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 45 of 81

  • Report of the Panel

  • from Mexico – Definitive Countervailing Measures on Olive Oil from the European Communities
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2008
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 May 2010, pp 7-312

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Complaint of the European Communities

    1.1 On 31 March 2006, the European Communities (“the EC”) requested consultations with Mexico pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”), Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”) and Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The consultations concerned the definitive countervailing measures imposed by Mexico on imports of olive oil from the European Communities by the “Final Resolution in the investigation of price subsidization of imports of olive oil” published in the Official Journal of the United Mexican States (“Official Journal”) on 1 August 2005. The European Communities and Mexico held consultations on 5 May 2006. These consultations failed to resolve the dispute.

    1.2 On 7 December 2006, the European Communities requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6.2 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, Articles 4 and 30 of the SCM Agreement, and Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture.

    Establishment and Composition of the Panel

    1.3 At its meeting on 23 January 2007, the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) established the Panel pursuant to the request of the European Communities in document WT/DS341/2, 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.

  • Report of the Panel

  • from United States – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones Dispute (WT/DS320)
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2008
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 May 2010, pp 3891-4350

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    A. Request for Consultations and Request for the Establishment of a Panel

    1.1 On 8 November 2004, the European Communities requested consultations with the United States pursuant to Article XXII: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”) regarding the United States' continued suspension of concessions and other obligations under the covered agreements, after the European Communities' adoption of Directive 2003/74/EC on 22 September 2003 and its notification to the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) that it has fully implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in the dispute European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) (EC – Hormones). The consultation request was circulated in document WT/DS320/1 dated 10 November 2004. The consultations were held on 16 December 2004 but the parties failed to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the dispute.

    1.2 On 14 January 2005, the European Communities requested the establishment of a Panel pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, as well as Article XXIII of the GATT 1994.

  • Report of the Appellate Body

  • from United States – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones Dispute (WT/DS320)
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2008
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 May 2010, pp 3507-3868

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    1. The European Communities, the United States, and Canada each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, United States – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones Dispute (the “Panel Report, US – Continued Suspension”), and the Panel Report, Canada – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones Dispute (the “Panel Report, Canada – Continued Suspension”). The Panels were established to consider complaints by the European Communities concerning the suspension of concessions or other obligations by the United States and by Canada against the European Communities because of the latter's alleged failure to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) stemming from the EC – Hormones dispute. The European Communities asserts that the United States and Canada must cease the suspension of concessions because the European Communities adopted Directive 2003/74/EC and notified it to the DSB as a measure taken to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in EC – Hormones.

    2. Before the panels in EC – Hormones, the United States and Canada claimed that the ban imposed by the European Communities on meat from cattle treated with six hormones–oestradiol-17β, progesterone, testosterone, trenbolone acetate, zeranol, and melengestrol acetate (“MGA”)–was inconsistent with the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the “SPS Agreement”), in particular, Articles 2, 3, and 5 thereof, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (the “TBT Agreement”), and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”).

Dispute Settlement Reports 2008
  • Volume 5, Pages 1681-2010
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    29 April 2010
  • 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 2008: Volumes III to VI report on United States - Subsidies on Upland Cotton - Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (WT/DS267).

  • Report of the Panel - Table of Annexes A to D-6

  • from United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton – Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (WT/DS267)
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2008
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    29 April 2010, pp 1285-1680

  • Summary

    ANNEX A-1

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE FIRST WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BRAZIL

    (Executive summary submitted on 24 November 2006)

    1. This dispute results from the United States' failure to implement, in a timely and complete manner, the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) in U.S. – Upland Cotton. Brazil challenges both the existence and consistency of U.S. measures taken to comply with the “adverse effects”- and “export credit guarantee”-related recommendations and rulings of the DSB.

    Brazilian Claims Concerning Adverse Effects-Related Recommendations and Rulings of the DSB

    2. In its adverse effects-related recommendations and rulings, the original panel, as affirmed by the Appellate Body, found that the price-contingent U.S. marketing loan program, counter-cyclical payment program and Step 2 program of the FSRI Act of 2002 caused significant price suppression in the world market for upland cotton, in violation of Articles 5(c) and 6.3(c) of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”). The panel found that “the United States is obliged to take action concerning its present statutory and regulatory framework as a result of our ‘present’ serious prejudice findings.” The Dispute Settlement Body adopted the panel and Appellate Body reports that obliged the United States to remove the adverse effects caused by the subsidies, or to withdraw the subsidies, by 21 September 2005.

