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 70 of 81

  • Report of the Appellate Body

  • from United States - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia (WT/DS177, WT/DS178)
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004, pp 4051-4106

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The United States, Australia and New Zealand appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, United States - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider complaints by Australia and New Zealand with respect to a definitive safeguard measure imposed by the United States on imports of fresh, chilled and frozen lamb meat.

    On 7 October 1998, the United States International Trade Commission (the “USITC”) initiated a safeguard investigation into imports of lamb meat. By Proclamation of the President of the United States, dated 7 July 1999, the United States imposed a definitive safeguard measure, in the form of a tariff-rate quota, on imports of fresh, chilled and frozen lamb meat, effective as of 22 July 1999. The factual aspects of this dispute are set out in greater detail in the Panel Report.

    The Panel considered claims by Australia and New Zealand that, in imposing the safeguard measure on imports of lamb meat, the United States acted inconsistently with Articles I, II, and XIX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), and with Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards.

    In its Report, circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 21 December 2000, the Panel concluded:

  • a) that the United States has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 by failing to demonstrate as a matter of fact the existence of “unforeseen developments”;

  • (b) that the United States has acted inconsistently with Article 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards because the USITC, in the lamb meat investigation, defined the domestic industry as including input producers (i.e., growers and feeders of live lamb) as producers of the like product at issue (i.e. lamb meat);

  • (c) that the complainants failed to establish that the USITC's analytical approach to determining the existence of a threat of serious injury, in particular with respect to the prospective analysis and the time-period used, is inconsistent with Article 4.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards (assuming arguendo that the USITC's industry definition was consistent with the Agreement on Safeguards);

  • United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan (WT/DS184): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004, pp 4697-4768

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The United States and Japan appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot Rolled Steel Products from Japan (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by Japan with respect to anti-dumping measures imposed by the United States on imports of certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products (“hot-rolled steel”) from Japan.

    On 15 October 1998, the United States Department of Commerce (“USDOC”) initiated an anti-dumping investigation into imports of hot-rolled steel from, among others, Japan. USDOC determined that it was not practicable to examine all known Japanese producers and exporters and, therefore, conducted its investigation on the basis of a sample of Japanese producers. USDOC selected Kawasaki Steel Corporation (“KSC”), Nippon Steel Corporation (“NSC”), and NKK Corporation (“NKK”) for individual investigation. USDOC calculated an individual dumping margin for each of these companies. USDOC also established a single rate of anti-dumping duty applicable to all those Japanese producers and exporters not individually investigated (the “all others” rate). The “all others” rate was calculated as the weighted average of the individual dumping margins calculated for KSC, NSC and NKK. On 6 May 1999, USDOC published its final affirmative dumping determination. On 23 June 1999, the United States International Trade Commission (the “USITC”) published its final affirmative determination of injury to the United States’ hot-rolled steel industry. On 29 June 1999, USDOC published an antidumping duty order imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of hot-rolled steel from Japan. The factual aspects of this dispute are set out in greater detail in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.9 of the Panel Report.

    The Panel considered claims by Japan that, in imposing the specific antidumping measures on hot-rolled steel, the United States acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 4.1, 6.1, 6.6, 6.8, 6.13, 9.3, 9.4, 10.1, 10.6, and 10.7 and Annex II of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti-Dumping Agreement ”); and with Article X:3 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”);

  • European Communities - Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products (WT/DS135/AB/R): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004, pp 3239-3301

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Canada appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report in European Communities - Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos- Containing Products (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider claims made by Canada regarding French Decree No. 96-1133 concerning asbestos and products containing asbestos (décret no. 96-1133 relatif à l'interdiction de l'amiante, pris en application du code de travail et du code de la consommation) (“the Decree”), which entered into force on 1 January 1997.

