Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  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
×

1628 results in Dispute Settlement Reports Online

Page 35 of 82

  • Report of the Panel (Part II) Pages 1275-1759

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 1275-1759

  • Summary

    4. State of Illinois and municipalities therein

    (a) Introduction

    7.891 The European Communities argues that each of the four measures at issue is a subsidy within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement, and is specific within the meaning of Article 2 of the SCM Agreement. The European Communities estimates that the total amount of the four subsidies to Boeing's LCA division is approximately $25 million over the period 2002-2021.

    7.892 The United States accepts that these measures are subsidies within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement, but argues that three of the four subsidies are not specific within the meaning of Article 2 of the SCM Agreement. In addition, the United States asserts that any amounts that Boeing receives after 2006 are “speculative” and fall outside of the Panel's terms of reference, and asserts that the total value of the four subsidies to Boeing's LCA division is [***] million over the period 2002-2006.

    (b) The measures at issue

    7.893 The European Communities' claim concerns four separate incentives that the State of Illinois and municipalities therein (i.e. Cook County and the City of Chicago2306) provided to Boeing in consideration for Boeing's decision to relocate its corporate headquarters from Seattle to Chicago in 2001. The first three incentives are derived from the Corporate Headquarters Relocation Act 2307 (“CHRA”). The CHRA was signed into law on 1 August 2001, approximately one month before Boeing relocated its headquarters to Chicago.

  • VII - FINDINGS

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 2790-3029

  • Summary

    Overview of the Matters before the Panel

    7.1 In this dispute, Canada and Mexico advance claims against the United States' measures governing the country of origin labelling (“COOL”) requirements with respect to meat products. The complainants claim that the measures are inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, and Articles III:4 and X:3(a) of the GATT 1994. The complainants have also advanced a non-violation claim under Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994.

    7.2 The complainants argue that the measures accord imported livestock treatment less favourable than that accorded to like domestic livestock inconsistently with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, as well as Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. The complainants assert that this is because complying with the COOL requirements results in higher segregation costs for imported livestock, which in turn affects the competitive conditions of imported livestock in the market.

    7.3 Furthermore, the complainants claim that the COOL requirements are inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. According to the complainants, the true objective of the COOL requirements is to protect domestic industry, not to provide consumer information on origin as stated by the United States, and that, in the circumstances of this dispute, the provision of consumer information is not legitimate. The complainants state that there are less trade restrictive alternatives and, in any event, the COOL requirements do not fulfil the objective of providing consumer information on origin because labels under the COOL requirements convey confusing and inaccurate information on the origin of meat products.

  • VI - NASA PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS AND USDOD ASSISTANCE INSTRUMENTS

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 251-321

  • Summary

    Financial Contribution

    1. Introduction

    550. The issues raised in this part of the appeal concern both the Panel's interpretation and application of Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement. We note that, in its analysis of whether the NASA and USDOD measures challenged by the European Communities constitute financial contributions within the meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement, the Panel began by focusing on the interpretative issue of whether measures that are properly characterized as “purchases of services” are excluded from the scope of Article 1.1(a)(1)(i) of the SCM Agreement and, therefore, do not qualify as financial contributions by means of a “direct transfer of funds”.

    551. After determining that Article 1.1(a)(1)(i) does not include within its scope measures that are “properly characterized” as purchases of services, the Panel proceeded to consider whether the NASA and USDOD measures at issue qualify as such. For this purpose, the Panel developed and applied a test that it derived from Article 1.1(a)(1). According to the Panel, whether or not the NASA and USDOD measures could be properly characterized as purchases of services depends on the nature of the work that Boeing was required to perform pursuant to them and, more specifically, whether that research was “principally for {Boeing's} own benefit and use, or whether it was principally for the benefit and use of the U.S. Government (or unrelated third parties)”.

  • IV - THE PANEL'S TERMS OF REFERENCE

  • from CHINA – MEASURES RELATED TO THE EXPORTATION OF VARIOUS RAW MATERIALS
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    03 January 2018
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 3387-3398

  • Summary

    211. We begin by examining China's appeal of the Panel's finding that Section III of the complainants' panel requests, entitled “Additional Restraints Imposed on Exportation”, identifies the measures and claims at issue in a manner sufficient to present the problem clearly, as required under Article 6.2 of the DSU. China requests the Appellate Body to reverse this finding, and to find instead that Section III of the panel requests does not comply with Article 6.2 of the DSU, with the exception of the complainants' claims under Article X: 1 of the GATT 1994 regarding the non-publication of the total amount and procedure for the allocation of the zinc export quota.

    212. Before turning to assess China's claim of error under Article 6.2 of the DSU, we consider it useful to describe briefly how this issue arose before the Panel, as well as the Panel's approach to the issue.

    Proceedings before the Panel and the Panel's Findings

    213. On 4 November 2009, the United States, the European Communities, and Mexico filed the panel requests that form the basis of the present dispute. At the request of the complainants, the DSB established a single panel pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU at its 21 December 2009 meeting.

