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 376 of 579

Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
  • Volume 10, Pages 4689-5025
  • World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006
  • The Dispute Settlement Reports of the World Trade Organization (WTO) include Panel and Appellate Body reports, as well as arbitration awards, in disputes concerning the rights and obligations of WTO members under the provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. These are the WTO authorized and paginated reports in English. An essential addition to the library of all practising and academic trade lawyers, and needed by students worldwide taking courses in international economic or trade law. DSR 2004: X reports on the United States continued dumping and subsidy offset act of 2000 (original complaint by India), and contains a cumulative index of published disputes.

  • United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Original Complaint by Japan) - Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU (WT/DS217) Decision by the Arbitrator

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006, pp 4771-4850

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Initial Proceedings

    On 27 January 2003, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the report of the Panel in this dispute, as modified by the report of the Appellate Body.

    The findings adopted by the DSB were that the measure at issue in this case – the Continued Dumping and Subsidies Offset Act of 2000 (hereafter “CDSOA”):

  • (a) is a non-permissible specific action against dumping or a subsidy, contrary to Articles VI:2 and VI:3 of the GATT 1994, Article 18.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereafter the “Anti- Dumping Agreement”) and Article 32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (hereafter the “SCM Agreement”);

  • is inconsistent with certain provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and SCM Agreement, so that the United States has failed to comply with Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (hereafter the “WTO Agreement”);

  • (c) pursuant to Article 3.8 of the DSU, to the extent that it is inconsistent with provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement, nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to the complaining parties under those Agreements;

    • On 13 June 2003, an arbitrator established under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU ruled that the “reasonable period of time” for the United States to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this case was 11 months from the date of adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports by the DSB. The United States was consequently awarded until 27 December 2003 to bring the CDSOA into conformity with its obligations under GATT 1994, the Anti- Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement and the WTO Agreement.

    On 16 January 2004, Japan requested authorization from the DSB, under Article 22.2 of the DSU, to suspend the application to the United States of tariff concessions under GATT 1994 in an amount that will be determined every year by the amount of the offset payments made to affected domestic producers in the latest annual distribution under the CDSOA.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
  • Volume 7, Pages 3255-3418
  • World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006
  • The Dispute Settlement Reports of the World Trade Organization (WTO) include Panel and Appellate Body reports, as well as arbitration awards, in disputes concerning the rights and obligations of WTO members under the provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. These are the WTO authorized and paginated reports in English. An essential addition to the library of all practising and academic trade lawyers, and needed by students worldwide taking courses in international economic or trade law. DSR 2004: VII reports on sunset reviews of anti-dumping measures on oil country tubular goods from Argentina (US), and contains a cumulative index of published disputes.

  • United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina (WT/DS268) Report of the Appellate Body

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006, pp 3257-3404

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The United States and Argentina each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by Argentina against the United States regarding the continuation of anti-dumping duties on oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) from Argentina following the conduct of a five-year, or “sunset”, review of those duties.

    In June 1995, the United States Department of Commerce (the “USDOC”) imposed anti-dumping duties on OCTG from Argentina following an investigation that was initiated by the USDOC in 1994, before the entry into force of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the “WTO Agreement ”). The anti-dumping duty order imposed an anti-dumping duty of 1.36 per cent on Siderca, the only exporter from Argentina that had participated in the investigation, and a residual duty at the same rate for all other exporters from Argentina. Following the imposition of the anti-dumping duties, Siderca ceased exporting OCTG to the United States. In the five years following the imposition of these anti-dumping duties, the USDOC initiated four reviews of the anti-dumping duties on Siderca, at the request of the domestic producers in the United States. In each of these reviews, the USDOC determined, on the basis of Siderca's statements, that Siderca “had not made any shipment for consumption in the United States”. As Siderca was the sole exporter from Argentina for whom an administrative review had been requested by the domestic producers, the USDOC “rescinded the administrative review” on OCTG from Argentina.

    In July 2000, the USDOC initiated, on its own initiative, a sunset review of anti-dumping duties on OCTG from Argentina. In its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping, the USDOC concluded that “dumping has continued over the life of the Argentine order and is likely to continue if the order were revoked”.

