Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Browse subjects
  3. Economics
  4. Macroeconomics
  5. Content listing

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

11577 results in Macroeconomics

Page 259 of 579

  • VI - APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE XX

  • from CHINA – MEASURES RELATED TO THE EXPORTATION OF VARIOUS RAW MATERIALS
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    03 January 2018
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 3414-3428

  • Summary

    270. In this section, we address China's claim that Article XX of the GATT 1994 is available as a defence to China in relation to export duties found to be inconsistent with China's obligations under Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol.

    The Panel's Findings

    271. The Panel began its interpretation of Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol by observing that Paragraph 11.3 “does not include any express reference to Article XX of the GATT 1994, or to provisions of the GATT 1994 more generally”. In so doing, the Panel drew a contrast between the text of Paragraph 11.3 and the language contained in Paragraph 5.1 of China's Accession Protocol—”without prejudice to China's right to regulate trade in a manner consistent with the WTO Agreement”—which the Appellate Body examined in China – Publications and Audiovisual Products. In particular, the Panel noted that Paragraph 11.3 contains only a “specific set of exceptions: those covered by Annex 6 and those covered by GATT Article VIII”. For the Panel, the language in Paragraph 11.3, together with the “omission of general references to the WTO Agreement or to the GATT 1994”, suggest that WTO Members did not intend to incorporate the defences available under Article XX into Paragraph 11.3.540 The Panel also found no support in the provisions of China's Accession Working Party Report for the proposition that China could invoke Article XX of the GATT 1994 to justify violations of Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol.

  • VIII - WASHINGTON STATE BUSINESS AND OCCUPATION (B&O) TAX RATE REDUCTION

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 351-374

  • Summary

    Financial Contribution – Revenue Foregone

    801. We next turn to the United States' appeal of the Panel's finding that the reduction in the Washington State B&O tax rate applicable to commercial aircraft and component manufacturers under Washington State House Bill 2294 constitutes a financial contribution under Article 1.1(a)(1)(ii) of the SCM Agreement. In subsection 1, we set out a summary of the Panel's findings. In subsection 2, we consider the circumstances in which government revenue otherwise due is foregone within the meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1)(ii). Finally, in subsection 3, we assess the United States' claim on appeal.

    1. The Panel's Findings

    802. The Panel reviewed the Appellate Body's reasoning in US – FSC and US – FSC (Article 21.5 – EC) concerning the administration of tax and the foregoing of government revenue that is otherwise due within the meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1)(ii) of the SCM Agreement. The test applied by the panel in US – FSC involved “examining the situation that would have existed but for the measure in question and determining whether there would have been a higher tax liability in the absence of the measure”. The Panel observed that the Appellate Body in that dispute expressed some reservations about whether the “but for” test is an appropriate general test that should apply in all situations.

  • IX - MEXICO'S CLAIMS UNDER ARTICLES I:1 AND III:4 OF THE GATT 1994

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 2000-2001

  • Summary

    402. Mexico submits that the Panel erred in exercising judicial economy with respect to Mexico's claims under Articles I and III of the GATT 1994, thereby acting inconsistently with its obligations under Article 11 of the DSU, and requests the Appellate Body to complete the legal analysis by ruling on these claims. The United States counters that the Panel “addressed ‘all aspects of Mexico's claims, including non-discrimination aspects under Article 2.1, and other aspects under Article[s] 2.2 and 2.4’, such that it was not ‘necessary for it to consider separately and additionally Mexico's claims under Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994.’” The United States further submits that Mexico has not explained why the use of judicial economy by the Panel is a failure to assist the DSB in making recommendations and rulings that would help settle the dispute.

    403. We recall that the principle of judicial economy “allows a panel to refrain from making multiple findings that the same measure is inconsistent with various provisions when a single, or a certain number of findings of inconsistency, would suffice to resolve the dispute.” Consequently, “[a] panel need only address those claims which must be addressed in order to resolve the matter in issue in the dispute.” Nonetheless, the Appellate Body also cautioned that:

    [t]he principle of judicial economy has to be applied keeping in mind the aim of the dispute settlement system.

  • II - FACTUAL ASPECTS

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 676-677

  • Summary

    2.1 This dispute concerns various alleged prohibited and actionable subsidies provided to and benefiting the United States' producers of large civil aircraft (the “U.S. LCA industry”), including, in particular, The Boeing Company and McDonnell Douglas Corporation prior to its merger with Boeing:

  • (i) Subsidies provided by state and local authorities. The European Communities alleges that U.S. states and localities, where research, development, production and headquarters facilities of the U.S. LCA industry are located, transfer in various ways economic resources to the U.S. LCA industry. In this respect, the European Communities challenges measures in the States of Washington, Kansas and Illinois, and their municipalities.

