the United States at less than fair value. Canada claimed that, through these measures, the United States has violated its obligations under Article VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994, Articles 1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 12 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles 10, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4, 15.5, 15.7, 15.8, 22 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.

El 13 de octubre de 1999, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Canadá - Medidas que afectan a la importación de leche y a las exportaciones de productos lácteos”.

On 28 June 2018 the WTO circulated the panel report in the cases brought by Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Cuba and Indonesia in “Australia — Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging.

Le 12 juin 1998, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Australie - Mesures visant les importations de saumons”.

Le 11 juillet 2019, l’OMC a distribué deux rapports de groupes spéciaux concernant les affaires “Canada — Droits additionnels visant certains produits en provenance des États-Unis” (DS557) et “Mexique — Droits additionnels visant certains produits en provenance des États-Unis” (DS560) introduites par les États-Unis.

On 8 November 2004, the European Communities filed a request for consultations with the United States asserting that the United States should have removed its retaliatory measures since the EC has removed the measures found to be WTO-inconsistent in the EC — Hormones case.