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. Publications
  3. Collections & Series
  4. Dispute Settlement Reports Online
  5. Content listing

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Societies 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
×

1607 results in Dispute Settlement Reports Online

Page 29 of 81

  • VIII - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 3029-3032

  • Summary

    8.1 We recall the United States' request that we issue our findings in the form of a single document containing two separate reports with separate findings and recommendations for each complainant. We also recall that Canada agreed, and Mexico did not object, to the United States' request. Accordingly, we provide two separate sets of findings and recommendations, with separate numbers/symbols for each complainant (WT/DS384 for Canada and WT/DS386 for Mexico).

    Complaint by Canada (DS384): Findings and Recommendation

    8.2 Canada has made claims with regard to the COOL measure and the Vilsack letter under Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TBT Agreement and Articles III:4, X:3(a) and XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994.

    8.3 With respect to Canada's claims under the TBT Agreement, we conclude that:

  • (a) the COOL measure is a “technical regulation” within the meaning of Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement, whereas the Vilsack letter is not;

  • (b) the COOL measure, particularly in regard to the muscle cut meat labels, violates Article 2.1 because it affords imported livestock treatment less favourable than that accorded to like domestic livestock; and

  • (c) the COOL measure violates Article 2.2 because it does not fulfil the objective of providing consumer information on origin with respect to meat products.

  • II - ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THE THIRD PARTICIPANTS

  • 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 4172-4205

  • Summary

    Claims of Error by the Philippines — Appellant

  • 8. The Philippines maintains that the text of, and jurisprudence on, Article III:2 of the GATT 1994 make clear that this treaty provision does not prohibit the application of differential taxes to products that are not “like” or “directly substitutable”, both because of their different physical characteristics and because their price is well beyond the means of the consumer. The Philippines claims that the Panel made a number of legal errors relating to the interpretation and application of this provision. According to the Philippines, the Panel's errors in this case are not a matter of failing to weigh the evidence correctly, but that the Panel misinterpreted the relevance of the evidence, and in certain instances ignored evidence, because it was applying the wrong legal standard.

  • 9. In the view of the Philippines, the Panel treated this dispute as simply another Article III:2 trade dispute involving distilled spirits. In this respect, the Philippines argues, the Panel failed to recognize important differences in this case, which have consequences for the interpretation and application of Article III:2 in a manner that is faithful to its text and its object and purpose. The Philippines explains that the challenged measure makes no distinction based on the country of origin of the products. The specific tax provided for under Section 141(a) of the Philippines' National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (the “NIRC”) applies to distilled spirits produced from the designated raw materials (provided that such materials are produced commercially in the country where they are processed into distilled spirits), while distilled spirits produced from any other raw material are taxed at the specific tax levels provided for under Section 141(b) of the NIRC.

  • III - PARTIES' REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

  • 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 4328-4329

  • Summary

    3.1 The provisions of the WTO covered agreements raised by the complainants are Article III: 1 and Article III:2, first and second sentences, of GATT 1994. The complainants have made the following claims:

  • (a) That the excise tax imposed by the Philippines constitutes an internal tax applied to imported distilled spirits “in excess” of those applied, directly or indirectly, to “like” domestic products and is, therefore, inconsistent with the first sentence of Article III:2 of GATT 1994; and,

  • (b) That the Philippines does not apply the excise tax to imported distilled spirits and “directly competitive or substitutable” domestic distilled spirits “similarly”, and such tax is applied “so as to afford protection to domestic production”. This tax is, therefore, inconsistent with the second sentence of Article III:2 of GATT 1994.

    • 3.2 The Philippines argues that the claims under Articles III:1 and III:2 should be rejected because the imported and domestic products at issue are neither like nor directly competitive or substitutable. With respect to the claim based on the second sentence of Article III:2, the Philippines argues further that, even if the products at issue were directly competitive or substitutable, the claim should nevertheless be rejected because: (1) domestic and imported products are in fact similarly taxed; and, (2) even if they are not similarly taxed, the excise tax at issue is not being applied so as to afford protection to domestic production.

  • II - FACTUAL ASPECTS

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 2045-2062

  • Summary

    The Measures at Issue

    2.1 In its request for the establishment of a panel, Mexico identified the following measures adopted by the United States concerning the importation, marketing and sale of tuna and tuna products:

  • (a) United States Code, Title 16, Section 1385 (“Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act”);

  • (b) Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Section 216.91 (“Dolphin-safe labeling standards”) and Section 216.92 (“Dolphin-safe requirements for tuna harvested in the ETP [Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean] by large purse seine vessels”);

  • (c) The ruling in Earth Island Institute v. Hogarth, 494 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2007).

