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 578 of 620

  • Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products - Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States (WT/DS103, WT/DS113): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    25 October 2004, pp 6865-6953

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 23 December 1999, pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, Canada, New Zealand and the United States agreed (WT/DS103/10; WT/DS113/10) on the reasonable period of time for implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (the DSB) in the matter of “Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products”. According to the terms of the 23 December 1999 agreement, as amended on 11 December 2000 (WT/DS103/13; WT/DS113/13), the staged implementation process, “including any new measures for the export of” dairy products, was to be completed by 31 January 2001.

    On 19 January 2001, Canada circulated to all Members of the DSB (WT/DS103/12/Add.6, WT/DS/113/12/Add.6) its “final status report”, pursuant to Article 21.6 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the DSU). In that report Canada affirmed “that it will be in full compliance with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB by the conclusion of the implementation period” on 31 January 2001.

    New Zealand and the United States consider that Canada has failed to comply with the above mentioned recommendations and rulings of the DSB by 31 January 2001.

    Without prejudice to their rights under the WTO, and in accordance with paragraph 1 of the 21 December 2000 “Agreed Procedures between Canada, New Zealand and the United States under Articles 21 and 22 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding in the follow-up to the dispute in “Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products” (WT/DS113/14 and 103/14, respectively) (Agreed Procedures), New Zealand and the United States requested consultations with Canada on 2 February 2001. Consultations were held on 9 February 2001, but failed to resolve the dispute.

    Pursuant to Article 21.5, and as envisaged in the Agreed Procedures, New Zealand and the United States on 16 February 2001 accordingly requested the establishment of a panel in this matter and requested that the DSB refer the matter to the original panel, if possible (WT/DS113/16 and 103/16, respectively.)

Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
  • Volume 8, Pages 3303-4047
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004
  • 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. 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. Volume VIII reports on measures affecting asbestos and asbestos-containing products (European Communities).

  • Thailand - Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland (WT/DS122/AB/R, WT/DS122/R): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004, pp 2701-2738

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Thailand appeals from certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, Thailand - Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint relating to an anti-dumping action taken by Thailand with respect to imports of certain iron or non-alloy steel products from Poland.

    The factual background to this dispute is set out in detail in the Panel Report. On 21 June 1996, Siam Yamato Steel Co. Ltd., filed an application with Thailand's Ministry of Commerce for the imposition of anti-dumping duties on, inter alia, angles, shapes and sections of iron or non-alloy steel: H-beams (“H-beams”) originating in Poland. On 30 August 1996, the Thai investigating authorities published a notice of initiation of an anti-dumping investigation on H-beams originating in Poland, and forwarded a copy of that notice to the Polish Embassy in Bangkok, and to the two Polish firms under investigation, namely Huta Katowice and Stalexport. On 1 May 1997, the Thai authorities sent copies of the proposed final determination of dumping andin jury to the two Polish firms. On 26 May 1997, the authorities published a notice of the application of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of H-beams originating in Poland. On 4 June 1997, the authorities transmitted this notice, along with a notice, dated 30 May 1997, of the final determination of dumping and injury to Poland.

    On 6 April 1998, Poland requested consultations with Thailand pursuant to Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti-Dumping Agreement”), and Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), in respect of Thailand's imposition of final anti-dumping duties on imports of H-beams originating in Poland. As the consultations held on 29 May 1998 did not lead to a mutually satisfactory solution of the matter, on 13 October 1999, Poland requested the establishment of a panel. On 19 November 1999, the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) established a panel to consider Poland's claims.

  • Report of the Panel

  • from United States - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia (WT/DS177, WT/DS178)
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004, pp 4107-4693

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Complaint of New Zealand

    On 16 July 1999, New Zealand requested consultations with the United States pursuant to Article 4 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (“the DSU”), Article XXII:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards (“the Safeguards Agreement”, “SG”) with regard to a definitive safeguard measure imposed by the United States on imports of lamb meat.

    On 26 August 1999, New Zealand and the United States held the requested consultations, but failed to resolve the dispute.

    On 14 October 1999, New Zealand requested the establishment of a panel to examine the matter.

    Complaint of Australia

    On 23 July 1999, Australia requested consultations with the United States pursuant to DSU Article 4, GATT Article XXII:1 and SG Article 14 with regard to the definitive safeguard measure imposed by the United States on imports of lamb meat.

    On 26 August 1999, Australia and the United States held the requested consultations, but failed to resolve the dispute.

    On 14 October 1999, Australia requested the establishment of a panel to examine the matter.

