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 476 of 620

  • United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services – Recourse by the United States to Arbitration under Article 22.6 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (WT/DS285): Decision by the Arbitrator

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2007
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    19 March 2009, pp 4163-4282

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Initial Proceedings

    On 20 April 2005, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the report of the Panel in this dispute, as modified by the report of the Appellate Body.

    The Appellate Body inter alia upheld the original panel's finding that the United States’ Schedule includes a commitment to grant full market access in gambling and betting services and upheld the Panel's finding that the United States acts inconsistently with Article XVI:1 and sub-paragraphs (a) and (c) of Article XVI:2 by maintaining certain limitations on market access not specified in its Schedule. The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding that the United States had not shown that the three federal statutes are “necessary to protect public morals or to maintain public order”, within the meaning of Article XIV(a). The Appellate Body modified the conclusion of the panel with respect to Article XIV as a whole and found, instead, “that the United States has demonstrated that the Wire Act, the Travel Act, and the Illegal Gambling Business Act are measures ‘necessary to protect public morals or maintain public order', in accordance with paragraph (a) of Article XIV, but that the United States has not shown, in the light of the Interstate Horseracing Act, that the prohibitions embodied in those measures are applied to both foreign and domestic service suppliers of remote betting services for horse racing and, therefore, has not established that these measures satisfy the requirements of the chapeau”.

    On 19 August 2005, an arbitrator established under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU determined that the “reasonable period of time” for the United States to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute was 11 months and 2 weeks from the date of adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports by the DSB. The United States was consequently awarded until 3 April 2006 to bring its measures into conformity with its obligations under the GATS.

    On 8 June 2006, Antigua and Barbuda (hereafter “Antigua”) requested consultations with the United States under Article 21.5 of the DSU. On 6 July 2006, Antigua requested the establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU.

  • Brazil - Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres (WT/DS332): Report of the Panel

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2007
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    19 March 2009, pp 1649-2130

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Complaint of the European Communities

    On 20 June 2005, the European Communities requested consultations with Brazil under Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”) and Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”) regarding Brazil's imposition of measures that adversely affect exports of retreaded tyres from the European Communities to the Brazilian market.

    Consultations were held on 20 July 2005. These consultations have allowed a better understanding of the measures at issue and the respective positions but have not led to a satisfactory resolution of the matter.

    On 17 November 2005, the European Communities requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 28 November 2005, the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) deferred the establishment of a panel until a second request had been made by the European Communities.

    Establishment and composition of the Panel

    At its meeting on 20 January 2006, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request of the European Communities in document WT/DS332/4, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU.

    At that meeting, the parties to the dispute 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 the European Communities in document WT/DS332/4, the matter referred to the DSB by the European Communities 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 6 March 2006, the European Communities requested the Director- General to compose the panel. On 16 March 2006, the Director-General composed the panel as follows:

    Chairman: Mr Mitsuo Matsushita

    Members: Mr Donald M. McRae

    Mr Chang-Fa Lo

    Argentina, Australia, China, Cuba, Guatemala, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Paraguay, Chinese Taipei, Thailand and the United States reserved their thirdparty rights.

    Panel proceedings

    On 22 June 2006, the Panel received an unsolicited amicus curiae brief from Humane Society International. On 4 July 2006, the Panel received another unsolicited amicus curiae brief from a group of organizations. At the first substantive meeting, Brazil informed the Panel of its decision to include the two amicus curiae briefs as part of its exhibits.

  • Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products - Recourse by Argentina to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (WT/DS207): Report of the Panel

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2007
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    19 March 2009, pp 613-700

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 29 December 2005, Argentina requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (hereinafter “DSU”) concerning Chile's alleged failure to implement the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (hereinafter “DSB”) in the dispute Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products (hereinafter “Chile – Price Band System”).

    At its meeting on 20 January 2006, the DSB decided, in accordance with Article 21.5 of the DSU, to refer to the original Panel, if possible, the matter raised by Argentina in document WT/DS207/18. 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/DS207/18, the matter 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 4 April 2006, the parties agreed that the Panel would be composed as follows:

    Chairman: Mr Hardeep Puri

    Members: Mr Ho-Young Ahn

    Mr Timothy Groser

    Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, the European Communities, Peru, Thailand and the United States reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties.

    The Panel met with the parties on 1 and 2 August 2006. It met with the third parties on 2 August 2006. The Panel issued the draft descriptive part of its report to the parties on 27 September 2006. On the same date, third parties were also sent a copy of the annexes that contained their respective submissions and oral statements. On 2 October 2006, both parties submitted comments to the draft descriptive part of the report. On 4 October 2006, the United States requested a correction into the annex that contains its oral statement made at the meeting with the Panel. The Panel issued its interim report to the parties on 11 October 2006.

