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 75 of 81

  • Argentina - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear (WT/DS121): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2000
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    15 August 2002, pp 575-814

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 3 April 1998, the European Communities requested consultations with the Government of Argentina under Article XXII:1 of the GATT 1994 (“GATT”) and pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”) and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards with regard to provisional and definitive safeguard measures imposed by Argentina on imports of footwear.

    The European Communities and Argentina held consultations on 24 April 1998, but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory solution.

    On 10 June 1998, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, the European Communities requested the establishment of a panel with standard terms of reference.

    At its meeting on 23 July 1998, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request by the European Communities (WT/DS121/3).

    At that DSB meeting, parties agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference of the Panel are the following:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the European Communities in document WT/DS121/3, 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”.

    On 15 September 1998, the Panel was constituted as follows:

    Chairman: Mr. John McNab

    Members: Ms. Claudia Orozco

    Ms. Laurence Wiedmer

    Brazil, Indonesia, Paraguay, Uruguay and the United States reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties.

    The Panel met with the parties on 30 November – 1 December 1998 and 3 February 1999. It met with the third parties on 1 December 1998.

    The Panel submitted its interim report to the parties on 21 April 1999. On 10 May 1999, both parties submitted comments on the interim report, and Argentina requested that an interim review meeting be held. On 20 May 1999, the Panel held the interim review meeting with the parties. The Panel submitted its final report to the parties on 4 June 1999.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2000
  • Volume 1, Pages 1-572
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    15 August 2002
  • 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. The form of citation for this volume recommended by the WTO is DSR 2000: I.

  • Korea - Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products (WT/DS98/AB/R, WT/DS98/R): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2000
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    15 August 2002, pp 49-280

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Background

    On 12 August 1997, the European Communities requested consultations with Korea regarding a definitive safeguard measure on imports of certain dairy products (WT/DS98/1). The European Communities made their request pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement.

    On 25 August 1997 Australia, requested to be joined in the consultations (WT/DS98/2). The request was accepted by Korea on 28 August 1997 (WT/DS98/3).

    Pursuant to this request, the European Communities consulted with Korea in Geneva on 10 September 1997 and 16 October 1997. Australia participated in these consultations as a third party. No mutually satisfactory solution was reached.

    On 9 January 1998, the European Communities requested the establishment of a panel with the standard terms of reference provided by Article 7 of the DSU (WT/DS98/4). The European Communities made this request pursuant to Article XXIII:2 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (“GATT”), Articles 4 and 6.1 of the DSU, and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards. At the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) meeting of 22 January 1998, the European Communities informed the DSB that they were for the time being not pursuing its Panel request.

    On 10 June 1998, the European Communities reiterated its request for the establishment of a Panel.

    Establishment and Composition of the Panel

    At its meeting on 22 July 1998, the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) established a panel pursuant to the EC's request (WT/DS98/5). The Panel's terms of reference are:

    To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by European Community in document WT/DS98/4 the matter referred to the DSB by the European Community 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.

    The United States reserved its rights as to participate in the Panel proceedings as third party.

    On 20 August 1998, the Panel was constituted with the following composition:

    Chairman: Mr. Ole Lundby

    Members: Ms. Leora Blumberg

    Ms. Luz Elena Reyes

    Panel Proceedings

    The Panel met with the Parties on 10/11 November 1998 and on 16/17 December 1998.

  • Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products (WT/DS103): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1999
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    11 April 2002, pp 2097-2344

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    This proceeding has been initiated by two complaining parties, the United States and New Zealand.

    In a communication dated 8 October 1997 (WT/DS103/1), the United States requested consultations with Canada in accordance with Article 4 of the Under- standing on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), pursuant to Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”), Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture, Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Duties (“the SCM Agreement”) and Article 6 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures with respect to export subsidies of Canada on dairy products and the administration by Canada of its tariff- rate quota for fluid milk and cream. The United States and Canada held consultations in Geneva on 19 November 1997 but these consultations did not result in a resolution of the dispute.

    On 29 December 1997 New Zealand requested consultations with Canada pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU, under Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Article XXII:1 of the GATT 1994 with regard to Canada's Special Milk Classes Scheme. New Zealand and Canada held consultations on 28 January 1998 but these consultations did not result in a resolution of the dispute.

    On 2 February 1998, the United States (WT/DS103/4) and on 12 March 1998, New Zealand (WT/DS113/4), each requested the establishment of a panel with standard terms of reference.

    In its request, the United States claims that:

  • (a) “The Government of Canada is providing subsidies, and in particular export subsidies, on dairy products through its national and provincial pricing arrangements for milk and other dairy products without regard to the export subsidy reduction and other WTO commitments under- taken by Canada. Specifically, the Government of Canada established and maintains a system of special milk classes through which it maintains high domestic prices, promotes import substitution, and provides export subsidies for dairy products going into world markets. These practices distort markets for dairy products and adversely affect US sales of dairy products.”