    Articles 1 and 2 of the Decree set forth prohibitions on asbestos and on products containing asbestos fibres, followed by certain limited and temporary exceptions from those prohibitions:

    Article 1

    For the purpose of protecting workers, and pursuant to Article L. 231-7 of the Labour Code, the manufacture, processing, sale, import, placing on the domestic market and transfer under any title whatsoever of all varieties of asbestos fibres shall be prohibited, regardless of whether these substances have been incorporated into materials, products or devices.

    For the purpose of protecting consumers, and pursuant to Article L. 221.3 of the Consumer Code, the manufacture, import, domestic marketing, exportation, possession for sale, offer, sale andtran sfer under any title whatsoever of all varieties of asbestos fibres or any product containing asbestos fibres shall be prohibited.

    The bans instituted under Articles I and II shall not prevent fulfilment of the obligations arising from legislation on the elimination of wastes.

    Article 2

    On an exceptional and temporary basis, the bans instituted under Article 1 shall not apply to certain existing materials, products or devices containing chrysotile fibre when, to perform an equivalent function, no substitute for that fibre is available which:

  • - On the one hand, in the present state of scientific knowledge, poses a lesser occupational health risk than chrysotile fibre to workers handling those materials, products or devices;

  • - on the other, provides all technical guarantees of safety corresponding to the ultimate purpose of the use thereof.

    • The scope of application of paragraph I of this Article shall cover only the materials, products or devices falling within the categories shown in an exhaustive list decreed by the Ministers for Labour, Consumption, the Environment, Industry, Agriculture and Transport.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
  • Volume 9, Pages 4049-4693
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 September 2004
  • 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. 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. Volume IX reports on safeguard measures on imports of fresh, chilled or frozen lamb meat from New Zealand and Australia (United States).

Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
  • Volume 6, Pages 2075-2697
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    01 April 2004
  • 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. 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. Volume VI reports on Anti-Dumping duties on imports of cotton-type bed linen from India (European Communities).

  • United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea (WT/DS179): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    01 April 2004, pp 1295-1776

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 30 July 1999, Korea requested consultations with the United States regarding the preliminary and final determinations of the United States Department of Commerce (“DOC”) on imports of stainless steel plate in coils (“Plate”) from Korea, dated 4 November 1998 and 31 March 1999, respectively, and the preliminary and final determinations of the DOC on imports of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (“Sheet”) from Korea, dated 4 January 1999 as amended 26 January 1999 and 8 June 1999, respectively. Korea made its request pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “Dispute Settlement Understanding” or “DSU”), Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”), and Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (the “Anti-Dumping Agreement” or “AD Agreement”). The United States and Korea held consultations on 17 September 1999, but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory solution.

    On 14 October 1999, Korea requested the establishment of a panel with the standard terms of reference set out in Article 7 of the DSU. Korea made its request pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII:2 of GATT 1994 and Article 17.5 of the AD Agreement. In that request, Korea identified the United States measures at issue as the anti-dumping duty order on imports of Plate from Korea, dated 21 May 1999, including actions by the DOC preceding this measure, such as the preliminary and final determinations of the DOC dated 4 November 1998 and 31 March 1999, respectively, and the anti-dumping duty order on imports of Sheet from Korea, dated 27 July 1999, including actions by the DOC preceding this measure, such as the preliminary and final determinations of the DOC dated 4 January 1999 as amended 26 January 1999 and 8 June 1999, respectively.

    At its meeting on 19 November 1999, the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) established a panel pursuant to the above request. At that meeting, the parties to the dispute agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
  • Volume 5, Pages 1777-2074
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    01 April 2004
  • 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. 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. Volume V reports on measures affecting the export of bovine hides and the import of finished leather (Argentina), Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (United States), Term of Patent Protection (Canada), and Anti-Dumping duties on imports of cotton-type bed linen from India (European Communities).

