Règlement des différends

On 12 June 2003 the European Communities requested consultations with the United States concerning a methodology used by the US among others in the calculation of dumping margins known as “zeroing”. The “zeroing” methodology generally speaking involves treating specific price comparisons which do not show dumping as zero values in the calculation of a weighted average dumping margin. The request concerned specific provisions of the US Tariff Act of 1930 and the Department of Commerce implementing regulation as well as US Department of Commerce methodology and its determinations in specific cases involving products imported from the European Communities.

El 01 de agosto de 2005 la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Determinación definitiva en materia derechos compensatorios con respecto a determinada madera blanda procedente del Canadá - Recurso”.

On 9 April 2019 the WTO circulated the panel report in the case brought by Canada in “United States - Anti-Dumping Measures Applying Differential Pricing Methodology to Softwood Lumber from Canada” (DS534).

On 6 October 2004 the United States requested consultations with the Governments of Germany France the United Kingdom and Spain (the “member States”) and with the European Communities (“EC”) concerning measures affecting trade in large civil aircraft.

On 21 December 2000 and 21 May 2001 respectively the complainants requested consultations with the US concerning the amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930 signed on 28 October 2000 with the title of “Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000” (the “Act”) usually referred to as “the Byrd Amendment”. According to the complainants the Act is inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under several provisions of the GATT the AD Agreement the SCM Agreement and the WTO Agreement. In particular the Act is alleged to be inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under: (i) Article 18.1 of the ADA in conjunction with Article VI:2 of the GATT and Article 1 of the ADA; (ii) Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement in conjunction with Article VI:3 of the GATT and Articles 4.10 7.9 and 10 of the SCM Agreement; (iii) Article X(3)(a) of the GATT; (iv) Article 5.4 of the ADA and Article 11.4 of the SCM Agreement; (v) Article 8 of the ADA and Article 18 of the SCM Agreement; (vi) Article 5 of the SCM Agreement; and (vii) Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO Article 18.4 of the ADA and Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement.

The European Communities Japan Korea Switzerland Canada Venezuela Norway China Mexico New Zealan and Brazil requested consultations with the United States regarding the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US in the form of an increase in duties on imports of certain flat steel hot-rolled bar cold-finished bar rebar certain welded tubular products carbon and alloy fittings stainless steel bar stainless steel rod tin mill products and stainless steel wire and in the form of a tariff rate quota on imports of slabs effective as of 20 March 2002.

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.

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 21 juillet 2000 l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur l’affaire “Brésil - Programme de financement des exportations pour les aéronefs - Recours”.

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.