  • Japan – Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access Memories from Korea (WT/DS336): Report of the Panel

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2007
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    19 March 2009, pp 2805-3084

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 14 March 2006, the Government of Korea (“Korea”) requested consultations with the Government of Japan (“Japan”) pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”), and Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”) regarding the imposition of countervailing duties by Japan on imports of certain Dynamic Random Access Memories (“DRAMS”) from Korea, and certain aspects of the investigation and determination that led to the imposition of such duties.

    On 27 March 2006, the United States requested to be joined in these consultations pursuant to Article 4.11 of the DSU. The European Communities made a similar request on 29 March 2006. Japan accepted these requests. Consultations were held on 25 April 2006, but failed to settle the dispute.

    On 18 May 2006, Korea requested the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) to establish a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, and Article 30 of the SCM Agreement.

    At its meeting on 19 June 2006, the DSB established a Panel pursuant to the request by Korea in document WT/DS336/5, 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 are, therefore, the following:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Korea in document WT/DS336/5, 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 24 August 2006, the parties agreed to compose the Panel as follows:

    Chairman: Mr. Daniel Moulis

    Members: Dr. Faizullah Khilji

    Mr. José Luis Santiago Pérez Gabilondo

    China, the European Communities and the United States reserved their third party rights.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2007
  • Volume 10, Pages 3827-4300
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    19 March 2009
  • 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. Among others, DSR 2007: X reports on United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews and United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services.

  • United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services – Recourse by Antigua and Barbuda to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (WT/DS285): Report of the Panel

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2007
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    19 March 2009, pp 3105-3368

  • Summary

    PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

    On 20 April 2005, the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) adopted the Appellate Body Report (WT/DS285/AB/R) and the Panel Report (WT/DS285/R) as modified by the Appellate Body Report in the dispute on United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services. In its recommendations and rulings, the DSB requested the United States to bring its measures, that were found, in the Appellate Body Report and in the Panel Report as modified by that Report, to be inconsistent with its obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), into conformity with its obligations under that Agreement.

    On 19 May 2005, the United States informed the DSB that it intended to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute in a manner that respected the United States’ WTO obligations, and that it had begun to evaluate options for doing so. The United States indicated that it would need a reasonable period of time in which to do this and that it stood ready to discuss this matter with the Government of Antigua and Barbuda (“Antigua”), in accordance with Article 21.3(b) of the DSU.

    On 6 June 2005, Antigua informed the DSB that Antigua and the United States had been unable to agree on a reasonable period of time. Consequently, Antigua requested that the reasonable period of time be determined through binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”). On 30 June 2005, the Director-General appointed Dr. Claus-Dieter Ehlermann to act as Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c).

    In the Arbitration Award, which was circulated on 19 August 2005, the Arbitrator determined that the “reasonable period of time” for the United States to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB was 11 months and 2 weeks from 20 April 2005, which was the date on which the DSB adopted the Panel and Appellate Body Reports. The reasonable period of time was therefore to expire on 3 April 2006.

    In a first Status Report dated 6 March 2006, the United States informed the DSB that the “US Administration, in consultation with the US Congress, has been working on appropriate steps to resolve this matter”.

  • Brazil - Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres (WT/DS332): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2007
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    19 March 2009, pp 1527-1628

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The European Communities appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by the European Communities concerning the consistency of certain measures imposed by Brazil on the importation and marketing of retreaded tyres with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”).

    Before the Panel, the European Communities claimed that Brazil imposed a prohibition on the importation of retreaded tyres, notably by virtue of Article 40 of Portaria No. 14 of the Secretaria de Comércio Exterior (“SECEX”) (Secretariat of Foreign Trade of the Brazilian Ministry of Development, Industry, and Foreign Trade), dated 17 November 2004 (“Portaria SECEX 14/2004”), and that this prohibition was inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994. The European Communities also contended that certain Brazilian measures providing for the imposition of fines on the importation of retreaded tyres, and on the marketing, transportation, storage, keeping, or warehousing of imported retreaded tyres, were similarly inconsistent with Article XI:1 or, alternatively, Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. In addition, the European Communities made claims under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 in respect of certain state measures prohibiting the marketing of, and/or imposing disposal obligations on the importers of, imported retreaded tyres. Finally, the European Communities challenged the exemption from the import prohibition on retreaded tyres and associated fines provided by Brazil to retreaded tyres originating in countries of the Mercado Común del Sur (“MERCOSUR”) (Southern Common Market). The European Communities contended that these exemptions were inconsistent with Articles I:1 and XIII:1 of the GATT 1994.

    Brazil did not contest that the prohibition on the importation of retreaded tyres and associated fines were prima facie inconsistent with Article XI:1; or that state measures prohibiting the marketing of, and/or imposing disposal obligations on the importers of, imported retreaded tyres were prima facie inconsistent with Article III:4; or that the exemptions from both the import prohibition and associated fines afforded to retreaded tyres imported from MERCOSUR countries were prima facie inconsistent with Articles I:1 and XIII:1 of the GATT 1994.

