Ginebra, Suiza, 28 de septiembre del 2012.- Se establecen dos grupos especiales para examinar
las medidas de Australia relativas al tabaco y los derechos impuestos por los
Estados Unidos a las exportaciones de China
En su reunión del 28 de
septiembre de 2012, el Órgano de Solución de Diferencias (OSD) acordó
establecer un grupo especial encargado de examinar el asunto relativo al
empaquetado genérico del tabaco (DS434) y otro encargado de examinar las
medidas en materia de derechos compensatorios sobre las exportaciones de China
hacia los Estados Unidos(DS437).
Panel
requests
Australia —
Certain measures concerning trademarks and other plain packaging requirements
applicable to tobacco products and packaging
At the
second request by Ukraine, the DSB agreed to establish a panel to study the
complaint against measures taken by Australia concerning trademarks and other
plain packaging requirements applicable to tobacco products and packaging.
In its
request for the establishment of a panel, Ukraine said that Australia’s
measures “erode the protection of intellectual property rights” and “impose
severe restrictions on the use of validly registered trademarks”. Ukraine’s
statement also said that “Ukraine considers that governments should pursue
legitimate health policies through effective measures without unnecessarily
restricting international trade and without nullifying intellectual property
rights as guaranteed by international trade and investment rules”. Ukraine also
considers that the measures “are clearly more restrictive than necessary to
achieve the stated health objectives” and thus violate the Agreement on
Technical Barriers to Trade as an “unnecessary obstacle to trade”.
Australia
showed surprise and disappointment that Ukraine decided to challenge Australia’s
tobacco plain packaging measures since this step “is at odds with the policies
being pursued within Ukraine to comply with the WHO Framework Convention on
Tobacco Control”. Australia mentioned that Ukraine has also taken many measures
in accordance with this Convention and said that the tobacco plain packaging
“is a sound, well-considered measure designed to achieve a legitimate objective
— the protection of public health”, which the WTO recognizes as a fundamental
right of its members. Australia added that the measure is “clearly
non-discriminatory”, “nor is [it] more restrictive than necessary to fulfil its
legitimate objective”.
Uruguay
supported Australia and said that it could not remain silent in this fight
against “the most serious pandemic confronting humanity”. Uruguay also said
that “the norms of the Multilateral Trading System cannot and should not force
its members to allow that a product that kills its citizens in unacceptable and
alarming proportions continues to be sold wrapped as candy to attract new
victims”.
New Zealand
and Norway also supported Australia. New Zealand said that it is also
considering plain packaging measures and Norway said that countries are under
obligation to adopt measures to protect public health.
Zimbabwe, Honduras,
Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Indonesia supported Ukraine. Zimbabwe said
that 200,000 farmers and their families in the country depend on tobacco for
their livelihood. Honduras said that the WHO Framework Convention is indicative
and non-binding. Nicaragua said that tobacco is one of the most important items
in the country’s exports.
Members
that asked to exercise third-party rights in the dispute were: Uruguay, New
Zealand, Norway, Zimbabwe, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Zambia, Nicaragua, Indonesia,
United States, Chinese Taipei, Turkey, Oman, Japan, European Union,
Philippines, Ecuador, Korea, India, Brazil, Argentina, Singapore, Guatemala and
Canada.
DS437:
United States — Countervailing duty measures on certain products from China
The DSB also
agreed to establish a panel to study the complaint against countervailing duty
measures taken by the United States on certain products from China that the US
considers are subsidized.
China said
that it recognizes WTO members’ legitimate rights to adopt trade remedy
measures but such rights must be exercised in accordance with WTO rules and not
be subject to any form of abuse. The US said that the measures applied were
necessary in order to offset injurious subsidies bestowed (by China) on the
manufacture, production or export of goods, and to counteract the injury caused
by China’s subsidies.
Members
requesting to exercise their third-party rights were: European Union, Japan,
India, Turkey, Norway, Viet Nam, Australia, Russian Federation, Canada, Brazil
and Korea.
DS440:
China — Anti-dumping and countervailing duties on certain automobiles from the
United States
In another
request for a panel, China rejected the first request by the United States for
the establishment of a panel to study China’s anti-dumping and countervailing
duties on certain automobiles from the United States.
The US
reminded members that this was the third time that the US had brought a dispute
relating to China’s “multiple failures” to apply the appropriate procedures and
legal standards in its injury determination, and to adhere to transparency and
basic procedural requirements set out in the Anti-dumping Agreement and
Subsidies Agreement.
China said
that its investigating authority had determined that the imports of the product
concerned originating in the US constituted dumping and was benefiting from the
US government’s subsidization, and the dumped and subsidized imports had caused
material injury to the domestic industry of China.
Implementation
Several
members submitted reports on their implementation of recommendations adopted by
the DSB.
Fuente: OMC