India

On 15 July 1997 the US requested consultations with India in respect of quantitative restrictions maintained by India on importation of a large number of agricultural textile and industrial products. The US contended that these quantitative restrictions including the more than 2700 agricultural and industrial product tariff lines notified to the WTO are inconsistent with India’s obligations under Articles XI:1 and XVIII:11 of GATT 1994 Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Article 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.

El 18 de abril de 2019 la OMC distribuyó el informe del Grupo Especial encargado de examinar el asunto planteado por los Estados Unidos en la diferencia “China - Contingentes arancelarios aplicables a determinados productos agropecuarios” (DS517).

Le 25 mai 2021 l’OMC a distribué le rapport du Groupe spécial chargé d’examiner l’affaire “Canada — Mesures régissant la vente de vin” (DS537) introduite par l’Australie.

On 28 February 2019 the WTO circulated the panel report in the case brought by the United States in “China — Domestic Support for Agricultural Producers” (DS511)

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.

El 6 de febrero el Órgano de Apelación emitió su informe sobre el asunto “Estados Unidos - Medidas compensatorias sobre el papel supercalandrado procedente del Canadá” (DS505) planteado por el Canadá.

Le 14 novembre 2017 l’OMC a distribué le rapport du Groupe spécial sur l’affaire “États-Unis — Mesures antidumping visant certains produits tubulaires pour champs pétrolifères en provenance de Corée” (DS488) introduite par la Corée.

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.

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 8 février 2022 l’OMC a distribué le rapport du Groupe spécial chargé d’examiner l’affaire “États-Unis — Mesure de sauvegarde visant les importations de gros lave-linge à usage domestique” (DS546) introduite par la République de Corée.