Dispute settlement

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).

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.

L’OMC a publié le 09 avril 1999 le rapport d’arbitrage concernant l’affaire “Communautés Européennes - Régime applicable à l’importation à la vente et à la distribution des bananes”.

L’OMC a publié le 16 juin 2006 le rapport du groupe spécial qui avait examiné une plainte déposée par les États-Unis dans l’affaire “Communautés européennes — Certains questions douanières” (DS 315).

El 16 de octubre de 2008 el Órgano de Apelación distribuyó sus informes en los asuntos examinados en los informes del Grupo Especial que se ocupó de “Estados Unidos — Mantenimiento de la suspensión de obligaciones en la diferencia CE — Hormonas” (DS320) y “Canadá — Mantenimiento de la suspensión de obligaciones en la diferencia CE — Hormonas” (DS321) respectivamente.

Le 21 mars un groupe spécial de l’OMC a publié son rapport sur la mise en conformité dans le différend “États-Unis — Mesures compensatoires visant certains produits en provenance de Chine — Recours de la Chine à l’article 21:5 du Mémorandum d’accord sur le règlement des différends” (DS437)

On 21 March 2003 Antigua and Barbuda requested consultations with the US regarding measures applied by central regional and local authorities in the US which affect the cross-border supply of gambling and betting services. Antigua and Barbuda considered that the cumulative impact of the US measures is to prevent the supply of gambling and betting services from another WTO Member to the United States on a cross-border basis. According to Antigua and Barbuda the measures at issue may be inconsistent with the US obligations under the GATS and in particular Articles II VI VIII XI XVI and XVII thereof and the US Schedule of Specific Commitments annexed to the GATS.

Le 18 août 2017 un groupe spécial de l’OMC a publié un rapport dans les affaires introduites par le Viet Nam et le Taipei chinois “Indonésie — Mesure de sauvegarde concernant certains produits en fer ou en acier” (DS490 and 496).

On 12 July 1999 the WTO issued the dispute panel reports in the case "European Communities - Measures concerning meat and meat products (hormones) - Original complaint by the United States".

Le 26 mars 2014 l’OMC a publié les rapports de groupes spéciaux dans le différend Chine — Mesures relatives à l’exportation de terres rares de tungsten et de molybdène (WT/DS431/R WT/DS432/R et WT/DS433/R).

El 15 de octubre de 2004 la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Comunidades Europeas - Subvenciones a la exportación de azúcar”.

On 17 March 2006 Norway requested consultations with the European Communities concerning Council Regulation (EC) No. 85/2006 of 17 January 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway.

El 25 de abril de 2017 la OMC hizo público el informe arbitral sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Medidas relativas a la importación comercialización y venta de atún y productos de atún”.

El 06 de enero de 1997 la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Medidas que afectan a las importaciones de camisas y blusas de tejidos de lana procedentes de la India”.

On 31 July 2009 China requested consultations with the European Communities concerning Article 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 384/96 (the EC's Basic Anti‑Dumping Regulation) which provides that in case of imports from non-market economy countries the duty shall be specified for the supplying country concerned and not for each supplier and that an individual duty will only be specified for exporters that demonstrate that they fulfil the criteria listed in that provision.

On 22 February 2018 the WTO circulated the panel report in the case brought by Japan in “Korea - Import Bans and Testing and Certification Requirements for Radionuclides".

On 13 September 2002 Canada requested consultations under Article 4.8 of the DSU (urgency procedure) with the United States concerning the final affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value (dumping) with respect to certain softwood lumber products from Canada (Inv. No. A-122-838) announced by the US Department of Commerce (USDOC) on 21 March 2002 pursuant to Section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended on 22 May 2002 (Final Determination). The measures at issue include the initiation of the investigation the conduct of the investigation and the Final Determination. Canada considered these measures and in particular the determinations made and methodologies adopted therein by the DOC under authority of the United States Tariff Act of 1930 to violate Articles 1 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.6 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.4 6.9 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles VI and X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.

El 16 de julio de 2008 el Órgano de Apelación hizo público su informe relativo a los informes de los Grupos Especiales encargados de los asuntos “Estados Unidos — Medidas relativas a los camarones procedentes de Tailandia” (DS343) y “Estados Unidos — Directiva sobre fianzas aduaneras para determinadas mercancías sujetas a derechos antidumping y compensatorios” (DS345). Estos Grupos Especiales examinaron reclamaciones presentadas por Tailandia y la India respectivamente.