Brazil

On 27 September 2002 Brazil requested consultations with the United States regarding prohibited and actionable subsidies provided to US producers users and/or exporters of upland cotton as well as legislation regulations statutory instruments and amendments thereto providing such subsidies (including export credits) grants and any other assistance to the US producers users and exporters of upland cotton (“US upland cotton industry”). Brazil contended that these measures were inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the following provisions: Articles 5(c) 6.3(b) (c) and (d) 3.1(a) (including item (j) of the Illustrative List of Export Subsidies in Annex I) 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement; Articles 3.3 7.1 8 9.1 and 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Article III:4 of GATT 1994. Brazil was of the view that the US statutes regulations and administrative procedures listed above were inconsistent with these provisions as such and as applied. On 9 October and 11 October 2002 Zimbabwe and India respectively requested to join the consultations. On 14 October 2002 Argentina and Canada requested to join the consultations. The United States informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Argentina and India to join the consultations.

Le 31 octobre 2019 l’OMC a distribué le rapport du Groupe spécial chargé d’examiner l’affaire introduite par les États-Unis “Inde — Mesures liées aux exportations” (DS541).

El 09 de mayo de 2000 la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Canadá - Medidas que afectan a la exportación de aeronaves civiles - Recurso”.

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”.

Le 22 avril 2003 l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Argentine - Droits antidumping définitifs visant la viande de volaille en provenance du Brésil”.

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).

El 17 de febrero de 2003 la OMC hizo público el informe arbitral sobre el caso “Canadá - Créditos a la exportación y garantías de préstamos para las aeronaves regionales”.

El 14 de abril de 1999 la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Canadá - Medidas que afectan a la exportación de aeronaves civiles”.

On 27 September 2002 Brazil requested consultations with the United States regarding prohibited and actionable subsidies provided to US producers users and/or exporters of upland cotton as well as legislation regulations statutory instruments and amendments thereto providing such subsidies (including export credits) grants and any other assistance to the US producers users and exporters of upland cotton (“US upland cotton industry”). Brazil contended that these measures were inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the following provisions: Articles 5(c) 6.3(b) (c) and (d) 3.1(a) (including item (j) of the Illustrative List of Export Subsidies in Annex I) 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement; Articles 3.3 7.1 8 9.1 and 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Article III:4 of GATT 1994. Brazil was of the view that the US statutes regulations and administrative procedures listed above were inconsistent with these provisions as such and as applied. On 9 October and 11 October 2002 Zimbabwe and India respectively requested to join the consultations. On 14 October 2002 Argentina and Canada requested to join the consultations. The United States informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Argentina and India to join the consultations.

On 21 December 2000 Brazil requested consultations with the EC as regards definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No. 1784/2000 concerning imports of malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings originating inter alia in Brazil. Brazil considered that the EC’s establishment of the facts was not proper and that its evaluation of these facts was not unbiased and objective both at the provisional and definitive stage particularly in relation to the initiation and conduct of the investigation (including the evaluation findings and determination of dumping injury and causal link between them). Brazil also challenged the evaluation and findings made in relation to the “community interest”. In sum Brazil considered that the EC had infringed Article VI of GATT 1994 and Articles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11 12 and 15 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.