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 39 of 82

  • I - INTRODUCTION

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 1849-1852

  • Summary

  • The United States and Mexico each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by Mexico regarding the consistency of certain measures imposed by the United States on the importation, marketing, and sale of tuna and tuna products with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”) and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (the “TBT Agreement”).

  • Before the Panel, Mexico challenged the United States Code, Title 16, Section 1385 (the “Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act” or “DPCIA”), the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Section 216.91 and Section 216.92 (the “implementing regulations”), and a ruling by a US federal appeals court in Earth Island Institute v. Hogarth (the “Hogarth ruling”) as inconsistent with the United States' obligations under Article 2 of the TBT Agreement and Articles I and III of the GATT 1994. The Panel reasoned that the legal instruments identified by Mexico in its panel request “set out the terms of the US ‘dolphin-safe’ labelling scheme” and considered it appropriate therefore to treat them as a single measure for purposes of its analysis of Mexico's claims and its findings. The Panel thereafter referred to the measure at issue in this dispute as “the US dolphin-safe labelling provisions”.

  • […]

  • European Union - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Footwear from China (WT/DS405) Report of the Panel

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 4585-5278

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Complaint of China

    On 4 February 2010, China requested consultations with the European Union pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), and Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “AD Agreement”). The consultations concerned: (1) Article 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 384/96 on Protection against Dumped Imports from Countries not Members of the European Community, as amended; (2) Council Regulation (EC) No. 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006, imposing definitive anti-dumping duties and collecting definitively the provisional anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather from, inter alia, China; and (3) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009, imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in, inter alia, China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96.

    China and the European Union held consultations on 31 March 2010. These consultations failed to resolve the dispute.

    On 8 April 2010, China requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII:2 of the GATT 1994, and Articles 17.4 and 17.5 of the AD Agreement.

    Establishment and Composition of the Panel

    At its meeting on 18 May 2010, the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) established this Panel pursuant to the request of China in document WT/DS405/2, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU.

    The Panel's terms of reference are the following:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the parties to the dispute, the matter referred to the DSB by China in document WT/DS405/2 and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.”

  • VIII - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

  • 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 3895-3906

  • Summary

    8.1 The Panel issues its findings in the form of a single document containing three separate Reports with common sections on the Panel's findings and separate sections on the Panel's conclusions and recommendations for each complaining party. The Panel's findings incorporate the conclusions of its preliminary rulings, attached to these Reports as Annex F.

    Complaint by the United States (DS394)

    1. Conclusions

    8.2 In respect of claims concerning export duties:

  • (a) The Panel finds that the application of export duties to certain forms of bauxite, coke, fluorspar, magnesium, manganese, silicon metal and zinc, by virtue of the series of measures at issue, is inconsistent with Paragraph 11.3 of China's Accession Protocol;

  • (b) The Panel finds that China may not seek to justify the application of export duties to forms of fluorspar pursuant to Article XX(g) of the GATT 1994. Even assuming arguendo that China could seek to justify the application of export duties, the Panel finds that China has not demonstrated that the application of export duties to forms of fluorspar is justified pursuant to Article XX(g) of the GATT 1994;

  • (c) The Panel finds that China may not seek to justify the application of export duties to forms of magnesium, manganese and zinc pursuant to Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994. Even assuming arguendo that China could seek to justify the application of export duties, the Panel finds that China has not demonstrated that the application of export duties to forms of magnesium, manganese and zinc is justified pursuant to Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994;

  • […]

  • I - INTRODUCTION

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 672-676

  • Summary

    Complaint of the European Communities

    1.1 On 27 June 2005, the European Communities requested consultations with the United States pursuant to Articles 4.1, 7.1 and 30 of the SCM Agreement, Article XXIII:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the DSU, with regard to measures affecting trade in large civil aircraft. Consultations were held on 3 August 2005, but the parties failed to resolve the dispute.

    1.2 On 20 January 2006, the European Communities requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII:2 of the GATT 1994, and Articles 4, 7 and 30 of the SCM Agreement (to the extent that Article 30 incorporates by reference Article XXIII of the GATT 1994).

    Establishment and Composition of the Panel

    1.3 At its meeting on 17 February 2006, the DSB established a Panel in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU to examine the matter referred to the DSB by the European Communities in document WT/DS353/2.

    1.4 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/DS353/2, 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”.

  • IV - ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

  • 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 3571-3571

  • Summary

    4.1 The arguments of the United States, the European Union, Mexico and China as set out in the executive summaries of their submissions provided to the Panel are attached to these Reports as an addendum (see List of Annexes, pages ix and x).

  • I - INTRODUCTION

  • 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 3550-3551

  • Summary

    Complaints of the United States, the European Union and Mexico

    1.1 On 23 June 2009, the United States and the European Communities and on 21 August 2009, Mexico, each requested consultations with the People's Republic of China (“China”), pursuant to Article 1 and Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”) and Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”) with respect to China's restraints on the export from China of various forms of bauxite, coke, fluorspar, magnesium, manganese, silicon carbide, silicon metal, yellow phosphorus, and zinc.

    1.2 On 4 November 2009, the United States, the European Communities and Mexico requested the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) to establish a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU.

    Establishment and Composition of the Panel

    1.3 At its meeting of 21 December 2009, the DSB established a single panel pursuant to the requests of the United States in document WT/DS394/7, the European Communities in document WT/DS395/7 and Mexico in document WT/DS398/6, in accordance with Article 9.1 of the DSU. At that meeting, the parties 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 the parties to the dispute, the matter referred to the DSB by the United States in document WT/DS394/7, the European Communities in document WT/DS395/7 and Mexico in document WT/DS398/6, and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.”

  • I - INTRODUCTION

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    12 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 2763-2765

  • Summary

    Complaints of Canada and Mexico

    1.1 On 1 and 17 December 2008, respectively, Canada and Mexico independently requested consultations with the United States, pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1994), Article 14 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), Article 11 of the Agreement of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) and Article 7 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin, with respect to the measures and claims set out below. On 7 May 2009, Canada and Mexico each requested supplemental consultations with the United States.

    1.2 Canada and Mexico requested, pursuant to Article 4.11 of the DSU, to join in each other's consultations.3 Nicaragua and Peru requested to join in the consultations requested by Canada, and Peru also requested to join in the consultations requested by Mexico. The United States informed the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) that it accepted the requests of Canada and Mexico.

    1.3 Consultations were held between each complaining party and the United States. The United States and Canada held their consultations on 16 December 2008 and 5 June 2009. The United States and Mexico held their consultations on 27 February 2009 and on 5 June 2009. None of these consultations led to a mutually satisfactory resolution.

Page 39 of 82