  • Canada - Term of Patent Protection (WT/DS170/10): Award of the Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    01 April 2004, pp 2031-2048

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 12 October 2000, the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) adopted the Panel Report as upheld by the Appellate Body Report in Canada - Term of Patent Protection (“Canada - Patent Term”). At the DSB meeting of 23 October 2000, Canada informed the DSB, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), that it would implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute and that it would require a “reasonable period of time” to do so, under the terms of Article 21.3 of the DSU.

    In view of the impossibility of reaching an agreement with Canada on the period of time required for the implementation of those recommendations and rulings, the United States requested that such period be determined by binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.

    By joint letter of 10 January 2001, Canada and the United States notified the DSB that they had agreed that the duration of the “reasonable period of time” for implementation should be determined through binding arbitration, under the terms of Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, and that I should act as Arbitrator. The parties also indicated in that letter that they had agreed to extend the time-period for the arbitration, fixed at 90 days from the date of adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports by the DSB, until 28 February 2001. Notwithstanding this extension of the time-period, the parties stated that the arbitration award would be deemed to be an award made under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. My acceptance of this designation as Arbitrator was conveyed to the parties by letter of 11 January 2001.

    Written submissions were received from Canada and the United States on 22 January 2001, and an oral hearing was held on 5 February 2001.

    ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

    Canada

    Canada requests the Arbitrator to fix the “reasonable period of time” at 14 months and two days, so that the “reasonable period of time” will expire on 14 December 2001, that is, the last day the Canadian Parliament is scheduled to sit before its Christmas recess in 2001.

  • European Communities - Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India (WT/DS141): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    01 April 2004, pp 2049-2074

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The European Communities and India appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, European Communities - Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by India with respect to definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by the European Communities on imports of cotton- type bed linen.

    On 13 September 1996, the European Communities initiated an antidumping investigation into certain imports of cotton-type bed linen from, inter alia, India. The European Communities made its preliminary affirmative determination of dumping, injury and causal link on 12 June 1997, and imposed provisional anti-dumping duties with effect from 14 June 1997. The European Communities made its final affirmative determination of dumping, injury and causal link on 28 November 1997, and imposed definitive anti-dumping duties with effect from 5 December 1997. The factual aspects of this dispute are set out in greater detail in the Panel Report.

    The Panel considered claims by India that, in imposing the anti-dumping duties on imports of cotton-type bed linen, the European Communities acted inconsistently with Articles 2.2, 2.2.2, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 5.3, 5.4, 12.2.2, and 15 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti-Dumping Agreement”).

    In its Report, circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 30 October 2000, the Panel concluded that:

    … the European Communities did not act inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 2.2, 2.2.2, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 5.3, 5.4, and 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement in:

    (a) calculating the amount for profit in constructing normal value (India's claims 1 and 4),

    (b) considering all imports from India (and Egypt and Pakistan) as dumped in the analysis of injury caused by dumped imports (India's claims 8, 19, and 20),

    (c) considering information for producers comprising the domestic industry but not among the sampled producers in analyzing the state of the industry (India's claim 15, in part),

    (d) examining the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence prior to initiation (India's claim 23),

    (e) establishing industry support for the application (India's claim 26), and

    (f) providing public notice of its final determination (India's claims 3, 6, 10, 22, 25 and 28).

  • United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (WT/DS136/11, WT/DS162/14): Award of the Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    01 April 2004, pp 2017-2030

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 26 September 2000, the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) adopted the Panel Reports in United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (“United States - 1916 Act”). On 23 October 2000, the United States informed the DSB, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), that it would implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this case. The United States said that it would require a “reasonable period of time” for implementation, under the terms of Article 21.3 of the DSU, and that it would consult with the European Communities and Japan on the matter.

    On 17 November 2000, the European Communities and Japan submitted a joint letter to the Chairman of the DSB requesting, in view of the impossibility of reaching an agreement with the United States on the time required for the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this case, that the “reasonable period of time” for such implementation be determined by binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.

