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 452 of 620

Dispute Settlement Reports 2008
  • Volume 3, Pages 807-1282
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    29 April 2010
  • 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 2008: Volumes III to VI report on United States - Subsidies on Upland Cotton - Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (WT/DS267).

  • Report of the Panel

  • from United States - Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico (WT/DS344)
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2008
    Published online:
    03 January 2018
    Print publication:
    29 April 2010, pp 599-786

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    1.1 On 26 May 2006, the Government of Mexico (“Mexico”) requested consultations with the Government of the United States of America (“United States” or “US”) pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”), and Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“Anti-Dumping Agreement” or “Agreement”), regarding the laws, regulations, administrative practices and methodologies for calculating dumping margins. Consulations were held on 15 June 2006, but failed to resolve the dispute.

    1.2 On 12 October 2006, Mexico requested the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) to establish a panel pursuant to Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the GATT 1994 and Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

    1.3 At its meeting on 26 October 2006, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request of Mexico in document WT/DS344/4, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU.

    1.4 The Panel's terms of reference are the following:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Mexico in document WT/DS344/4, the matter referred to the DSB by Mexico 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.”

  • Report of the Panel

  • from European Communities – Anti-Dumping Measure on Farmed Salmon from Norway (WT/DS337)
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2008
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    29 April 2010, pp 3-490

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Complaint of Norway

    1.1 At issue in this dispute is Council Regulation (EC) No. 85/2006 of 17 January 2006 (“Definitive Regulation”) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway. Norway challenges the WTO-consistency of several aspects of this Regulation, in particular: (i) the identification of the product under consideration; (ii) the definition of the domestic industry; (iii) the calculation of the margin of dumping (including certain adjustments made to the cost of production when calculating constructed normal value); (iv) the findings of injury and causation; (v) the remedies imposed on dumped imports; and (vi) certain procedural aspects of the investigation.

    1.2 On 17 March 2006, Norway requested consultations with the European Communities (“EC”) with respect to the Definitive Regulation. On 27 March 2006, Norway submitted an addendum to its request for consultations. Consultations were held on 12 May 2006, but failed to resolve the dispute.

    1.3 Norway requested the establishment of this Panel on 29 May 2006.

    1.4 At its meeting on 22 June 2006, the Dispute Settlement Body established a Panel pursuant to the request by Norway in document WT/DS337/2, in accordance with Article 6 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU).

    1.5 At that meeting, the parties to the dispute also agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference.

  • Report of the Appellate Body

  • from United States - Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico (WT/DS344)
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2008
    Published online:
    03 January 2018
    Print publication:
    29 April 2010, pp 513-598

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    1. Mexico appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, United States – Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by Mexico concerning the calculation of margins of dumping by the United States Department of Commerce (the “USDOC”) based on a methodology that does not fully reflect export prices that are above normal value.

    2. Before the Panel, Mexico claimed that:

  • (a) “model zeroing in investigations” is, as such, inconsistent with Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), Articles 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, and 18.4 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti-Dumping Agreement”), and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the “WTO Agreement”);

  • (b) model zeroing, as applied in the original investigation at issue in this dispute, is inconsistent with Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, Articles 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement;

  • (c) “simple zeroing in periodic reviews” is, as such, inconsistent with Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, Articles 2.1, 2.4, 9.3, and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement; and

  • (d) simple zeroing, as applied in the five periodic reviews at issue in this dispute, is inconsistent with Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, Articles 2.1, 2.4, 9.3, and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2008
  • Volume 1, Pages 1-510
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    29 April 2010
  • 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 2008: I reports on European Communities - Anti-Dumping Measure on Farmed Salmon from Norway (WT/DS337).

Dispute Settlement Reports 2008
  • Volume 4, Pages 1283-1680
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    29 April 2010
  • 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 2008: Volumes III to VI report on United States - Subsidies on Upland Cotton - Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (WT/DS267).

  • Report of the Appellate Body

  • from United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton – Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (WT/DS267)
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2008
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    29 April 2010, pp 809-996

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    1. The United States and Brazil each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Brazil (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by Brazil concerning the consistency with the Agreement on Agriculture and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”) of measures taken by the United States to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) in the original proceedings in US – Upland Cotton.

    2. In the original proceedings, Brazil challenged various United States measures that Brazil alleged constituted actionable subsidies within the meaning of Part III of the SCM Agreement, prohibited subsidies within the meaning of Part II of the SCM Agreement, export subsidies within the scope of the Agreement on Agriculture, and/or subsidies actionable under Article XVI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”). Brazil also challenged certain of these measures under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. The United States argued that, by virtue of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article 13 of the Agreement on Agriculture, some of the measures were domestic support measures that were exempt from being challenged under the SCM Agreement and the GATT 1994.

  • Report of the Panel - Table of Annexes D-7 to D-12

  • from United States - Subsidies on Upland Cotton - Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (WT/DS267)
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2008
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    29 April 2010, pp 1683-2010

  • Summary

    CLAIMS OF BRAZIL REGARDING PRESENT SERIOUS PREJUDICE

    General

    Questions to both parties

    Could the parties explain how they interpret the phrases “take appropriate steps to remove the adverse effects” and “withdraw the subsidy” in Article 7.8 of the SCM Agreement?

    1. The phrases “take appropriate steps to remove the adverse effects” and “withdraw the subsidy” in Article 7.8 of the SCM Agreement require action that secures the full and complete removal of any adverse effects, or the full withdrawal of any actionable subsidy found to cause adverse effects.

    2. As Brazil stated in its answer to Question 22, the terms used in Article 7.8 require action by a defending Member, rather than inaction, and that removal of the adverse effects or withdrawal of the subsidy must be complete, rather than partial.

    3. Before addressing this interpretive question, Brazil notes a threshold question that must be addressed by a compliance Panel confronted with recommendations under Article 7.8 of the SCM Agreement – what is the “subsidy” to be withdrawn, or the adverse effects of which must be removed in the present dispute?

    4. In its 26 February response to question 11, Brazil explained that the subsidy subject to the Article 7.8 recommendation includes both the legislative and regulatory subsidy programs in the FSRI Act of 2002 and the price-contingent and mandatory payments made under those programs.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2008
  • Volume 2, Pages 511-806
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    03 January 2018
    Print publication:
    29 April 2010
  • 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 2008: II reports on United States - Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico (WT/DS344).

Page 452 of 620