  • United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina – Recourse by Argentina to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (WT/DS268): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2007
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    19 March 2009, pp 3523-3608

  • 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, Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Argentina (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by Argentina concerning the consistency with the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti-Dumping Agreement”) and the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the “WTO 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 – Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews.

    In the original proceedings, Argentina challenged various aspects of United States laws, regulations, and procedures relating to the conduct of sunset reviews. For purposes of these proceedings pursuant to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), the relevant laws and regulations are those relating to the waiver of an exporter's right to participate in the review conducted by the United States Department of Commerce (the “USDOC”). At the time of the original proceedings, two waiver situations were contemplated under United States laws and regulations: (i) the so-called “affirmative waiver”, where an exporter explicitly waives its right to participate pursuant to Section 751(c)(4)(A) of the United States Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Tariff Act”); and (ii) the so-called “deemed waiver”, where an exporter, through silence or failure to submit a complete substantive response to a notice of initiation of a sunset review by the USDOC, was “deemed” to have waived its right to participate pursuant to Section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the United States Code of Federal Regulations (the “Regulations”). Argentina also challenged in the original proceedings several aspects of the sunset review conducted by the USDOC and the United States International Trade Commission (the “USITC”) of the anti-dumping duty order on oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) imported from Argentina.

  • United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews (WT/DS322): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2007
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    19 March 2009, pp 3-96

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Japan and the United States each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by Japan concerning the calculation of margins of dumping by the United States based on a methodology that disregards the amounts by which the export prices are above the normal value in certain transactions.

    Before the Panel, Japan challenged, under the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti-Dumping Agreement”), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), and the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the “WTO Agreement”):

  • (a) the United States’ “zeroing procedures” and the “standard zeroing line”, “as such”, in the context of “original investigations”, “periodic reviews”, “new shipper reviews”, “changed circumstances reviews”, and “sunset reviews”; and

  • (b) the application of the “zeroing procedures” in one “original investigation”, in 11 “periodic reviews”, and in two “sunset reviews”.

    • In the Panel Report, circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 20 September 2006, the Panel made the following findings in respect of “model zeroing” and “simple zeroing”:

  • (a) By maintaining model zeroing procedures in the context of original investigations, the United States Department of Commerce (the “USDOC”) acts inconsistently with Article 2.4.2 of the Anti- Dumping Agreement.

  • (b) By using model zeroing in the anti-dumping investigation of imports of cut-to-length carbon quality steel products from Japan, the USDOC acted inconsistently with Article 2.4.2 of the Anti- Dumping Agreement.

  • (c) By maintaining simple zeroing procedures in the context of original investigations, the USDOC does not act inconsistently with Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1-3.5, 5.8, and 18.4 of the Anti- Dumping Agreement, Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

  • (d) By maintaining simple zeroing procedures in the context of periodic reviews and new shipper reviews, the USDOC does not act inconsistently with Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 9.1-9.3, 9.5, and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2007
  • Volume 7, Pages 2701-3102
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    19 March 2009
  • 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. Among others, DSR 2007: VII reports on Japan – Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access Memories from Korea.

  • United States – Anti-Dumping Measure on Shrimp from Ecuador (WT/DS335): Report of the Panel

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2007
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    19 March 2009, pp 425-512

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Complaint of Ecuador

    On 17 November 2005, the Government of Ecuador (“Ecuador”) requested consultations pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“the DSU”), Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“the GATT”), and Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“the Anti-Dumping Agreement”) concerning certain anti-dumping measures on frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador and, in particular, the United States Department of Commerce (“USDOC”)'s practice of “zeroing” when calculating dumping margins, as applied in these measures. Ecuador and the United States consulted on 31 January 2006 and on several occasions thereafter, but failed to resolve the dispute.

    On 8 June 2006, Ecuador requested the Dispute Settlement Body (“the DSB”) to establish a panel pursuant to Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the GATT, and Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

    At its meeting on 19 July 2006, the DSB established a Panel in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU to examine the matter referred to the DSB by Ecuador in document WT/DS335/6. The Panel's terms of reference are the following:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Ecuador in document WT/DS335/6, the matter referred to the DSB by Ecuador 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 26 September 2006, the parties agreed that the Panel would be composed as follows:

    Chairman: Mr. Alberto Juan Dumont

    Members: Ms. Deborah Milstein

    Ms. Stephanie Sin Far Man

    Brazil, Chile, China, the European Communities, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico and Thailand reserved their third-party rights.

    The Panel's meetings with the parties and the third parties were held on 3 November 2006.

    FACTUAL ASPECTS

    At issue in this dispute is the use by the USDOC of zeroing as applied in respect of three anti-dumping measures on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador. The measures as identified by Ecuador are the final determination of dumping, the amended final determination of dumping, and the anti-dumping order.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2007
  • Volume 2, Pages 423-718
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    19 March 2009
  • 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. Among others, DSR 2007: II reports on United States – Anti-Dumping Measure on Shrimp from Ecuador and Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products - Recourse by Argentina to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.

Page 476 of 620