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 51 of 81

  • 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 (WT/DS277): Report of the Panel

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2006
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 June 2008, pp 4935-5066

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 14 February 2005, Canada requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (hereinafter “DSU”) concerning the United States’ alleged failure to implement the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (hereinafter “DSB”) in the dispute “United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada”.

    At a special meeting on 25 February 2005, the DSB referred this dispute to the original panel, in accordance with Article 21.5 of the DSU, to examine the matter referred to the DSB by Canada in document WT/DS277/8. At that meeting, the parties to the dispute also agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference are, therefore, the following:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Canada in document WT/DS277/8, the matter referred to the DSB by Canada 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 2 March 2005, the Panel was composed as follows:

    Chairman: Mr. Hardeep Singh Puri

    Members: Mr. Paul O'Connor

    Ms. Luz Elena Reyes de la Torre

    China and the European Communities reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties.

    The Panel met with the parties on 28-29 June 2005. It met with the third parties on 29 June 2005. The Panel issued its interim report to the parties on 29 August 2005.

    FACTUAL ASPECTS

    This dispute concerns the parties’ disagreement as to the consistency with the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (hereinafter “AD Agreement”) and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (hereinafter “SCM Agreement”) of the measure taken by the United States to comply with the recommendation of the DSB arising out of the Panel's report United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2006
  • Volume 7, Pages 2767–3184
  • World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 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. Volumes IV to VIII report on European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products.

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

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2006
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 June 2008, pp 3791-3914

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The United States and the European Communities each appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, European Communities – Selected Customs Matters (the “Panel Report”).1 The Panel was established to consider a complaint by the United States concerning the European Communities’ system of customs administration under Articles X:3(a) and X:3(b) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”).

    Before the Panel, the United States claimed that the European Communities administers the following instruments of its customs law in a non-uniform manner, in violation of Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994:

  • • Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, including all annexes thereto, as amended (the “Community Customs 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 “Implementing 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 “Common Customs Tariff”);

  • • 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 United States submitted that various instances of alleged non-uniform administration of European Communities customs law illustrate that the European Communities’ system of customs administration as a whole is inconsistent with the requirement of uniform administration contained in Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994. In addition, the United States claimed that the European Communities does not provide for the prompt review and correction of administrative action relating to customs matters as required by Article X:3(b) of the GATT 1994.

  • United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada - Recourse to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes by Canada (WT/DS264): Report of the Appellate Body

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2006
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    12 June 2008, pp 5087-5146

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Canada appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by Canada regarding the consistency with the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti-Dumping Agreement”) of a measure taken by the United States to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) in the US – Softwood Lumber V proceedings.

    The original dispute concerned an anti-dumping investigation by the United States Department of Commerce (the “USDOC”) that led to the imposition, in May 2002, of anti-dumping duties on imports of softwood lumber from Canada. Before the panel in US – Softwood Lumber V (the “original panel”), Canada claimed that, in imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of softwood lumber from Canada, the United States had acted inconsistently with several provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, as well as with Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”). The original panel found, inter alia, that the United States had acted inconsistently with Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in determining the existence of margins of dumping on the basis of a methodology incorporating the practice of “zeroing”. In the light of its finding on Article 2.4.2, the original panel applied judicial economy and declined to rule on Canada's claims under Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (“fair comparison”) in respect of zeroing. The original panel's finding of inconsistency with Article 2.4.2 was upheld by the Appellate Body.

    The original panel and Appellate Body reports were adopted by the DSB on 31 August 2004. On 6 December 2004, Canada and the United States jointly informed the DSB, pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), that they had mutually agreed that the reasonable period of time to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB would be seven and one-half months, that is, from 31 August 2004 to 15 April 2005. The reasonable period of time was later extended to 2 May 2005 by agreement between the parties.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2006
  • Volume 5, Pages 1755–2244
  • World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 February 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. Volumes IV to VI report on European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products.

  • United States - Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (“Zeroing”) (WT/DS294): Report of the Appellate Body

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2006
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 February 2008, pp 417-520

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The European Communities and the United States each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, United States - Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (“Zeroing”) (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by the European Communities concerning the application by the United States of the so-called “zeroing methodology” when determining dumping margins in anti-dumping proceedings, including proceedings resulting in the imposition of anti-dumping measures as well as proceedings relating to the collection of anti-dumping duties.

    Before the Panel, the European Communities challenged, under the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti-Dumping Agreement”), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), and the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the “WTO Agreement”):

  • (a) Sections 731, 751(a)(2)(A)(i)-(ii), 771(35)(A)-(B), and 777A(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Tariff Act”); Section 351.414(c)(2) of the United States Department of Commerce (“USDOC”) Regulations (“Section 351.414(c)(2)”); certain provisions of the 1997 edition of the Import Administration Antidumping Manual (the “Anti-Dumping Manual”); the “Standard AD Margin Program”, which includes the “Standard Zeroing Procedures”; and the United States’ “practice or methodology” of zeroing;

  • (b) the use of “model zeroing” in certain “original investigations”; and

  • (c) the use of “simple zeroing” in certain “anti-dumping duty administrative reviews”.

    • In the Panel Report, circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 31 October 2005, the Panel made the following findings:

  • (a) The United States acted inconsistently with Article 2.4.2 of the [Anti-Dumping] Agreement when in the anti-dumping investigations listed in Exhibits EC-1 to EC-15 USDOC did not include in the numerator used to calculate weighted average dumping margins any amounts by which average export prices in individual averaging groups exceeded the average normal value for such groups.

  • (b) Sections 771(35)(A) and (B), 731 and 777(A)(d) of the Tariff Act are not as such inconsistent with Articles 2.4, 2.4.2, 5.8, 9.3, 1 and 18.4 of the [Anti-Dumping] Agreement, Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement with respect to the use of a zeroing methodology in the calculation of margins of dumping in original investigations.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2006
  • Volume 2, Pages 415–844
  • World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 February 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. Among others, DSR 2006:II reports on United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins ('Zeroing').

  • Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages (WT/DS308): Report of the Panel

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2006
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 February 2008, pp 43-398

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    In a communication, dated 16 March 2004, the United States requested consultations with Mexico pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the DSU and Article XXII:1 of the GATT 1994, regarding tax measures imposed by Mexico on soft drinks and other beverages that use any sweetener other than cane sugar.

    The United States stated that it believed that these taxes were inconsistent with Mexico's national treatment obligations under Article III of the GATT 1994. In particular, they appeared to be inconsistent with Article III:2 of the GATT 1994, first and second sentences, and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.

    The consultations took place on 13 May 2004. Pursuant to its request, Canada was joined in those consultations. However the parties failed to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution to this dispute.

    On 10 June 2004, the United States requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU. The DSB considered this request at its meetings of 22 June and 6 July 2004, and established the Panel on 6 July with standard terms of reference as follows:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the United States in document WT/DS308/4, the matter referred to the DSB by the United States 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 18 August 2004, the parties agreed to the following composition of the Panel:

    Chairman: Mr Ronald Saborío Soto

    Members: Mr Edmond McGovern

    Mr David Walker

    Canada, China, the European Communities, Guatemala and Japan reserved their rights to participate in the panel proceedings as third parties.

    The Panel met with the parties on 2 and 3 December 2004 and 23 and 24 February 2005. It met with the third parties on 3 December 2004.

    The Panel submitted its interim report to the parties on 27 June 2005. The final report was issued to the parties on 8 August 2005.

    FACTUAL ASPECTS

    The measures

    This dispute concerns certain tax measures imposed by Mexico on soft drinks and other beverages that use any sweetener other than cane sugar.

  • European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (WT/DS291, WT/DS292, WT/DS293): Report of the Panel

  • from ANNEXES A TO F
  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2006
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 February 2008, pp 2245-2766

  • Summary

    TABLES SUMMARIZING THE HISTORY OF THEINDIVIDUAL APPROVAL PROCEDURES AT ISSUE IN THIS DISPUTE

    The Panel has prepared a series of tables summarizing relevant aspects of the history of the individual approval procedures at issue in this dispute The tables were prepared on the basis of information provided by the Parties, and in particular the detailed chronologies of individual approval procedures submitted by the European Communities

    Since the Panel's findings tend to focus on specific stages of individual approval procedures, it seemed useful to provide some background information on developments and activities at other procedural stages Consistent with their limited purpose, the Panel's tables do not reflect any and all activities of member State authorities, EC authorities or applicants of which the Panel has been made aware. It should also be noted that the information provided in the tables is more detailed for those stages and activities which the Panel has focused on for the purposes of its analysis, and less detailed for other stages and activities.

    In preparing the tables, the Panel has found it useful to distinguish the following procedural stages, which also reflect the main stages of the approval procedures set out in the relevant EC approval legislation for biotech products (Directives 90/220 and 2001/18 as well as Regulation 258/97):

    (a) Consideration of application at member State level (“Member State Level”)

  • (i) Initial assessment of application by lead CA. (“Lead Member State Level”).

    • (b) Consideration of application at Community level (“Community Level”)

  • (i) Circulation of lead CA assessment to other member States (“Other Member States”).

  • (ii) Consultation of EC scientific committee (“Scientific Committee Process”).

  • (iii) Preparation of draft measure to be submitted to the Regulatory Committee (“Commission”).

  • (iv) Consideration by the Regulatory Committee of the draft measure submitted by the Commission (“Regulatory Committee Process”).

  • (v) Preparation of draft measure to be submitted to the Council (“Commission”).

  • Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages (WT/DS308): Report of the Appellate Body

  • World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2006
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 February 2008, pp 3-42

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Mexico appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by the United States concerning certain tax measures and bookkeeping requirements imposed by Mexico on soft drinks and other beverages that use sweeteners other than cane sugar.

    The measures challenged by the United States include: (i) a 20 per cent tax on the transfer or, as applicable, the importation of soft drinks and other beverages that use any sweetener other than cane sugar (the “soft drink tax”); (ii) a 20 per cent tax on specific services (commission, mediation, agency, representation, brokerage, consignment, and distribution), when such services are provided for the purpose of transferring products such as soft drinks and other beverages that use any sweetener other than cane sugar (the “distribution tax”); and (iii) a number of requirements imposed on taxpayers subject to the soft drink tax and to the distribution tax (the “bookkeeping requirements”). Before the Panel, the United States claimed that these measures are inconsistent with paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article III of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”).

    In its first written submission to the Panel, Mexico requested that the Panel decide, as a preliminary matter, to “decline to exercise its jurisdiction in this case” and that it “recommend to the parties that they submit their respective grievances to an Arbitral Panel, under Chapter Twenty of the NAFTA[], which can address both Mexico's concern with respect to market access for Mexican cane sugar in the United States under the NAFTA and the United States' concern with respect to Mexico's tax measures.” Mexico also stated that, in the event the Panel decided to exercise jurisdiction, the Panel should find that the measures are justified pursuant to Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994.

    On 18 January 2005, the Panel issued a preliminary ruling in which it rejected Mexico's request. In doing so, the Panel concluded that, “under the DSU[], it had no discretion to decide whether or not to exercise its jurisdiction in a case properly before it.”

Dispute Settlement Reports 2006
  • Volume 6, Pages 2243–2766
  • World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 February 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. Volumes IV to VI report on European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2006
  • Volume 3, Pages 845–1248
  • World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 February 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. Among others, DSR 2006:III reports on European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products.

Page 51 of 81