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 81 of 81

  • Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, complaints by the European Communities (WT/DS8), Canada (WT/DS10) and the United States (WT/DS11): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1996
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    02 March 2000, pp 125-284

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 21 June 1995, the European Communities (“the Community”) requested consultations with Japan under Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT”) concerning the internal taxes levied by Japan on certain alcoholic beverages pursuant to the Japan's Liquor Tax Law (WT/DS8/1). On 7 July 1995, pursuant to Article 4.11 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), the United States (WT/DS8/2) and Canada (WT/DS8/3) requested to be joined in these consultations. Japan accepted these requests on 19 July 1995 (WT/DS8/4).

    On 7 July 1995, Canada requested consultations with Japan under Article XXII of GATT 1994 concerning certain Japanese liquor taxation laws (WT/DS10/1). On 17 July 1995, pursuant to Article 4.11 of the DSU, the United States (WT/DS10/2) and the Community (WT/DS10/3) requested to be joined in these consultations. Japan accepted these requests on 19 July 1995 (WT/DS10/4).

    On 7 July 1995, the United States requested consultations with Japan under Article XXIII of GATT 1994 regarding internal taxes imposed by Japan on certain alcoholic beverages pursuant to the Liquor Tax Law (WT/DS11/1).

    On 20 July 1995, the Community, Canada and the United States jointly held consultations with Japan with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter, but they were unable to reach such a resolution. On 21 July 1995, the United States and Japan consulted under Article XXIII:1, but they did not reach a mutually acceptable resolution of the matter.

    On 14 September 1995, pursuant to Article XXIII:2 of GATT 1994 and Article 6 of the DSU, the Community requested the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) to establish a panel with standard terms of reference (WT/DS8/5). The Community claimed that:

    ’a) Japan had acted inconsistently with Article III:2, first sentence, of GATT 1994 by applying a higher tax rate on the category of ‘spirits’ than on each of the two sub-categories of shochu, thereby nullifying or impairing the benefits accrued to the European Communities under GATT 1994; and that

    b) Japan has acted inconsistently with Article III:2, second sentence, of GATT 1994 by applying a higher tax rate on the category of ‘whisky/brandy’ and on the category of ‘liqueurs’ than on each of the two sub-categories of shochu, thereby nullifying or impairing the benefits accrued to the European Communities under GATT 1994.

  • European Communities – Trade Description of Scallops, requests by Canada (WT/DS7), Peru (WT/DS12) and Chile (WT/DS14): Report of the Panel (Request by Peru and Chile)

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1996
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    02 March 2000, pp 93-96

  • Summary

    On 18 July 1995, the Government of Peru to the WTO requested consultations with the European Communities (“EC”) concerning French Order NOR MERP9300051A of 22 March 1993 and its amendments, relating to the official names and permitted trade descriptions of scallops in France. This request was made pursuant to Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”), Article 14.1 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (“TBT Agreement”), and Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”). In accordance with Article 4 of the DSU, the request was circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) on 25 July 1995 (WT/DS12/1).

    Pursuant to Article 4.11 of the DSU, on 27 July 1995, Chile (WT/DS12/2) and Canada (WT/DS12/3) requested to be joined in the consultations initiated by Peru. On 31 July 1995, the EC informed the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) that it had accepted these requests (WT/DS12/4). Consultations were held on 10 August 1995.

    These consultations failed to settle the dispute and, on 18 September 1995, Peru requested the DSB to establish a panel, at its next meeting, pursuant to Article XXIII of GATT 1994, Article 14 of the TBT Agreement and Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU (WT/DS12/7). Peru requested that the panel consider and find that the French Order and subsequent amendments are:

  • (a) inconsistent with Articles 2 and 12 of the TBT Agreement;

  • (b) inconsistent with Articles I and III of GATT 1994; and

  • (c) nullifying and impairing benefits accruing to Peru under the WTO Agreement.

    • On 24 July 1995, the Government of Chile requested consultations with the EC concerning the same French Order referred to above in paragraph 1. This request was made pursuant to Article XXII:1 of GATT 1994, Article 14.1 of the TBT Agreement and Article 4 of the DSU. In accordance with Article 4 of the DSU, the request was circulated to Members of the WTO on 31 July 1995 (WT/DS14/1).

    Pursuant to Article 4.11 of the DSU, Canada on 2 August 1995 (WT/DS14/2), Peru on 11 August 1995 (WT/DS14/3) and Japan on 10 August 1995 (WT/DS14/4) requested to be joined in the consultations initiated by Chile. The EC accepted these requests and consultations were held on 10 August 1995, jointly with the consultations referred to in paragraph 2.

  • Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, complaints by the European Communities (WT/DS8), Canada (WT/DS10) and the United States (WT/DS11): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1996
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    02 March 2000, pp 97-124

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Japan and the United States appeal from certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, Japan - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages (the “Panel Report”). That Panel (the “Panel”) was established to consider complaints by the European Communities, Canada and the United States against Japan relating to the Japanese Liquor Tax Law (Shuzeiho), Law No. 6 of 1953 as amended (the “Liquor Tax Law”).

    The Panel Report was circulated to the Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 11 July 1996. It contains the following conclusions:

    (i) Shochu and vodka are like products and Japan, by taxing the latter in excess of the former, is in violation of its obligation under Article III:2, first sentence, of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.

    (ii) Shochu, whisky, brandy, rum, gin, genever, and liqueurs are “directly competitive or substitutable products” and Japan, by not taxing them similarly, is in violation of its obligation under Article III:2, second sentence, of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.

    The Panel made the following recommendations:

    The Panel recommends that the Dispute Settlement Body request Japan to bring the Liquor Tax Law into conformity with its obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.

    On 8 August 1996, Japan notified the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO of its decision to appeal certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”) and filed a Notice of Appeal with the Appellate Body, pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review (the “Working Procedures”). On 19 August 1996, Japan filed an appellant's submission. On 23 August 1996, the United States filed an appellant's submission pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures. The European Communities, Canada and the United States submitted appellees’ submissions pursuant to Rule 22 of the Working Procedures, on 2 September 1996. That same day, Japan submitted an appellee's submission pursuant to Rule 23(3) of the Working Procedures.

  • United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, complaints by Venezuela (WT/DS2) and Brazil (WT/DS4): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1996
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    02 March 2000, pp 3-28

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTORY

    The United States appeals from certain conclusions on issues of law and certain legal interpretations contained in the Panel Report, United States - Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/R, 29 January 1996 (the “Panel Report”). That Panel had been established to consider a dispute between the United States, on the one hand, and Venezuela, later joined by Brazil, on the other. The dispute related to the implementation by the United States of its domestic legislation known as the Clean Air Act of 1990 (the “CAA”) and, more specifically, to the regulation enacted by the United States’ Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) pursuant to that Act, to control toxic and other pollution caused by the combustion of gasoline manufactured in or imported into the United States. This regulation is formally entitled “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives - Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline”, Part 80 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and is commonly referred to as the Gasoline Rule.

    Procedural Matters

    On 21 February 1996, the United States notified the Dispute Settlement Body of its decision to appeal certain conclusions on issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report pursuant to Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”) and simultaneously filed a Notice of Appeal with the Appellate Body, pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review (the “Working Procedures”). Thereafter, on 4 March 1996, the United States filed its Submission as Appellant. Venezuela in turn filed, on 18 March 1996, its Appellee's Submission; Brazil filed on the same day its Appellee's Submission. The third participants followed, the European Communities and Norway filing Submissions, on 18 March 1996.

    The complete record of the Panel proceedings was duly transmitted to the Appellate Body.

    The oral hearing contemplated by Rule 27 of the Working Procedures was held on 27 and 28 March 1996. At the hearing, oral arguments were made respectively by the participants and the third participants. Questions were put to them by the Members of the Appellate Body hearing the appeal. Most of these questions were answered orally, and some were responded to in writing with the responses being furnished both to the Appellate Body and the other participants and third participants.

  • United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, complaints by Venezuela (WT/DS2) and Brazil (WT/DS4): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1996
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    02 March 2000, pp 29-88

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 23 January 1995, the United States received a request from Venezuela to hold consultations under Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“General Agreement”), Article 14.1 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (“TBT Agreement”) and Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), on the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency on 15 December 1993, entitled “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives - Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline” (WT/DS2/1). The consultations between Venezuela and the United States took place on 24 February 1995. As they did not result in a satisfactory solution of the matter, Venezuela, in a communication dated 25 March 1995, requested the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) to establish a panel to examine the matter under Article XXIII:2 of the General Agreement and Article 6 of the DSU (WT/DS2/2). On 10 April 1995, the DSB established a panel in accordance with the request made by Venezuela. On 28 April 1995, the parties to the dispute agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference (DSU, Art. 7) and agreed on the composition of the Panel as follows:

    Chairman: Mr. Joseph Wong

    Members: Mr. Crawford Falconer

    Mr. Kim Luotonen

    On 10 April 1995, Brazil requested the United States to hold consultations under Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement, Article 14.1 of the TBT Agreement and Article 4 of the DSU on the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency on 15 December 1993 entitled “Regulation on Fuels and Fuel Additives - Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline” (WT/DS4/1). Consultations between Brazil and the United States were held on 1 May 1995 without resulting in a satisfactory solution of the matter. In a communication dated 19 May 1995, Brazil requested the DSB to establish a panel to examine the matter pursuant to Article XXIII of the General Agreement, Article 14 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and Article 6 of the DSU. On 31 May 1995, the DSB established a Panel in accordance with the request made by Brazil.

Page 81 of 81