Market access

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 29 mai 2000 l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “États-Unis - Loi antidumping de 1916”.

Le 17 septembre 1998 l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Corée - Taxes sur les boissons alcooliques”.

On 14 September 2001 Chile requested consultations with Argentina in respect of a definitive safeguard measure which Argentina applies on imports of peaches preserved in water containing added sweetening matter including syrup preserved in any other form or in water. According to Chile Argentina’s definitive safeguard measure is inconsistent with Articles 2 4 5 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994.

On 5 October 2000 Argentina requested consultations with Chile concerning: the price band system established by Law 18.525 (as subsequently amended by Law 18.591 and Law 19.546) as well as implementing regulations and complementary and/or amending provisions; and the provisional safeguard measures adopted on 19 November 1999 by Decree No. 339 of the Ministry of Economy and the definitive safeguard measures imposed on 20 January 2000 by Decree No. 9 of the Ministry of Economy on the importation of various products including wheat wheat flour and edible vegetal oils. Argentina considered that these measures raised questions concerning the obligations of Chile under various agreements. According to Argentina the provisions with which the measures relating to the said price band system are inconsistent include but are not limited to the following: Article II of the GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. According to Argentina the provisions with which the safeguard measures are inconsistent include but are not limited to the following: Articles 2 3 4 5 6 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994

On 18 November 1997 the European Communities requested consultations with the United States in respect of Sections 921-927 of the US Internal Revenue Code and related measures establishing special tax treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” (FSC). The European Communities contended that these provisions were inconsistent with the United States' obligations under Articles III:4 and XVI of the GATT 1994 Articles 3.1(a) and (b) of the SCM Agreement and Articles 3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture.

On 20 July 2018 the WTO circulated the panel report in the case brought by Russia in “Ukraine — Anti-Dumping Measures on Ammonium Nitrate.

On 3 September 2003 Korea requested consultations with the European Communities concerning certain measures by the EC and its member States in favour of their shipbuilding industry which according to Korea are inconsistent with their WTO obligations. These measures are as follows: - EC Regulation 1177/2002 (“TDM Regulation”) and EC Regulation 1540/98 as well as the EC member States’ implementing provisions. These measures provide for subsidies in favour of commercial vessels in various forms; - The provision by the EC and the member States of subsidies in support of commercial vessels built in the EC in form of (a) operational aid granted on a contractual basis in forms such as grants export credits guarantees or tax breaks (b) restructuring aid (c) regional or other investment aid (d) research and development aid (e) environmental protection aid and (f) insolvency and closure aid.