  • I - INTRODUCTION

  • from PHILIPPINES - TAXES ON DISTILLED SPIRITS
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 4281-4284

  • Summary

    Request for Consultations

    1.1 On 29 July 2009, the European Union (then the European Communities), and on 14 January 2010, the United States, separately requested consultations with the Philippines pursuant to Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”) and Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”) with respect to the taxation of imported distilled spirits by the Philippines. The United States and the European Union each requested to be joined in the consultations requested by the other Member. The Philippines accepted the requests of both the United States and the European Union to join the consultations.

    1.2 Consultations were held between each complaining party and the Philippines. The European Union and the Philippines held their consultations on 8 October 2009 in Manila. The United States and the Philippines held their consultations on 23 February 2010 in Geneva. The United States and the European Union each attended the consultations requested by the other Member. These consultations did not lead to a mutually satisfactory resolution of the dispute.

    Establishment and Composition of the Panel

    1.3 On 10 December 2009, the European Union, and on 26 March 2010, the United States, requested the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) to establish a panel pursuant to Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU, with standard terms of reference as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU.

  • IX - CITY OF WICHITA INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS (IRBS) – SPECIFICITY

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 374-387

  • Summary

    859. We next turn to the United States' appeal of the Panel's finding that the IRB subsidies provided by the City of Wichita are a specific subsidy within the meaning of Article 2.1(c) of the SCM Agreement. We begin, in section A, with a brief background on the IRBs issued to Boeing and Spirit, followed by a summary, in section B, of the Panel's findings in respect of this measure. In section C, we assess the United States' claim on appeal.

    Background

    860. As a general matter, IRBs are issued by the City of Wichita to the general public on behalf of a qualifying private entity, the proceeds of which are used to purchase, construct, or improve commercial or industrial property for that entity. The City of Wichita holds title to the property during the term of the IRB, and leases the property to the private entity in exchange for rent payments sufficient to cover the payment of principal and interest on the IRB to the public bondholders. During the term of the IRB, the private entity benefits from exemptions from certain interest rate, property, and sales taxes. At the conclusion of the IRB term, title to the property transfers to the private entity involved. The IRB scheme operated somewhat differently for Boeing, and subsequently Spirit (which acquired Boeing's Wichita division in June 2005), because the IRBs at issue, rather than being purchased by the public, were purchased by Boeing and Spirit themselves.

  • XI - FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE APPELLATE BODY REPORT WT/DS398/AB/R

  • from CHINA – MEASURES RELATED TO THE EXPORTATION OF VARIOUS RAW MATERIALS
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    03 January 2018
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 3449-3450

  • Summary

    362. In the appeal of the Panel Report in China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials (complaint by Mexico, WT/DS398/R) (the “Mexico Panel Report”), for the reasons set out in this Report, the Appellate Body:

  • (a) finds that the Panel erred under Article 6.2 of the DSU in making findings regarding claims allegedly identified in Section III of Mexico's panel request; and therefore declares moot and of no legal effect the Panel findings in paragraph 8.18(a)-(d) in respect of claims concerning export quota administration and allocation; in paragraph 8.19(a)-(b) in respect of claims concerning export licensing requirements; in paragraph 8.20(a)-(b) in respect of claims concerning a minimum export price requirement; and in paragraph 8.18(e) of the Mexico Panel Report in respect of claims concerning fees and formalities in connection with exportation;

  • (b) finds that the Panel did not err in recommending, in paragraph 8.22 of the Mexico Panel Report, that China bring its measures into conformity with its WTO obligations such that the “series of measures” do not operate to bring about a WTO-inconsistent result;

  • (c) finds that the Panel did not err, in paragraph 7.159 of the Mexico Panel Report, in finding that there is no basis in China's Accession Protocol to allow the application of Article XX of the GATT 1994 to China's obligations in Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol; and therefore upholds the Panel's conclusion, in paragraph 8.16(b) of the Mexico Panel Report, that China may not seek to justify the application of export duties to certain forms of magnesium, manganese and zinc pursuant to Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994;

  • […]

  • VIII - ARTICLE XX(g) OF THE GATT 1994

  • from CHINA – MEASURES RELATED TO THE EXPORTATION OF VARIOUS RAW MATERIALS
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    03 January 2018
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 3441-3446

  • Summary

    345. China alleges that the Panel erred in interpreting the phrase “made effective in conjunction with” in Article XX(g) to mean that restrictions on domestic production or consumption must “be applied jointly with the challenged export restrictions”, and that “the purpose of those export restrictions must be to ensure the effectiveness of those domestic restrictions”.

    The Panel's Findings and Arguments on Appeal

    346. The Panel found that China's export quota on refractory-grade bauxite is inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994. China sought to justify this export quota pursuant to Article XX(g) of the GATT 1994, arguing that refractory-grade bauxite is an exhaustible natural resource that is scarce and requires protection.

    347. The Panel first addressed the question of whether China's export quota relates to the conservation of refractory-grade bauxite. Based on its review of the evidence and arguments before it, the Panel found this not to be the case. The Panel nevertheless continued its analysis in order to determine whether the export quota on refractory-grade bauxite was “made effective in conjunction with” restrictions on domestic production or consumption, as required under Article XX(g) of the GATT 1994.

    348. The Panel considered that, in order for a measure to be justified under Article XX(g), the measure must satisfy two conditions: (i) it must relate to the conservation of an exhaustible natural resource; and (ii) it must be made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption.

Page 35 of 82