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 32 of 81

  • VII - ARTICLE 2.2 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 1966-1981

  • Summary

    301. We turn next to the United States' appeal of the Panel's finding that the measure at issue is more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil the legitimate objectives pursued by the United States, and that, therefore, the measure is inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. The United States alleges that the Panel erred in its application of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement and failed to make an objective assessment of the matter before it as required pursuant to Article 11 of the DSU. Mexico raises a conditional other appeal with respect to the Panel's finding under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.

    The Panel's Findings

    302. The Panel concluded that the measure at issue is inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, because it is more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil the legitimate objectives pursued by the United States, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would create. This conclusion is based on a number of intermediate findings by the Panel. First, the Panel assessed the United States' objectives based on the description of those objectives by both parties, as well as on the basis of the design, structure, and characteristics of the measure at issue, and found the objectives to be the following:

  • (a) “ensuring that consumers are not misled or deceived about whether tuna products contain tuna that was caught in a manner that adversely affects dolphins” (the “consumer information objective”); and

  • (b) “contributing to the protection of dolphins, by ensuring that the US market is not used to encourage fishing fleets to catch tuna in a manner that adversely affects dolphins” (the “dolphin protection objective”).

  • VII - ARTICLE XI:2(a) OF THE GATT 1994

  • 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 3428-3441

  • Summary

    308. We turn next to China's appeal of the Panel's finding that China had not demonstrated that its export quota on refractory-grade bauxite was “temporarily applied”, within the meaning of Article XI:2(a) of the GATT 1994, to either prevent or relieve a “critical shortage”. China alleges that the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article XI:2(a) of the GATT 1994, and acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU.

    The Panel's Findings and Arguments on Appeal

    309. The Panel found that China's export quota on refractory-grade bauxite is inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994. China argued that this export quota is a restriction temporarily applied to prevent or relieve a critical shortage of an essential product in the sense of Article XI:2(a) of the GATT 1994 and that it therefore does not fall within the scope of Article XI:1's general prohibition of quantitative restrictions. The Panel determined, however, that China had failed to demonstrate that the export quota applied to refractory-grade bauxite is justified pursuant to Article XI:2(a).598 In reaching this conclusion, the Panel agreed with China that “refractory-grade bauxite is currently ‘essential’ to China, as that term is used in Article XI:2(a)”. The Panel found, however, that China had failed to demonstrate that the export quota was “temporarily applied” within the meaning of Article XI:2(a). The Panel also found that China had failed to demonstrate that there was a “critical shortage” of refractory-grade bauxite in China.

  • V - ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 833-881

  • Summary

    Australia

    1. Introduction

    5.1 Australia focuses on a select few topics which raise significant systemic issues as well as important questions of legal interpretation.

    2. Financial contribution

    (a) Relevance of the nature of government action

    5.2 Australia considers that whether a government action can also be characterised as a particular type of transaction (for example, the ‘purchase of services’) is irrelevant to the question of whether it constitutes a ‘financial contribution’ within the meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1). Rather, the relevant question is whether the government action can properly be described as falling within one of the categories of financial contribution set out in Article 1.1(a)(1).

    5.3 Australia recalls the statement of the Appellate Body in US – Softwood Lumber IV that ‘{a}n evaluation of the existence of a financial contribution involves consideration of the nature of the transaction through which something of economic value is transferred by a government’. Therefore, Australia submits that it is important to accurately identify the nature of the government action concerned in determining whether it falls within one of the categories of financial contribution.

    5.4 In Australia's view, the facts and circumstances surrounding the measure concerned should determine the nature of the government action and, consequently, whether it falls within one of the categories of financial contribution in Article 1.1(a)(1). In other words, it is the nature of the government action, and not its characterisation as a particular type of transaction, that determines whether it falls within Article 1.1(a)(1).

  • V - ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES

  • 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 4329-4330

  • Summary

    5.1 The arguments of the third parties, as set forth in the executive summaries of their written submissions and oral statements to the Panel, are attached to these reports as Annexes (B and D) (see List of Annexes, pages iv and v). The replies of the third parties to questions are not attached to these reports as annexes. They are however reflected in the findings section of these reports where relevant.

