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 395 of 579

  • India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector (WT/DS146, WT/DS175): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2002
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    05 May 2005, pp 1821-1826

  • Summary

    This appeal concerns the Panel Report, India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider complaints by the United States and the European Communities relating to certain aspects of India's automotive components licensing policy as set forth in India's Public Notice No. 60 and the Memoranda of Understanding signed pursuant thereto. Public Notice No. 60 required each passenger car manufacturer in India to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with the Director General of Foreign Trade, and specified a number of conditions to be included in such MOUs.

    This dispute concerns two of the conditions stipulated by Public Notice No. 60 and included in each MOU, namely: (i) an “indigenization” requirement, whereby each car manufacturer was obliged to achieve indigenization, or local content, of a minimum level of 50 percent by the third year from the date of its first import of cars in the form of completely and semi-knocked down kits (“CKD/SKD kits”), or certain automobile components, and 70 percent by the fifth year from that date; and (ii) a “trade balancing requirement”, whereby each car manufacturer was obliged to balance, over the period of the MOU, the value of its imports of CKD/SKD kits and components with the value of its exports of cars and components. At the time Public Notice No. 60 was issued, India maintained import restrictions and a discretionary import licensing scheme for, inter alia, automobile CKD/SKD kits and components. A manufacturer that failed to comply with the conditions set forth in Public Notice No. 60 and the MOUs could be denied a licence to import CKD/SKD kits and components. India abolished its import restrictions and related discretionary import licensing scheme, including the restrictions and licensing requirements applicable to CKD/SKD kits and components, on 1 April 2001. This occurred during the course of the Panel proceedings. The relevant factual aspects of this dispute are set out in greater detail in paragraphs 2.1 through 2.5 of the Panel Report.

    On 15 May 2000, the United States requested the establishment of a panel to examine the consistency of the measures at issue with Articles III:4 and XI:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), and Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (the “TRIMS Agreement”).

  • United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” (WT/DS108) Decision by the Arbitrator under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2002
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    05 May 2005, pp 2517-2570

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Initial Proceedings

    On 20 March 2000, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the Panel and Appellate Body reports in this dispute. The DSB recommended, in particular, that the United States bring into conformity the measures found to be inconsistent with its obligations under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) and the Agreement on Agriculture and that the United States withdraw the FSC subsidies “at the latest with effect from 1October 2000”. On 12 October 2000, the DSB agreed2 to accede to a request by the United States that the DSB modify the time-period in this dispute so as to expire on 1 November 2000. On 15 November 2000, the President of the United States signed into law an Act of the United States Congress entitled the “FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000” (the “ETI Act”). With the enactment of this legislation, the United States considered that it had implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings in the dispute and that the legislation was consistent with the United States’ WTO obligations.

    On 17 November 2000 the European Communities had recourse to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), considering that the United States had failed to withdraw the subsidies as required by Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement and had thus failed to comply with the DSB recommendations and rulings. The Panel established under Article 21.5 of the DSU (the “Compliance Panel”) found the ETI Act to be in violation of United States obligations under the SCM Agreement, the Agreement on Agriculture and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. The Appellate Body upheld these conclusions. The reports of the Compliance Panel and the Appellate Body were adopted by the DSB on 29 January 2002.

    Request for Arbitration and Selection of the Arbitrator

    On 2 October 2000, the parties informed the DSB of their Understanding on “Agreed Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) and Article 4 of the SCM Agreement applicable in the followup to the United States – Tax Treatment for ‘Foreign Sales Corporations’ dispute”, concluded between the parties on 29 September 2000.

  • United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion- Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany (WT/DS213/AB/R, WT/DS213/R): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2002
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    05 May 2005, pp 3779-3832

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The United States and the European Communities each appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by the European Communities against the United States regarding the continuation of countervailing duties on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Germany (“carbon steel”) following the conduct of a five-year, or “sunset”, review of those duties.