  • United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Original Complaint by Canada) - Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU (WT/DS234) Decision by the Arbitrator

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006, pp 4425-4510

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Initial Proceedings

    On 27 January 2003, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the report of the Panel in this dispute, as modified by the report of the Appellate Body.

    The findings adopted by the DSB were that the measure at issue in this case – the Continued Dumping and Subsidies Offset Act of 2000 (hereafter “CDSOA”):

  • (a) is a non-permissible specific action against dumping or a subsidy, contrary to Articles VI:2 and VI:3 of the GATT 1994, Article 18.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereafter the “Anti- Dumping Agreement”) and Article 32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (hereafter the “SCM Agreement”);

  • (b) is inconsistent with certain provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and SCM Agreement, so that the United States has failed to comply with Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (hereafter the “WTO Agreement”);

  • (c) pursuant to Article 3.8 of the DSU, to the extent that it is inconsistent with provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement, nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to the complaining parties under those Agreements;

    • On 13 June 2003, an arbitrator established under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU ruled that the “reasonable period of time” for the United States to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this case was 11 months from the date of adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports by the DSB. The United States was consequently awarded until 27 December 2003 to bring the CDSOA into conformity with its obligations under GATT 1994, the Anti- Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement and the WTO Agreement.

    On 16 January 2004, Canada requested authorization from the DSB, under Article 22.2 of the DSU, to suspend the application to the United States of its concessions or other obligations in an amount to be determined every year by reference to the amount of the offset payments made to affected domestic producers in the latest annual distribution under the CDSOA.

  • United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Original Complaint by India) - Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU (WT/DS217) Decision by the Arbitrator

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006, pp 4691-4770

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Initial Proceedings

    On 27 January 2003, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the report of the Panel in this dispute, as modified by the report of the Appellate Body.

    The findings adopted by the DSB were that the measure at issue in this case – the Continued Dumping and Subsidies Offset Act of 2000 (hereafter “CDSOA”):

  • (a) is a non-permissible specific action against dumping or a subsidy, contrary to Articles VI:2 and VI:3 of the GATT 1994, Article 18.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereafter the “Anti- Dumping Agreement”) and Article 32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (hereafter the “SCM Agreement”);

  • (b) is inconsistent with certain provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and SCM Agreement, so that the United States has failed to comply with Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (hereafter the “WTO Agreement”);

  • (c) pursuant to Article 3.8 of the DSU, to the extent that it is inconsistent with provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement, nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to the complaining parties under those Agreements;

    • On 13 June 2003, an arbitrator established under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU ruled that the “reasonable period of time” for the United States to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this case was 11 months from the date of adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports by the DSB. The United States was consequently awarded until 27 December 2003 to bring the CDSOA into conformity with its obligations under GATT 1994, the Anti- Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement and the WTO Agreement.

    On 16 January 2004, India requested authorization from the DSB, under Article 22.2 of the DSU, to suspend the application to the United States of tariff concessions and related obligations under GATT 1994 in an amount that will be determined every year by the amount of offset payments made to affected domestic producers in the latest annual distribution of anti-dumping and countervailing duties under the CDSOA.

  • United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Original Complaint by Mexico) - Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU (WT/DS234) Decision by the Arbitrator

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006, pp 4931-5010

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Initial Proceedings

    On 27 January 2003, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the report of the Panel in this dispute, as modified by the report of the Appellate Body.

    The findings adopted by the DSB were that the measure at issue in this case – the Continued Dumping and Subsidies Offset Act of 2000 (hereafter “CDSOA”):

  • (a) is a non-permissible specific action against dumping or a subsidy, contrary to Articles VI:2 and VI:3 of the GATT 1994, Article 18.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereafter the “Anti- Dumping Agreement”) and Article 32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (hereafter the “SCM Agreement”);

  • (b) is inconsistent with certain provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and SCM Agreement, so that the United States has failed to comply with Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (hereafter the “WTO Agreement”);

  • (c) pursuant to Article 3.8 of the DSU, to the extent that it is inconsistent with provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement, nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to the complaining parties under those Agreements;

    • On 13 June 2003, an arbitrator established under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU ruled that the “reasonable period of time” for the United States to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this case was 11 months from the date of adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports by the DSB. The United States was consequently awarded until 27 December 2003 to bring the CDSOA into conformity with its obligations under GATT 1994, the Anti- Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement and the WTO Agreement.

