Market access

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.

El 30 de octubre de 2000 la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Communidades Europeas - Derechos antidumping sobre las importaciones de ropa de cama de algodón originarias de la India”.

On 17 January 2001 Canada requested consultations with the US concerning Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (the “URAA”) and the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA. In Canada’s view in a situation in which the DSB has ruled that the US has in an anti-dumping or countervailing duty proceeding acted inconsistently with US obligations under the AD or SCM Agreements the US law prohibits the US from complying fully with the DSB ruling. Under US law determinations whether to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties are made after the imports occur. With regard to imports that occurred prior to a date on which the US directs compliance with the DSB ruling the measures require US authorities to disregard the DSB ruling in making such determinations even where the determination whether to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties is made after the date fixed by the DSB for compliance. In such circumstances determinations by the US to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties would be inconsistent with its obligations under the AD or SCM Agreements. Canada considered that these measures are inconsistent with US obligations under Article 21.3 of the DSU in the context of Articles 3.1 3.2 3.7 and 21.1 of the DSU; Article VI of the GATT 1994; Articles 10 and note 36 19.2 19.4 and note 51 21.1 32.1 32.2 32.3 and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement; Articles 1 9.3 11.1 18.1-4 and note 12 of the AD Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

El 22 de agosto de 2014 se publicaron los informes del Grupo Especial en la diferencia entre la Argentina los Estados Unidos el Japón y la Unión Europea en relación con medidas de importación de la Argentina (DS438 DS444 DS445)”

On 30 July 1999 Korea requested consultations with the US in respect of Preliminary and Final Determinations of the US’s Department of Commerce (DOC) on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Korea dated 4 November 1998 and 31 March 1999 respectively and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea dated 20 January 1999 and 8 June 1999 respectively. Korea considered that several errors were made by the US in those determinations which resulted in erroneous findings and deficient conclusions as well as the imposition calculation and collection of anti-dumping margins which are incompatible with the obligation of the US under the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of GATT 1994 and in particular but not necessarily exclusively Article 2 Article 6 and Article 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Korea believed that the US did not act in conformity with the cited provisions among others in its treatment of the following: certain US sales made to a bankrupt company; the calculation of two distinct exchange rate periods for export sales; and currency conversion for certain normal value sales made in US dollars.

Le 27 juin 2019 l’OMC a distribué le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “États-Unis - Certaines mesures relatives au secteur des énergies renouvelables” introduite par l’Inde (DS510).

On 25 November 1998 the EC requested consultations with the US in respect of Title III chapter 1 (sections 301-310) of the US Trade Act of 1974 (the Trade Act) as amended and in particular sections 306 and 305 of this Act.

On 12 August 1997 the EC requested consultations with Korea in respect of a definitive safeguard measure imposed by Korea on imports of certain dairy products. The EC contended that under the provisions of different governmental measures Korea has imposed a safeguard measure in the form of an import quota on imports of certain dairy products. The EC considered that this measure is in violation of Articles 2 4 5 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguard Measures as well as a violation of Article XIX of GATT 1994.

Le 2 septembre 2011 l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial chargé d’examiner la plainte déposée par l’Indonésie au sujet de l’interdiction imposée par les États-Unis visant les cigarettes aux clous de girofle (DS406)

El 4 de septiembre de 2008 un Grupo Especial de la OMC emitió su informe con respecto a la reclamación de las CE relativa a las medidas compensatorias definitivas impuestas por México sobre el aceite de oliva procedente de las Comunidades Europeas (DS341).

On 3 April 2000 Pakistan requested consultations with the US in respect of a transitional safeguard measure applied by the United States as of 17 March 1999 on combed cotton yarn (United States category 301) from Pakistan (see US Federal Register of 12 March 1999 document 99-6098). In accordance with Article 6.10 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) the United States had notified the TMB on 5 March 1999 that it had decided to unilaterally impose a restraint after consultations as to whether the situation called for a restraint had failed to produce a mutually satisfactory solution. In April 1999 the TMB examined the US restraint pursuant to Article 6.10 of the ATC and recommended that the US restraint should be rescinded. On 28 May 1999 in accordance with Article 8.10 of the ATC the United States notified the TMB that it considered itself unable to conform to the recommendations issued by the TMB. Despite a further recommendation of the TMB pursuant to Article 8.10 of the ATC that the United States reconsider its position the United States continued to maintain its unilateral restraint and thus the matter remained unresolved. Pakistan claimed as follows: the transitional safeguards applied by the United States are inconsistent with the United States’ obligations under Articles 2.4 of the ATC and not justified by Article 6 of the ATC; the US restraint does not meet the requirements for transitional safeguards set out in paragraphs 2 3 4 and 7 of Article 6 of the ATC.