  • (b) “In addition, although Canada committed under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization to permit access to an in-quota quantity of 64,500 tonnes (product weight basis) under a tariff-rate quota for imports of fluid milk and cream, Canada has refused to permit commercial import shipments within the quota.

  • Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products (WT/DS103) Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1999
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    11 April 2002, pp 2057-2094

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Canada appeals from certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel in Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products (the “Panel Report”) Following their requests for consultations, the United States and New Zealand requested that the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) establish panels to examine certain alleged export subsidies that they contended Canada or its provinces had granted, through the Special Milk Classes Scheme, to support the export of dairy products and to examine a claim by the United States regarding imports into Canada of fluid milk and cream within the 64,500 tonnes tariff-rate quota committed in Canada's Schedule of Commitments under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the “WTO Agreement”). On 25 March 1998, the DSB agreed to establish two panels in accordance with these requests and further agreed that the two panels would be consolidated into a single panel pur- suant to Article 9.1 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”) with standard terms of reference.

    The Panel considered claims made by the United States and New Zealand that Canada's measures are inconsistent with Articles II, X, XI and XIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”); Articles 3, 4, 8, 9, and 10 of the Agreement on Agriculture; Article 3 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”); and Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. The Panel Report was circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 17 May 1999. In paragraph 8.1 of its Report, the Panel concluded that Canada:

  • (a) through Special Milk Classes 5(d) and (e) - and this for all of the dairy products in dispute (butter, cheese and “other milk products”) and for both marketing years at issue (1995/1996 and 1996/1997) - has acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 3.3 and Article 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture by providing export subsidies as listed in Article 9.1(a) and Article 9.1(c) of that Agreement in excess of the quantity commitment levels specified in Canada's Schedule; and

  • Turkey - Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products (WT/DS34): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1999
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    11 April 2002, pp 2363-2556

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 21 March 1996, India requested consultations with Turkey pursuant to Article 4.4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”) and Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT”) regarding the unilateral imposition of quantitative restrictions (“QRs”) by Turkey on imports of a broad range of textile and clothing products from India as from 1 January 1996 (WT/DS34/1).

    India and Turkey did not enter into consultations, due to disagreement on the appropriateness of participation of the European Communities in such consultations, and consequently the dispute could not be resolved at that stage. The Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) was informed accordingly on 24 April 1996.

    In a communication dated 2 February 1998, India requested the DSB to establish a panel to examine the matter in the light of GATT and the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (“ATC”), in accordance with Article 6.2 of the DSU (WT/DS34/2). In its communication, India claimed that the restrictions imposed by Turkey were inconsistent with Turkey's obligations under Articles XI and XIII of GATT and were not justified by Article XXIV of GATT, which did not authorize the imposition of discriminatory QRs, and that the restrictions were inconsistent with Turkey's obligations under Article 2 of the ATC. India also claimed that the restrictions appeared to nullify or impair benefits accruing to it directly or indirectly under GATT and the ATC.

    On 13 March 1998, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request of India, with the following standard terms of reference (Article 7.1 of the DSU):

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by India in document WT/DS34/2, the matter referred to the DSB by India in that document and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.”

    On 11 June 1998, the parties to the dispute agreed on the following composition of the Panel (WT/DS34/3):

    Chairman: Ambassador Wade Armstrong

    Members: Dr. Luzius Wasescha

    Prof. Robert Hudec

Dispute Settlement Reports 1999
  • Volume 5, Pages 1797-2094
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    11 April 2002
  • 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. DSR 1999: V reports on quantitative restrictions on imports of agricultural, textile and industrial products (India) and measures affecting the importation of milk and the exportation of dairy products (Canada).

  • Turkey - Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products (WT/DS34): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1999
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    11 April 2002, pp 2345-2362

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Turkey appeals from certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, Turkey - Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by India regarding quantitative restrictions introduced by Turkey on imports of Indian textile and clothing products.

    On 6 March 1995, the Turkey-EC Association Council adopted Decision 1/95, which sets out the rules for implementing the final phase of the customs union between Turkey and the European Communities. Article 12(2) of this Decision states:

    In conformity with the requirements of Article XXIV of the GATT Turkey will apply as from the entry into force of this Decision, substantially the same commercial policy as the Community in the textile sector including the agreements or arrangements on trade in textile and clothing.

    In order to apply what it considered to be “substantially the same commercial policy” as the European Communities on trade in textiles and clothing, Turkey introduced, as of 1 January 1996, quantitative restrictions on imports from India on 19 categories of textile and clothing products.

    The Panel considered claims by India that the quantitative restrictions introduced by Turkey were inconsistent with Articles XI and XIII of the GATT 1994, and Article 2.4 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (the “ATC”). In the Panel Re-port, circulated on 31 May 1999, the Panel reached the conclusion that the quantitative restrictions were inconsistent with the provisions of Articles XI and XIII of the GATT 1994 and consequently with those of Article 2.4 of the ATC, and rejected Turkey's defence that the introduction of any such otherwise GATT/WTO incompatible import restrictions is permitted by Article XXIV of the GATT 1994.