    By a joint letter of 19 December 2000, the European Communities, Japan and the United States notified the Director-General that they had agreed, under the terms of Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, that I act as Arbitrator in the binding arbitration to determine the “reasonable period of time” for implementation in this case. In that letter, the parties also stated that they had agreed to extend the period of time for the arbitration, fixed by Article 21.3(c) of the DSU at 90 days from the date of adoption by the DSB, until 28 February 2001. The parties further stated that they had agreed that, notwithstanding this extension of the timeperiod, the arbitration award shall be deemed to be the award for the purposes of Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. My acceptance to serve as Arbitrator was conveyed to the parties by a letter of 20 December 2000.

    Written submissions were received from the European Communities, Japan and the United States on 10 January 2001, and an oral hearing was held on 7 February 2001.

  • European Communities - Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India (WT/DS141/R): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    01 April 2004, pp 2077-2697

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 3 August 1998, India requested consultations with the European Communities pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”) and Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (“AD Agreement”) regarding Commission Regulation No. 2398/97 of 28 November 1997, imposing final anti-dumping duties on imports of cotton-type bed linen from India. On 17 August 1998, Pakistan requested to be joined in the consultations requested by India. India and the European Communities held consultations in Geneva on 18 September 1998 and 15 April 1999, but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter.

    On 7 September 1999, pursuant to Article XXIII:2 of GATT 1994, Article 6 of the DSU and Article 17 of the AD Agreement, India requested the establishment of a panel to examine the matter.

    At its meeting on 27 October 1999, the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) established a Panel in accordance with India's request. 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 India in document WT/DS141/3, the matter referred to the DSB by India in document WT/DS141/3, 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 12 January 2000, India requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel, pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 8 of the DSU. This paragraph provides:

    “If there is no agreement on the panelists within 20 days after the date of the establishment of a panel, at the request of either party, the Director- General, in consultation with the Chairman of the DSB and the Chairman of the relevant Council or Committee, shall determine the composition of the panel by appointing the panelists whom the Director-General considers most appropriate in accordance with any relevant special or additional rules or procedures of the covered agreement or covered agreements which are at issue in the dispute, after consulting with the parties to the dispute.

  • Argentina - Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hides and the Import of Finished Leather (WT/DS155): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    01 April 2004, pp 1779-2016

  • Summary

    PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

    On 23 December 1998 the European Communities requested consultations with Argentina pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (hereinafter the “DSU”), Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereinafter the “GATT 1994”) regarding an alleged de facto export prohibition maintained by Argentina on raw and semi-tanned bovine hides; an “additional VAT” of nine percent raised by Argentina on the import of products into its territory; and an “advance turnover tax” based on the price of the imported goods imposed on operators when importing goods into Argentina.

    Consultations were held in Geneva 5 February 1999, but did not lead to a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter. On 31 May 1999, the European Communities requested the Dispute Settlement Body (hereinafter the “DSB”) to establish a panel pursuant to Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, and Article 6 of the DSU. The European Communities claimed that the export prohibition maintained by Argentina violated Articles XI:1 and X:3 (a) of GATT 1994 and that the “additional VAT” and the “advance turnover tax” were not in conformity with Article III:2 of GATT 1994.

    At its meeting on 26 July 1999, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request of the European Communities, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU. In document WT/DS155/3, the Secretariat reported that the parties had agreed that the panel would have the standard terms of reference. The terms of reference are the following:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the European Communities in document WT/DS155/2, the matter referred to the DSB by the European Communities 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.”

    Document WT/DS155/3, “Argentina - Measures affecting the export of bovine hides and the import of finished leather,” also reported that, on 31 January 2000, the Panel was constituted as follows:

    Chairman: H.E. Ambassador Roger Farrell

    Members: Mr. Victor Luíz do Prado

    Mr. Sándor Simon

    The United States reserved its rights to participate in the panel proceedings as a third party, and presented arguments to the Panel.

Page 70 of 81