    On 17 August 1993, the United States imposed definitive countervailing duties on carbon steel. The imposition of the duties was based on an investigation by the United States Department of Commerce (“USDOC”) in which it determined that certain German producers of carbon steel benefitted, at a total rate of 0.60 percent ad valorem, from five countervailable subsidy programs. On 1 September 1999, USDOC gave notice of the automatic initiation of a sunset review of these countervailing duties. In the course of this review, USDOC determined that revocation of the countervailing duties “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy” with respect to carbon steel and transmitted this determination to the United States International Trade Commission (“USITC”). Based on its finding that two of the original five subsidy programs had been terminated, the likely rate of such continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy was determined by USDOC to be 0.54 percent ad valorem. Following an affirmative determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury by USITC, USDOC published a notice of the continuation of the countervailing duties on 15 December 2000.

    The European Communities argued before the Panel that United States law relating to sunset reviews, as such, and as applied in the sunset review of countervailing duties on carbon steel in this case, was inconsistent with United States’ obligations under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”). The European Communities argued that the United States acted contrary to Article 21.3 of the SCM Agreement by automatically self-initiating sunset reviews and by failing to apply in sunset reviews the de minimis standard of 1 percent set out in Article 11.9 of that Agreement.

  • Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey (WT/DS211): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2002
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    05 May 2005, pp 2667-3034

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Complaint of Turkey

    On 6 November 2000, Turkey requested consultations with Egypt pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“the DSU”), Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”), and Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (“the Anti-Dumping Agreement” or “the AD Agreement”), with regard to the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed by Egypt on imports of concrete steel reinforcing bar (“rebar”) from Turkey.

    On 3-5 December 2000 and 3-4 January 2001, Turkey and Egypt held the requested consultations, but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter.

    On 3 May 2001, Turkey requested the establishment of a panel to examine the matter.

    Establishment and Composition of the Panel

    At its meeting of 20 June 2001, the Dispute Settlement Body (“the DSB”) established a panel in accordance with the request made by Turkey in document WT/DS/211/2 and Corr. 1, and in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU.

    At that meeting, the parties to the dispute also agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference therefore are the following:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Turkey in document WT/DS211/2 and Corr.1, the matter referred to the DSB by Turkey 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 18 July 2001, the parties agreed to the following composition of the Panel:

    Chairman: Mr. Peter Palecka

    Members: Mr. Daniel Moulis

    Mr. Virachai Plasai

    Chile, the European Communities, Japan and the United States reserved their rights to participate in the panel proceedings as third parties.

    Panel Proceedings

    The Panel met with the parties on 27-28 November 2001 and 25-26 February 2002. The Panel met with third parties on 27 November 2001.

    On 21 May 2002, the Panel provided its interim report to the parties (See Section VI, infra).

Dispute Settlement Reports 2002
  • Volume 7, Pages 2579-3042
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    05 May 2005
  • 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 2002: VII reports on section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (US), definitive anti-dumping measures on steel rebar from Turkey (Egypt), and contains a cumulative index of published disputes.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2002
  • Volume 9, Pages 3595-4077
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    05 May 2005
  • 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 2002: IX reports on preliminary determinations with respect to certain softwood lumber from Canada (US), countervailing duties on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Germany (US), and contains a cumulative index of published disputes.

  • United States – Preliminary Determinations with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada (WT/DS236/R): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2002
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    05 May 2005, pp 3597-3778

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Complaint of Canada

    On 21 August 2001, Canada requested consultations with the United States pursuant to Article 4 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (“the DSU”), Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”) and Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“the SCM Agreement” or “the Agreement”), with regard to the preliminary countervailing duty determination and the preliminary critical circumstances determination made by the US Department of Commerce (“USDOC”) on 9 August 2001, with respect to certain softwood lumber from Canada, and with regard to US measures on company-specific expedited reviews and administrative reviews.

    On 17 September 2001, Canada and the United States held the requested consultations, but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter.

