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”.