  • Report of the Panel

  • from United States – Measures Affecting Imports of Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tyres from China (WT/DS399)
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2011
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    14 February 2013, pp 4945-5212

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    1.1 On 14 September 2009, the People's Republic of China ("China") requested consultations with the United States pursuant to Article XXIII:1 of the GATT 1994, Articles 1 and 4 of the DSU and Article 14 of the Safeguards Agreement, with regard to certain measures taken by the United States allegedly affecting the import of certain passenger vehicle and light truck tyres from China. China and the United States held consultations in Geneva on 9 November 2009, but failed to resolve the dispute. At the DSB meeting on 19 January 2010, China requested the establishment of a Panel pursuant to Article XXIII:2 of the GATT 1994, Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU and Article 14 of the Safeguards Agreement. At that meeting, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request of China.

    1.2 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 China in document WT/DS399/2 and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.

  • Report of the Panel

  • from United States - Anti-Dumping Administrative Reviews and Other Measures Related to Imports of Certain Orange Juice from Brazil (WT/DS382)
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2011
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    14 February 2013, pp 3753-3994

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    1.1 On 27 November 2008, the Government of Brazil ("Brazil") requested consultations with the Government of the United States of America (the "United States") 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") and Articles 17.2 and 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994 (the "AD Agreement"), with regard to certain laws, regulations, administrative procedures, practices and methodologies for calculating dumping margins in administrative reviews, involving the alleged use of so-called "zeroing", and their application in anti-dumping duty administrative reviews regarding imports of certain orange juice from Brazil (case No A- 351-840). On 22 May 2009, Brazil requested further consultations with the United States with regard to the alleged use of "zeroing" in the anti-dumping duty investigation and in the second administrative review related to case No A- 351-840 as well as to the continued use of the United States "zeroing procedures" in successive anti-dumping proceedings regarding imports of certain orange juice from Brazil. The consultations were held on 16 January and 18 June 2009, respectively. The consultations failed to resolve the dispute.

  • Report of the Appellate Body

  • from European Communities and Certain Member States - Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (WT/DS316)
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2011
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    14 February 2013, pp 7-658

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    1. The European Union and the United States each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, European Communities and Certain Member States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established, on 20 July 2005, to consider a complaint by the United States that a series of measures adopted by the European Communities and certain EC member States constituted subsidies to the Airbus companies for the development of large civil aircraft (“LCA”) and were inconsistent with the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”). The measures at issue that were the subject of the United States’ claims before the Panel include:

  • (a) “launch aid” or “member State financing” (“LA/MSF”): the provision of financing by the Governments of France, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom (hereinafter, the “member States”) to Airbus for the purpose of developing the following LCA—the A300, A310, A320, A330/A340 (including the A330-200 and A340-500/600 variants), A350, and A380;

  • (b) loans from the European Investment Bank (the “EIB”): 12 loans provided by the EIB to Airbus companies between 1988 and 2002 for LCA design, development, and other purposes;

  • […]

  • Report of the Appellate Body

  • from Thailand – Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines (WT/DS371)
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2011
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    14 February 2013, pp 2203-2298

  • Summary

    I. INTRODUCTION

  • Thailand appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, Thailand – Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines (the "Panel Report"). The Panel was established on 17 November 2008 to consider a complaint by the Philippines with respect to certain customs and fiscal measures imposed by Thailand on cigarettes imported from the Philippines.

  • Before the Panel, the Philippines made a number of claims in respect of several Thai customs and fiscal measures affecting cigarettes imported from the Philippines. The Philippines raised three sets of claims: (i) with respect to measures pertaining to customs valuation, under Articles 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, and 16 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the "Agreement on Customs Valuation"); (ii) with respect to measures forming part of Thailand's value added tax ("VAT") regime under Article III:2 and Article III:4 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the "GATT 1994"); and (iii) with respect to Thailand's administration of certain customs and fiscal measures, including with respect to guarantees, under Article X of the GATT 1994.

  • The Panel Report was circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (the "WTO") on 15 November 2010.

  • […]

Page 32 of 81