    On 16 January 2004, Mexico requested authorization from the DSB, under Article 22.2 of the DSU, to suspend the application to the United States of obligations in the trade in goods sector.

  • United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (Original Complaint by the European Communities) - Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU (WT/DS136) Decision by the Arbitrators

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006, pp 4269-4312

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Request for Arbitration and Selection of the Arbitrators

    On 26 September 2000, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the report of the Appellate Body and the report of the Panel as upheld by the Appellate Body in this dispute. The reasonable period of time for the United States to bring the Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 into conformity with the DSB recommendations and rulings was originally decided through arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), and was due to expire on 26 July 2001. It was subsequently extended so as to expire on 31 December 2001, or the date on which the then session of the US Congress adjourned, whichever would be earlier.

    On 7 January 2002, the European Communities requested that the DSB authorize it to suspend the application of obligations under GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti-Dumping Agreement”).

    On 17 January 2002, the United States objected to the level of suspension proposed by the European Communities, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU.

    The matter was referred to arbitration. On 19 February 2002, Members were informed of the constitution of the Arbitrator. Its composition was as follows:

    Chairman: Mr Dimitrij Grčar

    Members: Mr Brendan McGivern

    Mr Eugeniusz Piontek

    On 27 February 2002, however, the European Communities and the United States jointly informed the Arbitrators that a proposal to repeal the 1916 Anti-Dumping Act and to terminate cases pending under the Act was being examined by the US Congress. In the light of this, the European Communities and the United States requested the Arbitrators to suspend the arbitration proceeding. The communication to the Arbitrators also stated that the European Communities and the United States agreed that the arbitration could be reactivated at the request of either party after 30 June 2002.

    On 19 September 2003, the European Communities requested the reactivation of the arbitration proceedings.

  • United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Original Complaint by Brazil) - Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU (WT/DS217) Decision by the Arbitrator

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006, pp 4341-4424

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Initial Proceedings

    On 27 January 2003, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the report of the Panel in this dispute, as modified by the report of the Appellate Body.

    The findings adopted by the DSB were that the measure at issue in this case – the Continued Dumping and Subsidies Offset Act of 2000 (hereafter “CDSOA”):

  • (a) is a non-permissible specific action against dumping or a subsidy, contrary to Articles VI:2 and VI:3 of the GATT 1994, Article 18.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereafter the “Anti- Dumping Agreement”) and Article 32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (hereafter the “SCM Agreement”);

  • (b) is inconsistent with certain provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and SCM Agreement, so that the United States has failed to comply with Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (hereafter the “WTO Agreement”);

  • (c) pursuant to Article 3.8 of the DSU, to the extent that it is inconsistent with provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement, nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to the complaining parties under those Agreements;

    • On 13 June 2003, an arbitrator established under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU ruled that the “reasonable period of time” for the United States to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this case was 11 months from the date of adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports by the DSB. The United States was consequently awarded until 27 December 2003 to bring the CDSOA into conformity with its obligations under GATT 1994, the Anti- Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement and the WTO Agreement.

    On 16 January 2004, Brazil requested authorization from the DSB5, under Article 22.2 of the DSU, to suspend the application to the United States of tariff concessions and related obligations under GATT 1994 in an amount to be determined every year by the amount of offset payments made to affected domestic producers in the latest annual distribution of anti-dumping and countervailing duties under the CDSOA.

  • United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina (WT/DS268) Report of the Panel

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2004
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 October 2006, pp 3421-4252

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 7 October 2002, the Government of the Republic of Argentina requested consultations with the Government of the United States of America pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“the DSU”), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“the GATT 1994”), and Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (“the Anti-Dumping Agreement”) concerning, inter alia, the determinations of the United States Department of Commerce (“the USDOC”) and the United States International Trade Commission (“the USITC”) in the sunset reviews of anti-dumping duty measure on oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) from Argentina. The United States and Argentina consulted on 14 November and 17 December 2002, but failed to settle the dispute.

