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 31 of 81

  • VIII - CONCLUSIONS 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 4401-4404

  • Summary

    8.1 We recall the complainants' request that the Panel issue its findings in the form of a single document containing two separate reports with common sections but separate conclusions and recommendations for each complaining party. In accordance with the requests by the complaining parties, we therefore provide two separate sets of conclusions and recommendations.

  • VIII - ARTICLE 2.4 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 1981-2000

  • Summary

    Introduction

    343. The United States and Mexico each appeal different elements of the Panel's findings under Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement. The United States appeals the Panel's finding that the “AIDCP dolphin-safe definition and certification” constitute a “relevant international standard” within the meaning of Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement. In particular, the United States appeals the Panel's intermediate finding that the AIDCP constitutes an “international standardizing organization” for the purposes of Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement. Mexico appeals the Panel's conclusion that Mexico failed to demonstrate that the AIDCP standard is an effective and appropriate means to fulfil the objectives pursued by the United States.

    344. The Panel interpreted the term “international standard” in Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement to mean a “standard that is adopted by an international standardizing/standards organization and made available to the public”. The Panel in turn interpreted the term “international standardizing organization” to refer to “a legal or administrative entity based on the membership of other bodies or individuals that has an established constitution and its own administration, has recognized activities in standardization, and whose membership is open to the relevant national body of every country.” The Panel found that the “AIDCP dolphin-safe definition and certification” constitute a “standard”, that the AIDCP is an “international standardizing organization”, and that the AIDCP standard was made available to the public.

  • VI - INTERIM REVIEW

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 2192-2202

  • Summary

    General

    6.1 On 5 May 2011, we transmitted our interim report to the parties. On 26 May 2011, Mexico and the United States requested the Panel to review precise aspects of the Interim Panel Report pursuant to Article 15.2 of the DSU and the Working Procedures adopted by the Panel. On 14 June 2011, both parties presented comments on each other's requests for review.

    6.2 In its comments on the US request for review, Mexico argued that “many of the changes proposed by the United States appear to be efforts to change the substantive findings of the Panel, to enter into debate with the Panel, to have the Panel place special emphasis on US arguments, or to alter the Panel's descriptions of Mexico's arguments. Moreover, many of the US comments are more in the nature of requests for reconsideration which are not appropriate for this phase of the proceedings”.

    6.3 As stated on previous occasions by the Appellate Body, the interim review stage is not an appropriate moment to introduce new and unanswered evidence. However, in our view, requests to review precise aspects of the Panel's report may legitimately include requests for “reconsideration” of specific factual or legal findings, provided that such requests are not based on the presentation of new evidence. We therefore did not find it necessary to exclude a priori from consideration any request for review from either party on the sole basis that it would seek reconsideration by the Panel of some of its determinations.

  • 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;

  • […]

Page 31 of 81