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 49 of 81

  • United States – Anti-Dumping Measure on Shrimp from Ecuador (WT/DS335): Report of the Panel

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2007
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    19 March 2009, pp 425-512

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Complaint of Ecuador

    On 17 November 2005, the Government of Ecuador (“Ecuador”) requested consultations pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“the DSU”), Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“the GATT”), and Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“the Anti-Dumping Agreement”) concerning certain anti-dumping measures on frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador and, in particular, the United States Department of Commerce (“USDOC”)'s practice of “zeroing” when calculating dumping margins, as applied in these measures. Ecuador and the United States consulted on 31 January 2006 and on several occasions thereafter, but failed to resolve the dispute.

    On 8 June 2006, Ecuador requested the Dispute Settlement Body (“the DSB”) to establish a panel pursuant to Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the GATT, and Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

    At its meeting on 19 July 2006, the DSB established a Panel in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU to examine the matter referred to the DSB by Ecuador in document WT/DS335/6. The Panel's terms of reference are the following:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Ecuador in document WT/DS335/6, the matter referred to the DSB by Ecuador 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.”

    On 26 September 2006, the parties agreed that the Panel would be composed as follows:

    Chairman: Mr. Alberto Juan Dumont

    Members: Ms. Deborah Milstein

    Ms. Stephanie Sin Far Man

    Brazil, Chile, China, the European Communities, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico and Thailand reserved their third-party rights.

    The Panel's meetings with the parties and the third parties were held on 3 November 2006.

    FACTUAL ASPECTS

    At issue in this dispute is the use by the USDOC of zeroing as applied in respect of three anti-dumping measures on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador. The measures as identified by Ecuador are the final determination of dumping, the amended final determination of dumping, and the anti-dumping order.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2007
  • Volume 2, Pages 423-718
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    19 March 2009
  • 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. Among others, DSR 2007: II reports on United States – Anti-Dumping Measure on Shrimp from Ecuador and Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products - Recourse by Argentina to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2007
  • Volume 8, Pages 3103-3520
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    19 March 2009
  • 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. Among others, DSR 2007: VIII reports on United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services – Recourse by Antigua and Barbuda to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes and Korea – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from Indonesia – Recourse by Indonesia to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2007
  • Volume 5, Pages 1647-2148
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    19 March 2009
  • 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. Among others, DSR 2007: V reports on Brazil - Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres.

  • United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations”, Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes by the European Communities (WT/DS108): Report of the Appellate Body

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2006
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 June 2008, pp 4721-4760

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The United States appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations”, Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by the European Communities regarding the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (the “Jobs Act”) and the United States’ compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) adopted on the basis of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports in United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” (“US – FSC”) and United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations”, Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities (“US – FSC (Article 21.5 – EC)”). Relevant aspects of the Jobs Act are described in paragraph 6 below, as well as in paragraphs 2.13 to 2.17 of the Panel Report.

    The panel in US – FSC (the “original panel”) concluded that the “FSC measure”, consisting of Sections 921 to 927 of the United States Internal Revenue Code (the “IRC”) and related measures establishing special tax treatment for foreign sales corporations (“FSC”), was inconsistent with the United States’ obligations under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”) and the Agreement on Agriculture. The Appellate Body upheld the original panel's finding that the FSC measure was inconsistent with the United States’ obligations under the SCM Agreement and modified the original panel's findings under the Agreement on Agriculture.

    On 20 March 2000, the DSB adopted the reports of the original panel and the Appellate Body. The DSB recommended that the United States bring the FSC measure into conformity with its obligations under the covered agreements and that the FSC subsidies found to be prohibited export subsidies within the meaning of the SCM Agreement be withdrawn without delay, pursuant to Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement, namely, “at the latest with effect from 1 October 2000”.

  • European Communities - Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts - Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (WT/DS269/13, WT/DS286/15) Award of the Arbitrator

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2006
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 June 2008, pp 5441-5472

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 27 September 2005, the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Reports, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, in European Communities – Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts. At the meeting of the DSB held on 18 October 2005, the European Communities stated that it intended to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute, and that it would need a reasonable period of time in which to do so.

    On 22 November 2005, Brazil informed the DSB that consultations with the European Communities had not resulted in an agreement on the reasonable period of time for implementation. Brazil therefore requested that such period be determined through binding arbitration, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”). Thailand similarly informed the DSB, on 9 December 2005, that it had been unable to reach agreement with the European Communities on the reasonable period of time for implementation, and requested arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.

    By joint letter of 9 December 2005, Brazil and the European Communities requested me to act as Arbitrator, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, to determine the reasonable period of time for implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute. Thailand and the European Communities also requested, by joint letter of 13 December 2005, that I serve as Arbitrator. As the 90-day period following adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports was to expire on 26 December 2005, the parties, in their respective letters, “confirm[ed] that the award of the arbitrator within the time period to be agreed shall be deemed to be the award of the arbitrator for the purpose of Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.” I accepted the appointments on 14 December 2005 and proposed to conduct both proceedings simultaneously, undertaking to issue the Award no later than 20 February 2006. No party objected to the proposed date for circulation of the Award.