    On 3 April 2003, Argentina requested the Dispute Settlement Body (“the DSB”) to establish a panel pursuant to Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, Article 6 of the DSU and Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

    At its meeting on 19 May 2003, the DSB established a panel in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU to examine the matter referred to the DSB by Argentina in document WT/DS268/2. At that meeting, the parties to the dispute also agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference are, therefore, the following:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Argentina in document WT/DS268/2, the mat-ter referred to the DSB by Argentina in that document and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.”

    On 22 August 2003, Argentina requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel, pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 8 of the DSU. On 4 September 2003, the Director-General accordingly composed the Panel as follows:

    Chairman: Mr. Paul O'Connor

    Members: Mr. Bruce Cullen

    Dr. Faizullah Khilji

    The European Communities, Japan, Korea, Mexico and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu reserved their third-party rights.

  • 4 - United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (WT/DS217/AB/R: DSR 2003:I,375)

    • By Henrik Horn, Institute for International Economic Studies, Stockholm University, Petros C. Mavroidis, Columbia Law School, New York and University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland
  • Edited by Henrik Horn, Stockholms Universitet, Petros C. Mavroidis, Université de Neuchâtel, Switzerland
  • Book:
    The WTO Case Law of 2003
    Published online:
    06 July 2010
    Print publication:
    24 August 2006, pp 52-86

  • Summary

    Introduction

    On January 16, 2003, the WTO Appellate Body (AB) issued its report on the appeal by the United States (US) of the Panel decision in United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. The report concerns the consistency of the United States Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (the “CDSOA,” or the so-called Byrd Amendment) with several WTO provisions. This legislation requests the federal state to distribute proceeds from antidumping and countervailing duties to all US economic operators that have supported a request previously submitted to the ratione materiae competent US authority to investigate alleged dumping or subsidization. The appeal was directed against the Panel's finding that the Byrd legislation was inconsistent with the US obligations under the WTO Antidumping Agreement (AD), and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM). A total of 11 complainants (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the European Community, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand), and five additional third parties (Argentina, Costa Rica, Hong Kong (China), Israel, and Norway), evidence the interest among WTO Members in the issues at stake in the dispute.

    The subject matter of the dispute was not the application of the Byrd legislation in a particular instance, but the legislation as such, irrespective of any application. The AB dealt with two substantive issues:

    1. To what extent does the Byrd Amendment constitute a specific action against dumping, impermissible under Arts. 18.1 AD and 32.1 SCM?

    2. To what extent does the United States, by transferring duty payments made by exporters to the market to domestic firms, comply with the obligations under Arts. 5.4 AD and 11.4 SCM?

  • 1 - Introduction

  • Edited by Henrik Horn, Stockholms Universitet, Petros C. Mavroidis, Université de Neuchâtel, Switzerland
  • Book:
    The WTO Case Law of 2003
    Published online:
    06 July 2010
    Print publication:
    24 August 2006, pp 1-10

  • Summary

    The project

    This is the third volume of the Reporters' Studies undertaken in the context of the American Law Institute (ALI) project Principles of World Trade Law: The World Trade Organization (WTO). The aim of the project is to provide a systematic analysis of WTO law based in both Economics and Law. This year's focus has mainly been on disputes that came to an administrative end during the year 2003, either because they were not appealed or because the appeal process concluded. Each dispute has been evaluated jointly by an economist and a lawyer. The general task of this two-person team is to evaluate whether the ruling “makes sense” from an economic as well as a legal point of view and, if it does not, whether the problem lies in the legal text or in the interpretation thereof. The authors do not always cover all issues discussed in a case, but they seek to discuss both the procedural and the substantive issues that form the “core” of the dispute, as they see it.

    The Reporters' Studies have, this year, been drafted by the following persons, who have been appointed Reporters for the project by the ALI:

    1. Gene M. Grossman, Jacob Viner Professor of International Economics, Princeton University, USA.

    2. Henrik Horn, Professor of International Economics, Institute for International Economic Studies, Stockholm University, Sweden.

    3. Robert L. Howse, Alene and Allan F. Smith Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School, USA.

    4. Petros C. Mavroidis, Professor of Law, University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland, and Edwin B. Parker Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, USA.

    5. […]

Page 376 of 579