    3. The United States did not repeal or amend any of the three price contingent subsidy programs until 1 August 2006, when it finally discontinued solely the Step 2 program.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2008
  • Volume 3, Pages 807-1282
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    29 April 2010
  • 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 2008: Volumes III to VI report on United States - Subsidies on Upland Cotton - Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (WT/DS267).

  • Report of the Panel

  • from United States - Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico (WT/DS344)
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2008
    Published online:
    03 January 2018
    Print publication:
    29 April 2010, pp 599-786

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    1.1 On 26 May 2006, the Government of Mexico (“Mexico”) requested consultations with the Government of the United States of America (“United States” or “US”) pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”), and Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“Anti-Dumping Agreement” or “Agreement”), regarding the laws, regulations, administrative practices and methodologies for calculating dumping margins. Consulations were held on 15 June 2006, but failed to resolve the dispute.

    1.2 On 12 October 2006, Mexico requested the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) to establish a panel pursuant to Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the GATT 1994 and Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

    1.3 At its meeting on 26 October 2006, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request of Mexico in document WT/DS344/4, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU.

    1.4 The Panel's terms of reference are the following:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Mexico in document WT/DS344/4, the matter referred to the DSB by Mexico 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.”

  • Report of the Panel

  • from European Communities – Anti-Dumping Measure on Farmed Salmon from Norway (WT/DS337)
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2008
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    29 April 2010, pp 3-490

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Complaint of Norway

    1.1 At issue in this dispute is Council Regulation (EC) No. 85/2006 of 17 January 2006 (“Definitive Regulation”) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway. Norway challenges the WTO-consistency of several aspects of this Regulation, in particular: (i) the identification of the product under consideration; (ii) the definition of the domestic industry; (iii) the calculation of the margin of dumping (including certain adjustments made to the cost of production when calculating constructed normal value); (iv) the findings of injury and causation; (v) the remedies imposed on dumped imports; and (vi) certain procedural aspects of the investigation.

    1.2 On 17 March 2006, Norway requested consultations with the European Communities (“EC”) with respect to the Definitive Regulation. On 27 March 2006, Norway submitted an addendum to its request for consultations. Consultations were held on 12 May 2006, but failed to resolve the dispute.

    1.3 Norway requested the establishment of this Panel on 29 May 2006.

    1.4 At its meeting on 22 June 2006, the Dispute Settlement Body established a Panel pursuant to the request by Norway in document WT/DS337/2, in accordance with Article 6 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU).

    1.5 At that meeting, the parties to the dispute also agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference.

  • Report of the Appellate Body

  • from United States - Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico (WT/DS344)
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2008
    Published online:
    03 January 2018
    Print publication:
    29 April 2010, pp 513-598

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    1. Mexico appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, United States – Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by Mexico concerning the calculation of margins of dumping by the United States Department of Commerce (the “USDOC”) based on a methodology that does not fully reflect export prices that are above normal value.

    2. Before the Panel, Mexico claimed that:

  • (a) “model zeroing in investigations” is, as such, inconsistent with Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), Articles 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, and 18.4 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti-Dumping Agreement”), and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the “WTO Agreement”);

  • (b) model zeroing, as applied in the original investigation at issue in this dispute, is inconsistent with Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, Articles 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement;

  • (c) “simple zeroing in periodic reviews” is, as such, inconsistent with Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, Articles 2.1, 2.4, 9.3, and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement; and

  • (d) simple zeroing, as applied in the five periodic reviews at issue in this dispute, is inconsistent with Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, Articles 2.1, 2.4, 9.3, and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2008
  • Volume 1, Pages 1-510
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    29 April 2010
  • 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 2008: I reports on European Communities - Anti-Dumping Measure on Farmed Salmon from Norway (WT/DS337).

Page 45 of 81