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 345 of 620

  • IV - BACKGROUND

  • 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 4206-4211

  • Summary

    The Measure at Issue

    97. The measure at issue in this dispute is the excise tax regime in force in the Philippines as it applies to distilled spirits. The Panel referred to it as the “excise tax”. Under the measure at issue, taxes are collected on distilled spirits in accordance with the criteria set out in Section 141 ot the Philippines' National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (the “NIRC”), as amended.

    98. Under Section 141(a) of the NIRC, distilled spirits are subject to a specific flat tax rate if two requirements are met: (i) the distilled spirits are produced from one of the following raw materials—sap of the nipa, coconut, cassava, camote, buri palm, or from juice, syrup, or sugar of the cane (collectively referred to as “designated raw materials”); and (ii) the designated raw materials are produced commercially in the country where they are processed into distilled spirits. As from 1 January 2011, the flat rate set out in Section 141(a) is 14.68 Philippine pesos (“PHP”) per proof litre (“ppl”).

    99. Under Section 141(b) of the NIRC, all distilled spirits that do not meet either of the requirements set forth above are subject to three different tax rates that apply depending on the net retail price (“NRP”) of a 750 millilitre (“ml”) bottle of the spirit.182 As from 1 January 2011, distilled spirits falling under Section 141(b) are subject to a tax of: (i) PHP 158.73 ppl, if their NRP is less than PHP 250; (ii) PHP 317.44 ppl, if their NRP is between PHP 250 and PHP 675; or (iii) PHP 634.90 ppl, if their NRP is more than PHP 675.

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

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 6369-6748

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 15 September 2010, the United States requested consultations with China under Articles 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 of 1994 (the GATT 1994), Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the SCM Agreement) (to the extent that Article 30 incorporates Article XXIII of the GATT 1994), and Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the Anti-Dumping Agreement) with respect to China's measures imposing countervailing duties and anti-dumping 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) Notice No. 21 [2010], including its annexes. The consultations were held on 1 November 2010. The consultations failed to resolve the dispute.

    On 11 February 2011, the United States requested, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Article 30 of the SCM Agreement, that the Dispute Settlement Body (the DSB) establish a Panel to examine this matter.

    At its meeting on 25 March 2011, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request of the United States in document WT/DS414/2, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU.

    The Panel's terms of reference are the following:

    To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the parties to the dispute, the matter referred to the DSB by the United States in document WT/DS414/2 and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.

    Following the agreement of the parties, the Panel was composed on 10 May 2011 as follows:

    Chairman: Mr John Adank

    Members: Mr Anthony Abad

    Mr Jan Heukelman

    Argentina; the European Union; Honduras; India; Japan; Korea; Saudi Arabia and Viet Nam reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties.

  • I - INTRODUCTION

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 2473-2481

  • Summary

    1. Canada, Mexico, and the United States each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Reports, United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements (the “Panel Reports”). The Panel was established on 19 November 2009 to consider complaints by Canada and Mexico regarding certain US country of origin labelling (“COOL”) requirements for beef and pork. Both Canada and Mexico challenged the following measures:

  • (a) the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended by the “2002 Farm Bill” and the “2008 Farm Bill” (the “COOL statute”);

  • (b) the Final Rule on Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Pork, Lamb, Chicken, Goat Meat, Perishable Agricultural Commodities, Peanuts, Pecans, Ginseng, and Macadamia Nuts (the “2009 Final Rule (AMS)”);

  • (c) a letter dated 20 February 2009 from the US Secretary of Agriculture, Thomas J. Vilsack, to “Industry Representative[s]” (the “Vilsack letter”)9; and

  • (d) the Interim Final Rule on Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Pork, Lamb, Chicken, Goat Meat, Perishable Agricultural Commodities, Peanuts, Pecans, Ginseng, and Macadamia Nuts (the “Interim Final Rule (AMS)”).

    • 2. In addition to the above measures, Mexico also challenged the Interim Final Rule on Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Muscle Cuts of Beef (Including Veal), Lamb, Chicken, Goat, and Pork; Ground Beef, Ground Lamb, Ground Chicken, Ground Goat, and Ground Pork (the “Interim Final Rule (FSIS)”).

  • IV - ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

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

  • Summary

    4.1 The arguments of Canada, Mexico and the United States, as set out in the executive summaries of their submissions provided to the Panel in accordance with paragraph 15 of the working procedures, are attached to these reports as annexes (see List of Annexes, pages vii-ix). They are also referred to later in these Reports in the context of the Panel's analysis of claims and defences.