    On 25 October 2001, Canada requested the establishment of a panel to examine the matter.

    Establishment and Composition of the Panel

    At its meeting of 5 December 2001, the Dispute Settlement Body (“the DSB”) established a Panel in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU and pursuant to the request made by Canada in document WT/DS236/2.

    At that meeting, the parties to the dispute also agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference therefore are the following:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Canada in document WT/DS236/2 the matter referred to the DSB by Canada 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 January 2002, Canada requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel, pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 8 of the DSU. This paragraph provides:

    “If there is no agreement on the panelists within 20 days after the date of the establishment of a panel, at the request of either party, the Director- General, in consultation with the Chairman of the DSB and the Chairman of the relevant Council or Committee, shall determine the composition of the panel by appointing the panelists whom the Director- General considers most appropriate in accordance with any relevant special or additional rules or procedures of the covered agreement or covered agreements which are at issue in the dispute, after consulting with the parties to the dispute.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2002
  • Volume 8, Pages 3043-3594
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    05 May 2005
  • 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 2002: VIII reports on the price band system and safeguard measures relating to certain agricultural products (Chile), the trade description of sardines (EC), and contains a cumulative index of published disputes.

  • European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines (WT/DS231/AB/R, WT/DS231/R): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2002
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    05 May 2005, pp 3359-3450

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The European Communities appeals from certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines (the “Panel Report”).

    This dispute concerns the name under which certain species of fish may be marketed in the European Communities. The measure at issue is Council Regulation (EEC) 2136/89 (the “EC Regulation”), which was adopted by the Council of the European Communities on 21 June 1989 and became applicable on 1 January 1990. The EC Regulation sets forth common marketing standards for preserved sardines.

    Article 2 of the EC Regulation provides that:

    Only products meeting the following requirements may be marketed as preserved sardines and under the trade description referred to in Article 7:

  • – they must be covered by CN codes 1604 13 10 and ex 1604 20 50;

  • – they must be prepared exclusively from fish of the species “Sardina pilchardus Walbaum”;

  • – they must be pre-packaged with any appropriate covering medium in a hermetically sealed container;

  • – they must be sterilized by appropriate treatment. (emphasis added)

    • Sardina pilchardus Walbaum (“Sardina pilchardus”), the fish species refered to in the EC Regulation, is found mainly around the coasts of the Eastern North Atlantic Ocean, in the Mediterranean Sea, and in the Black Sea.

    In 1978, the Codex Alimentarius Commission (the “Codex Commission”), of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization, adopted a world-wide standard for preserved sardines and sardine-type products, which regulates matters such as presentation, essential composition and quality factors, food additives, hygiene and handling, labelling, sampling, examination and analyses, defects and lot acceptance. This standard, CODEX STAN 94–1981, Rev.1–1995 (“Codex Stan 94”), covers preserved sardines or sardine-type products prepared from the following 21 fish species:

  • – Sardina pilchardus

  • – Sardinops melanostictus, S. neopilchardus, S. ocellatus, S. sagax[,] S. caeruleus

  • – Sardinella aurita, S. brasiliensis, S. maderensis, S. longiceps, S. gibbosa

  • United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea (WT/DS202): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2002
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    05 May 2005, pp 1403-1472

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

    The United States and Korea appeal from certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea (the “Panel Report”).

    The dispute concerns the imposition of a definitive safeguard measure by the United States on imports of circular welded carbon quality line pipe (“line pipe”). This measure was imposed following an investigation conducted by the United States International Trade Commission (the “USITC”), a body comprised of six Commissioners that is charged with conducting such investigations under United States law. On 29 July 1999, the USITC initiated the safeguard investigation into imports of line pipe. The USITC finally determined that “circular welded carbon quality line pipe … is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury or the threat of serious injury”. Three Commissioners made a finding of serious injury. Two Commissioners made a finding of threat of serious injury. The affirmative vote of these five Commissioners constituted the majority supporting the “affirmative determination” of the USITC. A single Commissioner made a negative determination that there was neither serious injury nor threat of serious injury. The views of that Commissioner are not part of the USITC determination. In the light of these findings, the USITC determined that “line pipe … is … a substantial cause of serious injury or the threat of serious injury”.