  • (ii) Subsidies provided by the federal government. The European Communities alleges that the U.S. Federal Government transfers economic resources to the U.S. LCA industry on terms more favourable than available on the market or not at arm's length through certain measures applied by NASA, DOD, DOC, DOL and through certain federal tax incentives.

    • 2.2 A detailed description of the measures at issue is contained in the European Communities' request for establishment, reproduced at Annex B of this report.

  • II - FACTUAL ASPECTS

  • from PHILIPPINES - TAXES ON DISTILLED SPIRITS
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 4285-4328

  • Summary

    The Excise Tax

    2.1 The measure at issue in the present case is defined by the European Union as “the excise tax regime in force in the Philippines with respect to distilled spirits”, or simply the “excise tax regime”. Similarly, the United States refers to the measure at issue as the “Philippines tax system for distilled spirits.”14 For ease of reference, we will refer to the measure at issue as the “excise tax”. As described by the complainants in their respective panel requests, the “excise tax” is regulated through the following instruments:

  • (a) Section 141 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, Republic Act No. 8424, as subsequently amended, particularly by Section 1 of Republic Act No. 9334;

  • (b) Republic Act No. 8240, an Act amending Sections 138, 139, 140 and 142 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and for other Purposes;

  • (c) Revenue Regulations No. 02-97 Governing Excise Taxation on Distilled Spirits, Wines and Fermented Liquors, implementing the relevant provisions of Republic Act No. 8240;

  • (d) Revenue Regulations No. 17-99, Implementing Sections 141, 142, 143 and 145(A) and (C) (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 relative to the Increase of the Excise Tax on Distilled Spirits, Wines, Fermented Liquors and Cigars and Cigarettes Packed by Machine by Twelve Per Cent (12%) on 1 January 2000;

  • (e) Revenue Regulations No. 9-2003 Amending Certain Provisions of Revenue Regulations No. 1-97 and Revenue Regulations No. 2-97 Relative to the Excise Taxation of Alcohol Products, Cigars and Cigarettes for the Purpose of Prescribing the Rules and Procedures To Be Observed in the Establishment of the Current Net Retail Price of New Brands and Variants of New Brands of Alcohol and Tobacco Products;.

  • VI - INTERIM REVIEW

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 2770-2790

  • Summary

    6.1 On 20 May 2011, the Panel submitted its Interim Panel Reports to the parties. On 17 June 2011, Canada, Mexico and the United States each submitted written requests for the review of precise aspects of the Interim Reports. On 30 June 2011, Canada, and on 1 July 2011, Mexico and the United States submitted comments on a number of requests for review presented by the other parties.

    None of the parties requested an interim review meeting.

    6.2 In accordance with Article 15.3 of the DSU, this section of the Panel's reports sets out the Panel's response to the arguments made at the interim review stage, providing explanations where necessary. The Panel has modified aspects of its reports in the light of the parties' comments where it considered these appropriate, as explained below. The Panel has also made certain technical and editorial corrections and revisions to the Interim Panel Reports for the purposes of clarity and accuracy. References to sections, paragraph numbers and footnotes in this section relate to the Interim Panel Reports, except as otherwise noted.

    Measures that Fall Within the Panel's Terms of Reference

    1. “USDA's clarification documents” (paragraphs 7.22, 7.23, and relevant parts of the Article X:3(a) section)

    6.3 The United States points out that, in its second written submission, it objected to the inclusion of USDA's clarification documents (Exhibits CDA-29, 30, 31), referenced by Canada in its oral statement in the first panel meeting, within the Panel's terms of reference.

  • VIII - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 3029-3032

  • Summary

    8.1 We recall the United States' request that we issue our findings in the form of a single document containing two separate reports with separate findings and recommendations for each complainant. We also recall that Canada agreed, and Mexico did not object, to the United States' request. Accordingly, we provide two separate sets of findings and recommendations, with separate numbers/symbols for each complainant (WT/DS384 for Canada and WT/DS386 for Mexico).

    Complaint by Canada (DS384): Findings and Recommendation

    8.2 Canada has made claims with regard to the COOL measure and the Vilsack letter under Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TBT Agreement and Articles III:4, X:3(a) and XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994.

    8.3 With respect to Canada's claims under the TBT Agreement, we conclude that:

  • (a) the COOL measure is a “technical regulation” within the meaning of Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement, whereas the Vilsack letter is not;

  • (b) the COOL measure, particularly in regard to the muscle cut meat labels, violates Article 2.1 because it affords imported livestock treatment less favourable than that accorded to like domestic livestock; and

  • (c) the COOL measure violates Article 2.2 because it does not fulfil the objective of providing consumer information on origin with respect to meat products.

Page 259 of 579