El 03 de diciembre de 2007 el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Brasil - Medidas que afectan a las importaciones de neumáticos recauchutados”.

On 28 March 2019 the WTO’s Appellate Body issued its report on US compliance in the dispute brought by the European Union in “United States — Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft — Second complaint” (DS353).

Le 14 octobre 2014 l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial concernant le différend soumis par les États-Unis “Inde — Mesures concernant l’importation de certains produits agricoles” (DS430).

El 17 de agosto de 2005 la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Medidas compensatorias sobre determinados productos de las CE - Recurso”.

On 5 July 2018 the WTO circulated the panel report in the case brought by Canada in “United States - Countervailing Measures on Supercalendered Paper from Canada.

On 3 August 1998 India requested consultations with the EC in respect of Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997 on imports of cotton-type bed-linen from India. India asserted that the EC initiated anti-dumping proceedings against imports of cotton- type bed-linen from India by publishing a notice of initiation in September 1996. Provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed by EC Council Regulation No 1069/97 of 12 June 1997. This was followed by the imposition of definitive duties in accordance with the above-mentioned EC Council Regulation No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997.

El 13 de febrero de 2015 la OMC hizo públicos los informes del Grupo Especial que se ocupó de los asuntos “China — Medidas por las que se imponen derechos antidumping a los tubos sin soldadura (sin costura) de acero inoxidable para altas prestaciones” planteados por el Japón y la Unión Europea (DS454 y DS460 respectivamente).

Le 16 novembre 2007 l’OMC a publié le rapport du groupe spécial qui avait examiné la plainte de la Norvège dans le différend “Communautés européennes — Mesures antidumping visant le saumon d’élevage en provenance de la Norvège” (DS337).

On 20 September 2011 the United States requested consultations with China concerning China's measures imposing anti-dumping and countervailing duties on broiler products from the United States.

El 21 de diciembre de 2007 la OMC hizo público el informe arbitral sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Medidas que afectan al suministro transfronterizo de servicios de juegos de azar y apuestas”.

On 8 November 2004 the European Communities filed a request for consultations with the United States asserting that the United States should have removed its retaliatory measures since the EC has removed the measures found to be WTO-inconsistent in the EC — Hormones case.

On 27 September 2002 Brazil requested consultations with the United States regarding prohibited and actionable subsidies provided to US producers users and/or exporters of upland cotton as well as legislation regulations statutory instruments and amendments thereto providing such subsidies (including export credits) grants and any other assistance to the US producers users and exporters of upland cotton (“US upland cotton industry”). Brazil contended that these measures were inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the following provisions: Articles 5(c) 6.3(b) (c) and (d) 3.1(a) (including item (j) of the Illustrative List of Export Subsidies in Annex I) 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement; Articles 3.3 7.1 8 9.1 and 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Article III:4 of GATT 1994. Brazil was of the view that the US statutes regulations and administrative procedures listed above were inconsistent with these provisions as such and as applied. On 9 October and 11 October 2002 Zimbabwe and India respectively requested to join the consultations. On 14 October 2002 Argentina and Canada requested to join the consultations. The United States informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Argentina and India to join the consultations.

El 21 de febrero de 2005 la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Investigación en materia derechos compensatorios sobre los semiconductores para memorias dinámicas de acceso aleatorio (DRAM) procedentes de Corea”.

On 21 December 2000 Brazil requested consultations with the EC as regards definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No. 1784/2000 concerning imports of malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings originating inter alia in Brazil. Brazil considered that the EC’s establishment of the facts was not proper and that its evaluation of these facts was not unbiased and objective both at the provisional and definitive stage particularly in relation to the initiation and conduct of the investigation (including the evaluation findings and determination of dumping injury and causal link between them). Brazil also challenged the evaluation and findings made in relation to the “community interest”. In sum Brazil considered that the EC had infringed Article VI of GATT 1994 and Articles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11 12 and 15 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.