    In its investigation, the USITC identified a number of factors, apart from increased imports, which had caused serious injury or threat of serious injury to the domestic line pipe industry. However, the USITC concluded that increased imports were “a cause which is important and not less than any other cause” and that, therefore, the statutory requirement of “substantial cause” was met. On 8 November 1999, the United States notified the Committee on Safeguards, pursuant to Article 12.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards, that the USITC had reached an affirmative finding of serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports.

  • United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea (WT/DS202): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2002
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    05 May 2005, pp 1473-1810

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Complaint of Korea

    On 15 June 2000, Korea requested consultations with the United States pursuant to Article 4 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (the “DSU”), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”) and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards (also the “Safeguards Agreement”, or “SA”) with regard to a definitive safeguard measure imposed by the United States on imports of circular welded carbon quality line pipe (the “line pipe measure”).

    On 28 July 2000, Korea and the United States held the requested consultations, but failed to resolve the dispute.

    On 14 September 2000, Korea requested the establishment of a panel to examine the matter.

    Establishment and Composition of the Panel

    At its meeting of 23 October 2000, the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) established a Panel pursuant to the request made by Korea in document WT/DS202/4.

    At that meeting, the parties to the dispute also agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference, as follows:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Korea in document WT/DS202/4, the matter referred to the DSB by Korea 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 12 January 2001, Korea requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel, pursuant to Article 8.7 of the DSU. On 22 January 2001, the Director-General composed the Panel as follows:

    Chairman: Mr. Dariusz Rosati

    Members: Mr. Roberto Azevedo

    Mr. Eduardo Bianchi

    Australia, Canada, the European Communities, Japan and Mexico, reserved their rights to participate in the panel proceedings as third parties.

    FACTUAL ASPECTS

    This dispute concerns a measure imposed by the United States on imports of circular welded carbon quality line pipe (“line pipe”). This measure was imposed following an investigation conducted by the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) in response to a petition filed on 30 June 1999 and amended on 2 July 1999, alleging that imports of line pipe were causing serious injury to the US manufacturers of line pipe.

  • India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector (WT/DS146, WT/DS175): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2002
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    05 May 2005, pp 1827-2060

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    In a communication dated 12 October 1998 (WT/DS146/1), the European Communities requested consultations with India pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) and Article 8 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs Agreement), concerning certain measures affecting the automotive sector. On 21 and 22 October 1998, Japan and the United States, respectively, lodged requests to join in the consultations. The European Communities and India held consultations in Geneva on 2 December 1998. The United States and Japan participated in the consultations under DSU Article 4:11.

    In a communication dated 2 June 1999 (WT/DS175/1), the United States requested consultations with India pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) and Article 8 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (to the extent it incorporates by reference Article XXII of the GATT 1994) regarding certain measures affecting trade and investment in the motor vehicle sector. The United States and India held such consultations, in which Japan and the European Communities joined, on 20 July 1999. The consultations provided some helpful clarifications but failed to settle the dispute.

    On 15 May 2000, the United States (WT/DS175/4) requested the Dispute Settlement Body to establish a panel with standard terms of reference as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU. The Panel was established on 27 July 2000. On 12 October 2000, the European Communities (WT/DS146/4) also requested the DSB to establish a panel pursuant to Article 4.7 and 6 of the DSU.

    At its meeting of 17 November 2000, the DSB agreed that, in accordance with Article 9.1 of the DSU, the Panel established on 27 July 2000 to examine the complaint by the United States should also examine the complaint by the European Communities contained in WT/DS146/4 and agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference.

Page 395 of 579