Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- A note on the American Law Institute
- List of reporters
- 1 Introduction
- 2 United States – Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (WTO Doc. WT/DS22/R of 15 July 2002): Beating Around (The) Bush
- 3 United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” Recourse to Arbitration by the United States Under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement (WT/DS106/ARB): A Comment
- 4 United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany (WTO Doc. WT/DS213/AB/R): The Sounds of Silence
- 5 United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products from the European Communities (WTO Doc. WT/DS212/AB/R): Recurring Misunderstanding of Non-Recurring Subsidies
- 6 Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft (WT/DS222/R): A Comment
- 7 United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe From Korea
- 8 Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products
- 9 India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector
- 10 United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 (WT/DS176/AB/R): A Comment
- 11 United States – Preliminary Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada: What is a Subsidy?
- 12 European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines: Textualism and its Discontent
- Index
- References
5 - United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products from the European Communities (WTO Doc. WT/DS212/AB/R): Recurring Misunderstanding of Non-Recurring Subsidies
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 July 2010
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- A note on the American Law Institute
- List of reporters
- 1 Introduction
- 2 United States – Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (WTO Doc. WT/DS22/R of 15 July 2002): Beating Around (The) Bush
- 3 United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” Recourse to Arbitration by the United States Under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement (WT/DS106/ARB): A Comment
- 4 United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany (WTO Doc. WT/DS213/AB/R): The Sounds of Silence
- 5 United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products from the European Communities (WTO Doc. WT/DS212/AB/R): Recurring Misunderstanding of Non-Recurring Subsidies
- 6 Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft (WT/DS222/R): A Comment
- 7 United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe From Korea
- 8 Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products
- 9 India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector
- 10 United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 (WT/DS176/AB/R): A Comment
- 11 United States – Preliminary Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada: What is a Subsidy?
- 12 European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines: Textualism and its Discontent
- Index
- References
Summary
Facts of the Case
In United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products from the European Communities (WTO Doc. WT/DS212/QB/R, henceforth Certain Products), the Appellate Body (AB) of the World Trade Organization was called upon to revisit the issue of whether the United States can legally impose countervailing duties following the privatization of state-owned enterprises that had received non-recurring subsidies. In twelve cases, the United States Department of Commerce (USDOC) had applied either the “gamma method” or the “same-person method” in assessing the impact of a change of ownership on the continued existence of a benefit from a countervailable subsidy. The European Communities challenged the legality of these methods.
Under the gamma method, the USDOC applied an “irrebuttable presumption” that the benefits from a non-recurring subsidy remain in existence for the entire useful life of the assets purchased with benefit of a subsidy. The USDOC did not undertake any inquiry into whether and to what extent a non-recurring subsidy continued to benefit the producers during the useful life of the assets. Rather, when confronted with a change of ownership, the USDOC simply allocated the subsidy benefit between seller and purchaser to match the fraction of the assets that had been transferred.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The WTO Case Law of 2002The American Law Institute Reporters' Studies, pp. 78 - 87Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2005
References
- 5
- Cited by