    Establishment and Composition of the Panel

    At its meeting of 19 November 1999, in accordance with DSU Article 9 the Dispute Settlement Body (“the DSB”) established a single Panel, pursuant to the requests made by New Zealand and Australia.

    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 New Zealand in document WT/DS177/4 and by Australia in document WT/DS178/5 and Corr. 1, the matter referred to the DSB by New Zealand and Australia in those documents, 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 21 March 2000, the parties agreed to the following composition of the Panel:

    Chairman: Professor Tommy Koh

    Members: Professor Meinhard Hilf

    Mr. Shishir Priyadarshi

    Australia (in respect of New Zealand's complaint), Canada, the European Communities, Iceland, Japan and New Zealand (in respect of Australia's complaint), reserved their rights to participate in the panel proceedings as third parties.

  • Thailand - Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland (WT/DS122/AB/R, WT/DS122/R): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004, pp 2739-3238

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 6 April 1998, Poland requested consultations with Thailand pursuant to Article 17.3 of the Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (“the AD Agreement”) and Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“the DSU”) regarding Thailand's imposition of final anti-dumping duties on imports of angles, shapes and sections of iron or nonalloy steel: H-beams (“H-beams”) originating in Poland. Poland and Thailand held consultations on 29 May 1998 but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter.

    On 13 October 1999, pursuant to Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU and Article 17 of the AD Agreement, Poland requested the establishment of a Panel to examine the matter.

    At its meeting on 19 November 1999, the Dispute Settlement Body (“the DSB”) established a Panel in accordance with Poland's request. 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 Poland in document WT/DS122/2, the matter referred to the DSB by Poland in document WT/DS122/2, and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements”.

    On 20 December 1999, the parties to the dispute agreed on the following composition of the Panel:

    Chairman: Professor John H. Jackson

    Members: Mr. Roberto Azevêdo

    Mr. Gilles Gauthier

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

    The Panel met with the parties on 7-8 March 2000 and 12 April 2000. It met with the third parties on 8 March 2000.

    On 31 May 2000, the Panel provided its interim report to the parties. On 9 and 13 June 2000, respectively, Poland and Thailand submitted written requests for review by the Panel of precise aspects of the interim report. On 15 June 2000, the parties submittedwritten comments on one anothers’ requests for interim review. Section VI, infra, describes the interim review requests and comments received, and the changes made to the report in response to those comments.

  • European Communities - Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products (WT/DS135): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004, pp 3305-4047

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    In a communication dated 28 May 1998, Canada requested consultations with the European Communities (EC) pursuant to Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Article 11 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) and Article 14 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), concerning certain measures taken by France for the prohibition of asbestos and products containing asbestos (WT/DS135/1 - G/SPS/GEN/72 - G/TBT/D/15). Canada's request states that these measures include, but are not limited to, Decree No. 96-1133 of 24 December 1996 (the “Decree”) banning asbestos, issued pursuant to the Labour Code and the Consumer Code, as amended. On 12 June 1998, Brazil asked to take part in the consultations because of its substantial trade interest (WT/DS/135/2).

    In a communication dated 8 October 1998, Canada informed the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) that the consultations held with the EC had failed to resolve the dispute satisfactorily. Consequently, Canada requested the DSB to establish a panel to examine the French measure concerning the prohibition of asbestos and products containing asbestos. In its communication, Canada claimed that the Decree, as well as any other measure which Canada might indicate, were inconsistent with Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, Articles III and XI of the GATT 1994, and, under Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994, nullified or impaired one or several advantages accruing to Canada directly or indirectly under the WTO Agreement or impeded the attainment of an objective of the Agreement owing to the fact that the banning of asbestos by France was applied whether or not it conflicted with the Agreement (WT/DS/135/3).

    At its meeting held on 25 November 1998, the DSB established a panel pursuant to Canada's request. At that meeting, the parties to the dispute agreed that the Panel should have the following terms of reference:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Canada in document WT/DS135/3, 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”.

  • United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan (WT/DS184): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004, pp 4769-5478

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 18 November 1999, Japan requested consultations with the United States under Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the DSU), Article 17.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”). The United States and Japan consulted on 13 January 2000, but failed to settle the dispute.

    On 11 February 2000, Japan requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU and Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

    At its meeting on 20 March 2000, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a Panel in accordance with the request made by Japan in document WT/DS184/2. 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 Japan in document WT/DS184/2, the matter referred to the DSB by Japan in document WT/DS184/2, and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements”.