    On 26 July 1999, Turkey notified the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) of its intention to appeal certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel, pursuant to Article 16.4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), and filed a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review (the “Working Procedures”). On 5 August 1999, Turkey filed its appellant's submission. On 20 August 1999, India filed an appellee's submission.

  • India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products (WT/DS90) Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1999
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    11 April 2002, pp 1763-1796

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    India appeals from certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by the United States relating to quantitative restrictions imposed by India on imports of agricultural, textile and industrial products.

    India maintains quantitative restrictions on the importation of agricultural, textile and industrial products falling in 2,714 tariff lines. India invoked balance of- payments justification in accordance with Article XVIII:B of the GATT 1994, and notified these quantitative restrictions to the Committee on Balance-of- Payments Restrictions (the “BOP Committee”). On 30 June 1997, following consultations in the BOP Committee, India proposed eliminating its quantitative restrictions over a seven-year period. Some of the Members of the BOP Committee, including the United States, were of the view that India's balance-of payments restrictions could be phased out over a shorter period than that proposed by India. As a result, consensus on India's proposal could not be reached. The relevant factual aspects of this dispute are set out in greater detail in paragraphs 2.1-2.28 as well as in paragraphs 3.345-3.417 of the Panel Report.

    On 15 July 1997, the United States requested consultations with India under the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”) on the consistency of the latter's quantitative restrictions with its WTO obligations. Japan participated as a third party in these consultations. Subsequently, Australia, Canada, the European Communities, New Zealand and Switzerland also requested consultations on claims similar to those of the United States. India reached mutually agreed solutions with all concerned parties except the United States.

    The United States requested the establishment of a panel to examine the consistency of India's balance-of-payments restrictions with its obligations under Article XI and Article XVIII:11 of the GATT 1994, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.

    In its Report, circulated on 6 April 1999, the Panel concluded that:

  • (i) the measures at issue applied by India violate Articles XI:1 and XVIII:11 of GATT 1994 and are not justified by Article XVIII:B;

  • (ii) the measures at issue, to the extent they apply to products subject to the Agreement on Agriculture, violate Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and

  • India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products (WT/DS90) Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1999
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    11 April 2002, pp 1799-2056

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 16 July 1997, the United States requested consultations with India, pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), Article XXII:1 of the GATT, Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture (to the extent it incorporates by reference Article XXII of the GATT), and Article 6 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures (to the extent it incorporates by reference Article XXII of the GATT), concerning quantitative restrictions maintained by India on the importation of a number of agricultural, textile and industrial products (WT/DS90/1). The United States considered that the quantitative restrictions maintained by India, including, but not limited to, those tariff lines notified in Annex I, Part B of WT/BOP/N/24, appeared to be inconsistent with India's obligations under Article XI:1 and XVIII:11 of the GATT 1994, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Article 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. At the same time, Australia, Canada, the European Communities, New Zealand and Switzerland requested consultations with India on these quantitative restrictions (WT/DS91/1; WT/DS92/1; WT/DS93/1; WT/DS94/1; WT/DS96/1) on the basis of similar claims to those set forth by the United States. Subsequently, Japan, the European Communities, Canada, Australia, Switzerland and New Zealand asked to join in the consultations requested by the United States (WT/DS90/2, WT/DS90/3, WT/DS90/4, WT/DS90/5, WT/DS/90/6, WT/DS/90/7). The United States and India formally consulted on these measures in Geneva on 17 September 1997, and Japan participated as an interested third party under Article 4.11 of the DSU.

    On 3 October 1997, the United States requested that the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) establish a panel to examine this dispute. In its request, the United States considered that quantitative restrictions maintained by India, including, but not limited to, the more than 2,700 agricultural and industrial product tariff lines notified to the WTO in Annex I, Part B of WT/BOP/N/24 dated 22 May 1997, appeared to be inconsistent with India's obligations under Articles XI:1 and XVIII:11 of GATT 1994 and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Furthermore, the import licensing procedures and practices of the Government of India are inconsistent with fundamental WTO requirements as provided in Article XIII of GATT 1994 and Article 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.

  • Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft (WT/DS70) Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1999
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    11 April 2002, pp 1443-1762

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 10 March 1997, Brazil requested consultations with the Government of Canada pursuant to Article 4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”) regarding certain alleged subsidies granted by the Government of Canada or its provinces that support the export of civilian aircraft from Canada.

    Brazil and Canada held consultations on 30 April 1997, but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory solution.

    On 10 July 1998, pursuant to Article 4.4 of the SCM Agreement and Article 6 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), Brazil requested the immediate establishment of a panel with standard terms of reference.

    At its meeting on 23 July 1998, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request by Brazil (WT/DS70/2).

    At that DSB meeting, parties agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference of the Panel are the following:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Brazil in document WT/DS70/2, the matter referred to the DSB by Brazil 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 16 October 1998, Brazil 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 panellists 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. The Chairman of the DSB shall inform the Members of the composition of the panel thus formed no later than 10 days after the date the Chairman receives such a request.”

Page 75 of 81