Dispute settlement

El 17 de junio de 2011 el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Tailandia - Medidas aduaneras y fiscales sobre los cigarrillos procedentes de Filipinas”.

Le 22 octobre 2001 l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur l’affaire “Mexique - Enquête antidumping concernant le sirop de maïs à haute teneur en fructose en provenance des États-Unis - Recours”.

El 2 de diciembre de 2019 la OMC distribuyó el informe del Grupo Especial sobre el cumplimiento en la diferencia “Comunidades Europeas y determinados Estados miembros - Medidas que afectan al comercio de grandes aeronaves civiles - Recurso de la UE al párrafo 5 del artículo 21 del ESD” (DS316) planteada por la Unión Europea.

Le 7 décembre 2015 un arbitre de l’OMC a rendu ses décisions sur le niveau de rétorsion que le Mexique et le Canada peuvent demander dans le différend qui les oppose aux États-Unis au sujet de certaines prescriptions en matière d’“étiquetage indiquant le pays d’origine” (EPO) (DS384 et DS386).

L’OMC a publié le 31 mars 2008 les rapports des groupes spéciaux sur les plaintes déposées par les Communautés européennes dans les affaires “États-Unis — Maintien de la suspension d’obligations dans le différend CE — Hormones”(DS320) et “Canada — Maintien de la suspension d’obligations dans le différend CE — Hormones” (DS321) respectivement.

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 05 de septiembre de 2011 el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Medidas que afectan a las importaciones determinados neumáticos (llantas neumáticas) para vehículos de pasajeros y camionetas procedentes de China”.

On 24 November 2009 Korea requested consultations with the United States regarding their use of zeroing in three anti–dumping cases involving certain products from Korea namely stainless steel plate in coils stainless steel sheet and strip in coils and diamond sawblades and parts thereof. Korea claimed that the effect of the use of zeroing by the US Department of Commerce (USDOC) in these three cases has been either to artificially create margins of dumping where none would otherwise have been found or to inflate margins of dumping. In its consultation request Korea alleged that the USDOC's use of zeroing in its final determinations amended final determinations and anti-dumping duty orders in the three cases in question was inconsistent with the United States' obligations under Article VI of GATT 1994 and Articles 1 2.1 2.4 2.4.2 and 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. On 3 December 2009 Japan requested to join the consultations.

El 29 de febrero de 2008 la OMC publicó los informes de los Grupos Especiales sobre las reclamaciones de Tailandia y la India respectivamente referentes a 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).

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”.