  • European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (WT/DS291, WT/DS292, WT/DS293): Table of Annexes G to I-2

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2006
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 June 2008, pp 2769-3184

  • Summary

    REPLIES BY AUSTRALIA TO QUESTIONS POSED BY THE PANEL AND THE PARTIES

    QUESTIONS POSED BY THE PANEL

    For all third parties:

    With reference to pp. 27-36 of the EC first written submission, could the third parties please indicate whether the European Communities’ description of their own regulatory systems is accurate?

    From Australia's perspective, the accuracy of the European Communities’ description of the Australian regulatory system does not appear to be of any relevance to the resolution of this dispute. Australia therefore does not wish to provide any response addressing the accuracy of this description.

    For all complaining parties

    With reference to Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement, do the complaining parties agree with the European Communities that:

  • (a) Article 5.7 excludes the applicability of Article 5.1 and is not an exception (affirmative defence) to Article 5.1 (EC first written submission, para. 575)? In answering this question, please address the relevance of the Appellate Body reports on Japan- Apples (footnote 316), EC – Hormones (para. 104) and ECSardines (para. 275) and Japan-Agricultural Products II (paras. 86 et seq)?

    • In Australia's view, Article 5.7 operates as a qualified exemption from the obligation under Article 5.1. Article 5.7 is not, however, an exception (affirmative defence) and the burden of proof in establishing a claim of inconsistency with Article 5.7 rests with the complaining party.

    Qualified exemption

    In Japan – Agricultural Products II, the Appellate Body explained that:

    Article 5.7 operates as a qualified exemption from the obligation under Article 2.2 not to maintain SPS measures without sufficient scientific evidence. An overly broad and flexible interpretation of that obligation would render Article 5.7 meaningless.

    In light of the nexus between Articles 2.2 and 5.1, Australia considers that the same reasoning can be applied to the relationship between Article 5.1 and Article 5.7: Article 5.7 operates as a qualified exemption from the obligation under Article 5.1 requiring Members to ensure their SPS measures are based on an assessment of risk.

  • European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (WT/DS291, WT/DS292, WT/DS293): Table of Annexes I-3 to K

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2006
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 June 2008, pp 3187-3788

  • Summary

    COMMENT ON REPLIES TO QUESTIONS BY DR. ANDOW

    Question 3

    On the basis of the information before the Panel, is there any scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that wide-spread cultivation of Bt crops such as biotech maize of the Bt variety adversely affects non-target organisms which may be exposed to such crops under typical agricultural practice? (See, inter alia, EC-149, EC-150, EC-151, EC-152) If so, how does this risk compare with risks to non-target organisms arising from non-biotech applications for Bt toxins (i.e., the use of Bt toxin as an insecticide in conventional and organic farming)? What risk management options are available to mitigate any resulting risks and what is their efficacy?

    Scientific evidence

    03.01. In the answer to this question, I will concentrate on Bt maize and Bt cotton. Yes. there is some scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that wide-spread cultivation of Bt crops adversely affects non-target organisms which may be exposed to such crops under typical agricultural practice. However, this evidence is insufficient to establish the hypothesis that such adverse effects are expected to occur.

    Comments by Argentina

    This statement starts mentioning that there is “some (sic) scientific evidence to support the hypothesis”…, of non-target effects on organisms, “which may be exposed”, and ends that “this evidence (sic) is insufficient to establish the hypothesis that such adverse are expected to occur”. It is clear from this wording that there is no solid evidence to support the fact that the organisms will actually be exposed in a way which may be of concern about the safety of the Bt crops mentioned.

    03.02. The review of non-target effects of Bt plants in EC-149 covered 13 laboratory studies evaluating potential hazard, and 14 field studies aimed at evaluating potential risk. Of the 13 lab studies reviewed, I conclude that five studies did not expose the test organisms properly and therefore are irrelevant hazard evaluations (an organism must be exposed to evaluate hazard). In two additional studies, four of eight test species were not properly exposed. Of the remaining, seven species were studied.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2006
  • Volume 11, Pages 4719–5084
  • World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 June 2008
  • 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 2006: XI reports on United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations", Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes by the European Communities and United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada, Recourse to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes by Canada.

  • European Communities – Selected Customs Matters (WT/DS315): Report of the Panel

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2006
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 June 2008, pp 3915-4390

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 21 September 2004, the United States requested consultations with the European Communities (EC) pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on the Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) (WT/DS315/1).

    The request referred to the alleged non-uniform manner in which the European Communities administers its laws, regulations, decisions and rulings of the kind described in Article X:1 of GATT 1994 pertaining to the classification and valuation of products for customs purposes and to requirements, restrictions or prohibitions on imports.

    The request identified the following measures: Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, including all annexes thereto, as amended (the “Code”); Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, including all annexes thereto, as amended (the “Commission Regulation”); Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, including all annexes thereto, as amended (the “Tariff Regulation”); the Integrated Tariff of the European Communities established by virtue of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, including all annexes thereto, as amended (the “TARIC”); and for each of the above laws and regulations, all amendments, implementing measures and other related measures.

    The request also referred to the alleged failure of the European Communities to institute judicial, arbitral or administrative tribunals or procedures for the purpose, inter alia, of the prompt review and correction of administrative action relating to customs matters.

    The United States and the European Communities held consultations on 16 November 2004 but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter. Consequently, in a communication dated 13 January 2005, the United States requested the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to establish a panel.

Page 49 of 81