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. Law
  4. International Trade Law
  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
×

12383 results in International Trade Law

Page 337 of 620

  • I - INTRODUCTION

  • 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 3310-3317

  • Summary

    1. China and the United States each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, Complaint by the United States (WT/DS394/R) (the “US Panel Report”); China and the European Union each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, Complaint by the European Union (WT/DS395/R) (the “EU Panel Report”); and China and Mexico each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, Complaint by Mexico (WT/DS398/R) (the “Mexico Panel Report”) (collectively, the “Panel Reports”). The Panel was established to consider complaints by the United States, the European Union, and Mexico (the “complainants”) regarding the consistency of certain measures imposed by China on the exportation of certain forms of bauxite, coke, fluorspar, magnesium, manganese, silicon carbide, silicon metal, yellow phosphorous, and zinc (the “raw materials”) with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China (“China's Accession Protocol”), and the Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China (“China's Accession Working Party Report”).

    2. Before the Panel, the complainants challenged four types of restraints imposed by China on the exportation of the raw materials: (i) export duties; (ii) export quotas; (iii) export licensing; and (iv) minimum export price requirements.

  • China - Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-Rolled Electrical Steel from the United States (WT/DS414):Report of the Appellate Body

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 6251-6368

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    China appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, China – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-Rolled Electrical Steel from the United States (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established on 25 March 2011 to consider a complaint by the United States concerning China's measures imposing anti-dumping and countervailing duties on grain oriented flat-rolled electrical steel (“GOES”) from the United States, as set forth in the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) Announcement No. 21 of 10 April 2010 and its annexes (the “Final Determination”).

    The anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations at issue in this dispute were initiated as a result of an application filed by two Chinese steel producers, namely, Wuhan Iron and Steel (Group) Corporation (“WISCO”) and Baosteel Group Corporation (“Baosteel”). The applicants alleged that 27 US federal and state laws provided countervailable subsidies to producers of GOES in the United States. Further, the applicants alleged that dumped and subsidized imports of GOES from the United States, and dumped imports of GOES from Russia, caused, and threatened to cause, injury to the Chinese domestic industry. MOFCOM initiated the anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations at issue on 1 June 2009 with respect to imports of GOES from the United States. Two exporters/producers of GOES in the United States—AK Steel Corporation (“AK Steel”) and ATI Allegheny Ludlum Corporation (“ATI”)—registered as respondents in both investigations. The period of anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations was from 1 March 2008 to 28 February 2009, and the period of injury investigation was from 1 January 2006 to 31 March 2009.

    On 10 April 2010, MOFCOM issued its Final Determination. MOFCOM calculated ad valorem subsidy rates of 11.7% for AK Steel, 12% for ATI, and 44.6% for “all others”, namely, US exporters/producers that did not register for the investigations and were unknown to MOFCOM. MOFCOM calculated a dumping margin of 7.8% for AK Steel, 19.9% for ATI, and 64.8% for “all others”. Moreover, MOFCOM conducted a cumulative assessment of injury and causation, and collectively took into account GOES imports from both Russia and the United States.

  • VIII - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 1759-1762

  • Summary

    Conclusions

    8.1 We recall that in this dispute, the claims of the European Communities with respect to the challenged measures fall into two categories. First, the European Communities claims that two of the alleged subsidies, namely the tax breaks provided by the U.S. Federal Government pursuant to legislation concerning foreign sales corporations and exclusion of extraterritorial income and the tax incentives provided by the State of Washington under the legislation adopted in 2003, are prohibited under Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement. Second, the European Communities claims that all of the alleged subsidies are actionable under the SCM Agreement and that by using these subsidies the United States causes adverse effects to the interests of the European Communities, in violation of Article 5(c) of the SCM Agreement.

    8.2 With respect to the European Communities' prohibited subsidy claims under Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement, we conclude that:

  • (a) the FSC/ETI measures that have been challenged by the European Communities and that were in force at the time of the Panel's establishment are inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement;

  • (b) the European Communities has not demonstrated that the Washington State tax measures provided for in HB 2294 are inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement.

  • 1 - INTRODUCTION

  • 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 4170-4172

  • Summary

  • The Philippines and the European Union each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Reports, Philippines – Taxes on Distilled Spirits (the “Panel Reports”). The Panel was established to consider complaints by the European Union and the United States regarding the consistency of the Philippines' excise tax regime applicable to distilled spirits with Article III:2, first and second sentences, of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”).

  • Pursuant to a joint request from the European Union and the United States, the Panel issued its findings in the form of a single document containing two separate reports with common descriptive and analytical sections but separate conclusions and recommendations for each complaining party, each of which bears only the document symbol for that report. The Panel Reports were circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 15 August 2011.

  • Before the Panel, the European Union and the United States claimed that the Philippines has acted inconsistently with Article III:2, first and second sentences, of the GATT 1994, in applying different tax treatment to distilled spirits produced from the sap of the nipa, coconut, cassava, camote, or buri palm, or from juice, syrup, or sugar of the cane (“designated raw materials”), and to distilled spirits made from other raw materials (“non-designated raw materials”). For the reasons set out in its Reports, the Panel found, in relation to the complaint by the European Union, that the Philippines has acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994.

  • II - ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THE THIRD PARTICIPANTS

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 1852-1916

  • Summary

    Claims of Error by the United States – Appellant

    1. Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement and the Definition of “Technical Regulation”

  • The United States requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's finding that the measure at issue is a “technical regulation” within the meaning of Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement. The United States asserts that such reversal would also dispose of Mexico's claims under Article 2 of the TBT Agreement. Therefore, the United States further requests the Appellate Body to declare moot and of no legal effect the Panel's findings with respect to Article 2 of the TBT Agreement.

  • The United States alleges that the Panel erred in finding that the measure at issue is a “technical regulation”, because compliance with the measure is not “mandatory” within the meaning of Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement. The United States maintains that the Panel's interpretation of the word “mandatory” is indistinguishable from the term “requirement”. However, because the word “requirement” is used in both the definition of “technical regulation” in Annex 1.1 and in the definition of “standard” in Annex 1.2, a finding that compliance with certain labelling requirements is “mandatory” within the meaning of Annex 1.1 must be based on considerations other than the fact that a document establishes criteria for the use of a certain label.

  • […]

  • VI - INTERIM REVIEW

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 882-918

  • Summary

    Introduction

    6.1 On 15 September 2010, the Panel submitted its Interim Report to the parties. On 27 October 2010, both parties submitted written requests for review of precise aspects of the Interim Report. On 17 November 2010, the parties submitted comments on each other's requests for review. Neither party requested that the Panel hold an interim review meeting.

    6.2 Pursuant to Article 15.3 of the DSU, the findings of the final panel report must include a discussion of the arguments made by the parties at the interim review stage. This section of the Panel Report provides such a discussion. As Article 15.3 makes clear, this section forms part of the Panel's findings.

    6.3 The Panel explains below its response to issues of a substantive nature raised by the parties in their comments on the Interim Report. The Panel has also corrected a number of typographical and other non-substantive errors throughout the Report, including those identified by the parties, which are not referred to specifically below.

    6.4 Due to changes as a result of our review, the numbering of paragraphs and footnotes in the Final Report has changed from the Interim Report. The text below refers to the paragraph and footnote numbers in the Interim Report regarding which the parties requested review.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
  • Volume 4, Pages 1835–2446
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014
  • 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 2012: IV reports on United States - Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products (WT/DS381).

Page 337 of 620