  • III - ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL

  • 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 3385-3387

  • Summary

    207. The following issues are raised on appeal by China:

  • (a) whether the Panel erred in finding that Section III of the complainants' panel requests complies with the requirement in Article 6.2 of the DSU to “provide a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly”;

  • (b) whether the Panel acted inconsistently with Articles 7.1, 11, and 19.1 of the DSU by recommending that China bring its export duty and export quota measures into conformity with its WTO obligations such that the “series of measures” in force at the date of the Panel's establishment do not operate to bring about a WTO-inconsistent result;

  • (c) whether the Panel erred in finding that China may not have recourse to the exceptions contained in Article XX of the GATT 1994 in order to justify a violation of China's export duty commitments contained in Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol;

  • (d) whether the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article XI:2(a) of the GATT 1994, and in its assessment of the matter under Article 11 of the DSU, when it found that China's export quota on refractory-grade bauxite is not “temporarily applied” to prevent or relieve a “critical shortage”;

  • (e) whether the Panel erred by interpreting the phrase “made effective in conjunction with” in Article XX(g) of the GATT 1994 to require that the purpose of the export restriction be to ensure the effectiveness of restrictions on domestic production and consumption;

  • […]

  • VII - ARTICLE 2.2 OF THE TBT AGREEMENT

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 1966-1981

  • Summary

    301. We turn next to the United States' appeal of the Panel's finding that the measure at issue is more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil the legitimate objectives pursued by the United States, and that, therefore, the measure is inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. The United States alleges that the Panel erred in its application of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement and failed to make an objective assessment of the matter before it as required pursuant to Article 11 of the DSU. Mexico raises a conditional other appeal with respect to the Panel's finding under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.

    The Panel's Findings

    302. The Panel concluded that the measure at issue is inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, because it is more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil the legitimate objectives pursued by the United States, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would create. This conclusion is based on a number of intermediate findings by the Panel. First, the Panel assessed the United States' objectives based on the description of those objectives by both parties, as well as on the basis of the design, structure, and characteristics of the measure at issue, and found the objectives to be the following:

  • (a) “ensuring that consumers are not misled or deceived about whether tuna products contain tuna that was caught in a manner that adversely affects dolphins” (the “consumer information objective”); and

  • (b) “contributing to the protection of dolphins, by ensuring that the US market is not used to encourage fishing fleets to catch tuna in a manner that adversely affects dolphins” (the “dolphin protection objective”).

  • VII - ARTICLE XI:2(a) OF THE GATT 1994

  • 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 3428-3441

  • Summary

    308. We turn next to China's appeal of the Panel's finding that China had not demonstrated that its export quota on refractory-grade bauxite was “temporarily applied”, within the meaning of Article XI:2(a) of the GATT 1994, to either prevent or relieve a “critical shortage”. China alleges that the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article XI:2(a) of the GATT 1994, and acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU.

    The Panel's Findings and Arguments on Appeal

    309. The Panel found that China's export quota on refractory-grade bauxite is inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994. China argued that this export quota is a restriction temporarily applied to prevent or relieve a critical shortage of an essential product in the sense of Article XI:2(a) of the GATT 1994 and that it therefore does not fall within the scope of Article XI:1's general prohibition of quantitative restrictions. The Panel determined, however, that China had failed to demonstrate that the export quota applied to refractory-grade bauxite is justified pursuant to Article XI:2(a).598 In reaching this conclusion, the Panel agreed with China that “refractory-grade bauxite is currently ‘essential’ to China, as that term is used in Article XI:2(a)”. The Panel found, however, that China had failed to demonstrate that the export quota was “temporarily applied” within the meaning of Article XI:2(a). The Panel also found that China had failed to demonstrate that there was a “critical shortage” of refractory-grade bauxite in China.

  • V - ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 833-881

  • Summary

    Australia

    1. Introduction

    5.1 Australia focuses on a select few topics which raise significant systemic issues as well as important questions of legal interpretation.

    2. Financial contribution

    (a) Relevance of the nature of government action

    5.2 Australia considers that whether a government action can also be characterised as a particular type of transaction (for example, the ‘purchase of services’) is irrelevant to the question of whether it constitutes a ‘financial contribution’ within the meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1). Rather, the relevant question is whether the government action can properly be described as falling within one of the categories of financial contribution set out in Article 1.1(a)(1).

    5.3 Australia recalls the statement of the Appellate Body in US – Softwood Lumber IV that ‘{a}n evaluation of the existence of a financial contribution involves consideration of the nature of the transaction through which something of economic value is transferred by a government’. Therefore, Australia submits that it is important to accurately identify the nature of the government action concerned in determining whether it falls within one of the categories of financial contribution.

    5.4 In Australia's view, the facts and circumstances surrounding the measure concerned should determine the nature of the government action and, consequently, whether it falls within one of the categories of financial contribution in Article 1.1(a)(1). In other words, it is the nature of the government action, and not its characterisation as a particular type of transaction, that determines whether it falls within Article 1.1(a)(1).

  • V - ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES

  • 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 4329-4330

  • Summary

    5.1 The arguments of the third parties, as set forth in the executive summaries of their written submissions and oral statements to the Panel, are attached to these reports as Annexes (B and D) (see List of Annexes, pages iv and v). The replies of the third parties to questions are not attached to these reports as annexes. They are however reflected in the findings section of these reports where relevant.

Page 345 of 620