    On 9 May 2000, Japan requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel, pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 8 of the DSU. On 24 May 2000, the Director-General composed the Panel as follows:

    Chairman: Mr. Harsha V. Singh

    Members: Mr. Yanyong Phuangrach

    Ms. Elena Lidia di Vico

    Brazil, Canada, Chile, the European Communities and Korea reserved their rights to participate in the panel proceedings as third parties.

    The Panel met with the parties on 22-23 August 2000 and on 27 September 2000. It met with the third parties on 23 August 2000.

    The Panel submitted its interim report to the parties on 22 January 2001.

    FACTUAL ASPECTS

    This dispute concerns the imposition by the United States of anti-dumping measures on imports of certain hot-rolled flat-rolled-carbon-quality steel products (“hot-rolled steel”) from Japan.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
  • Volume 10, Pages 4695-5478
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004
  • 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. 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. Volume X reports on anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan (United States).

Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
  • Volume 7, Pages 2699-3301
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004
  • 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. 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. Volume VII reports on anti-dumping duties on angles, shapes and sections of iron or non-alloy steel and H-beams from Poland (Thailand), and measures affecting asbestos and asbestos-containing products (European Communities).

  • Report of the Appellate Body

  • from United States - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia (WT/DS177, WT/DS178)
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004, pp 4051-4106

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The United States, Australia and New Zealand appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, United States - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider complaints by Australia and New Zealand with respect to a definitive safeguard measure imposed by the United States on imports of fresh, chilled and frozen lamb meat.

    On 7 October 1998, the United States International Trade Commission (the “USITC”) initiated a safeguard investigation into imports of lamb meat. By Proclamation of the President of the United States, dated 7 July 1999, the United States imposed a definitive safeguard measure, in the form of a tariff-rate quota, on imports of fresh, chilled and frozen lamb meat, effective as of 22 July 1999. The factual aspects of this dispute are set out in greater detail in the Panel Report.

    The Panel considered claims by Australia and New Zealand that, in imposing the safeguard measure on imports of lamb meat, the United States acted inconsistently with Articles I, II, and XIX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), and with Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards.

    In its Report, circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 21 December 2000, the Panel concluded:

  • a) that the United States has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 by failing to demonstrate as a matter of fact the existence of “unforeseen developments”;

  • (b) that the United States has acted inconsistently with Article 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards because the USITC, in the lamb meat investigation, defined the domestic industry as including input producers (i.e., growers and feeders of live lamb) as producers of the like product at issue (i.e. lamb meat);

  • (c) that the complainants failed to establish that the USITC's analytical approach to determining the existence of a threat of serious injury, in particular with respect to the prospective analysis and the time-period used, is inconsistent with Article 4.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards (assuming arguendo that the USITC's industry definition was consistent with the Agreement on Safeguards);

  • United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan (WT/DS184): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004, pp 4697-4768

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The United States and Japan appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot Rolled Steel Products from Japan (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by Japan with respect to anti-dumping measures imposed by the United States on imports of certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products (“hot-rolled steel”) from Japan.

    On 15 October 1998, the United States Department of Commerce (“USDOC”) initiated an anti-dumping investigation into imports of hot-rolled steel from, among others, Japan. USDOC determined that it was not practicable to examine all known Japanese producers and exporters and, therefore, conducted its investigation on the basis of a sample of Japanese producers. USDOC selected Kawasaki Steel Corporation (“KSC”), Nippon Steel Corporation (“NSC”), and NKK Corporation (“NKK”) for individual investigation. USDOC calculated an individual dumping margin for each of these companies. USDOC also established a single rate of anti-dumping duty applicable to all those Japanese producers and exporters not individually investigated (the “all others” rate). The “all others” rate was calculated as the weighted average of the individual dumping margins calculated for KSC, NSC and NKK. On 6 May 1999, USDOC published its final affirmative dumping determination. On 23 June 1999, the United States International Trade Commission (the “USITC”) published its final affirmative determination of injury to the United States’ hot-rolled steel industry. On 29 June 1999, USDOC published an antidumping duty order imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of hot-rolled steel from Japan. The factual aspects of this dispute are set out in greater detail in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.9 of the Panel Report.

    The Panel considered claims by Japan that, in imposing the specific antidumping measures on hot-rolled steel, the United States acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 4.1, 6.1, 6.6, 6.8, 6.13, 9.3, 9.4, 10.1, 10.6, and 10.7 and Annex II of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti-Dumping Agreement ”); and with Article X:3 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”);

Page 578 of 620