    • 2.2 This Section describes the main elements of these measures as the Panel understands them, in light of the explanations provided by the parties in their submissions and in response to questions by the Panel. It also briefly describes the “dolphin-safe” scheme established under the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP).

    Scope of Application of the DPCIA Provisions

    2.3 The Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (DPCIA) is codified in Title 16, Section 1385 of the United States Code (USC). Regulations promulgated in accordance with the DPCIA are codified in Title 50, Section 216 of the Federal Regulations. The core of the US “dolphin-safe” labelling scheme is contained in subsection 1385(d)(1)-(3) of the DPCIA. Paragraph (d) of Section 1385 of the DPCIA provisions regulates the use of the term “dolphin-safe” when it appears on tuna products.

  • IX - FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE APPELLATE BODY REPORT WT/DS394/AB/R

  • 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 3446-3447

  • Summary

    362. In the appeal of the Panel Report in China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials (complaint by the United States, WT/DS394/R) (the “US Panel Report”), for the reasons set out in this Report, the Appellate Body:

  • (a) finds that the Panel erred under Article 6.2 of the DSU in making findings regarding claims allegedly identified in Section III of the United States' panel request; and therefore declares moot and of no legal effect the Panel findings in paragraph 8.4(a)-(d) in respect of claims concerning export quota administration and allocation; in paragraph 8.5(a)-(b) in respect of claims concerning export licensing requirements; in paragraph 8.6(a)-(b) in respect of claims concerning a minimum export price requirement; and in paragraph 8.4(e) of the US Panel Report in respect of claims concerning fees and formalities in connection with exportation.

  • (b) finds that the Panel did not err in recommending, in paragraph 8.8 of the US Panel Report, that China bring its measures into conformity with its WTO obligations such that the “series of measures” do not operate to bring about a WTO-inconsistent result;

  • (c) finds that the Panel did not err, in paragraph 7.159 of the US Panel Report, in finding that there is no basis in China's Accession Protocol to allow the application of Article XX of the GATT 1994 to China's obligations in Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol; and therefore upholds the Panel's conclusion, in paragraph 8.2(b) of the US Panel Report, that China may not seek fluorspar pursuant to Article XX(g) of the GATT 1994 and the Panel's conclusion, in paragraph 8.2(c) of the US Panel Report, that China may not seek to justify the application of export duties to certain forms of magnesium, manganese and zinc pursuant to Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994;

  • […]

  • ANNEX B* UNITED STATES - MEASURES AFFECTING TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 1793-1807

  • Summary

    Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the European Communities

    The following communication, dated 20 January 2006, from the delegation of the European Communities to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.

    On 6 October 2004 the European Communities ("EC") requested consultations in the above matter with the United States ("US") pursuant to Articles 4.1, 7.1, and 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("SCM Agreement"), Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"), and Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"). Consultations were held on 5 November 2004 but failed to resolve the dispute.

    At the meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB") on 13 June concerning the request for establishment of the panel in the above case the US asserted without any explanation that 13 of the 28 subsidy programs referenced in the panel request were not listed in the consultation request of 6 October 2004 and could not be the subject of panel proceedings. The EC did not agree with this unfounded contention but expressed its readiness to continue consultations in order to clarify and resolve the issues, it being understood that this was without prejudice to the EC's legal position and rights. Accordingly, the EC on 27 June 2005 requested a continuation of the consultations held on 5 November 2004.

  • III - ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL

  • 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 4205-4206

  • Summary

    96. The following issues are raised in this appeal:

    (a) whether the Panel erred in finding that the Philippines has acted inconsistently with Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994 by applying to imported distilled spirits made from raw materials other than those designated in its legislation internal taxes in excess of those applied to “like” domestic distilled spirits made from designated raw materials, and in particular:

  • (i) whether the Panel erred in finding that each type of imported distilled spirit at issue in this dispute—gin, brandy, vodka, whisky, and tequila—made from non-designated raw materials is “like” the same type of domestic distilled spirit made from designated raw materials within the meaning of Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994;

  • (ii) whether the Panel erred in finding that all the distilled spirits at issue, whether imported or domestic, and irrespective of the raw materials from which they are made, are “like products” within the meaning of Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994; and

  • (iii) whether the Panel, in finding that the products at issue are “like” within the meaning of Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994, acted inconsistently with its duties under Article 11 of the DSU in its assessment of: (1) the products' physical characteristics; (2) the Philippine market for distilled spirits; and (3) tariff classification;

Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
  • Volume 12, Pages 6249–6772
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    12 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: XII reports on China - Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-Rolled Electrical Steel from the United States (WT/DS414).

Page 29 of 81