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 68 of 82

  • United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (WT/DS217, WT/DS234): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005, pp 375-476

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The United States appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 2000 (the “Panel Report”).

    On 12 July 2001, Australia, Brazil, Chile, the European Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea and Thailand requested the establishment of a panel to examine the WTO-consistency of the United States Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (the “CDSOA”). At its meeting of 23 August 2001, the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) established the Panel.

    On 10 August 2001, Canada and Mexico separately requested the establishment of a panel with respect to the same matter. At its meeting of 10 September 2001, the DSB agreed to those requests and, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), referred the matter to the Panel established on 23 August 2001.

    Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the European Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mexico and Thailand (the “Complaining Parties”) argued before the Panel that the CDSOA is inconsistent with Articles 18.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti-Dumping Agreement”), in conjunction with Article VI:2 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), and Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; Article 32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”), in conjunction with Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 4.10, 7.9 and 10 of the SCM Agreement; Article 5.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 11.4 of the SCM Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the “WTO Agreement”), Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement. In addition, with the exception of Australia, the Complaining Parties contended that the CDSOA is in violation of Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994, Article 8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 18 of the SCM Agreement. Furthermore, in a separate claim, Mexico argued that the CDSOA is in violation of Article 5(b) of the SCM Agreement, and India and Indonesia asserted that the CDSOA undermines Article 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

  • Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft (WT/DS222): Decision by the Arbitrator under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005, pp 1187-1236

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Initial Proceedings

    On 19 February 2002, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the report of the Panel in this dispute. The DSB recommended, in particular, that Canada withdraw the subsidies found to be incompatible with its obligations under Article 3.1(a) of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) within 90 days. The 90-day period expired on 20 May 2002.

    On 24 May 2002, Brazil stated that Canada had not followed the recommendation of the DSB within the time-period specified by the Panel and, pursuant to Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement and Article 22.2 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Brazil requested the DSB to authorize it to take appropriate countermeasures in the amount of US$3.36 billion.

    In its communication, Brazil specified, inter alia, that it intended to implement this authorization to take appropriate countermeasures in the form of some or all of the following:

  • (a) suspension of the application of the obligation under paragraph 6(a) of Article VI of GATT 1994 to determine that the effect of subsidization under EDC Canada Account and EDC Corporate Account programmes is to cause or threaten material injury to an established domestic industry, or is to retard materially the establishment of a domestic industry;

  • (b) suspension of the application of obligations under the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures relative to licensing requirements on imports from Canada; and

  • (c) suspension of tariff concessions and related obligations under the GATT 1994 concerning a list of products to be drawn from the list attached to its request.

    • Request for Arbitration and Selection of the Arbitrator

    On 21 June, Canada submitted a communication to the DSB objecting to the recourse by Brazil to Article 22.2 of the DSU and Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement. Canada stated that the countermeasures proposed by Brazil were not appropriate.

  • United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (WT/DS217, WT/DS234): Award of the Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005, pp 1163-1186

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 27 January 2003, the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, in United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“US – Offset Act (Byrd Amendment)”). At the DSB meeting of 27 January 2003, the United States stated that it intended to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in a manner that respected the United States’ WTO obligations. The United States confirmed those intentions at the DSB meeting of 19 February 2003. At the DSB meeting of 26 February 2003, the United States stated that it would require a “reasonable period of time”, pursuant to the terms of Article 21.3 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute.

    On 14 March 2003, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the European Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand (the “Complaining Parties”) informed the DSB that consultations with the United States had not resulted in agreement on the reasonable period of time for implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. The Complaining Parties therefore requested that such period be determined by binding arbitration, in accordance with Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.

    The United States and the Complaining Parties were unable to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator within a period of ten days following referral of the matter to arbitration. Therefore, the Complaining Parties, on 24 March 2003, requested that the arbitrator be appointed by the Director-General, pursuant to footnote 12 to Article 21.3(c). Following consultations with the United States and the Complaining Parties, the Director-General appointed me as arbitrator on 2 April 2003. The parties to the arbitration were informed of my acceptance of the appointment on 3 April 2003.

  • Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milkand the Exportation of Dairy Products – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States (WT/DS103, WT/DS113): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005, pp 255-374

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 23 December 1999, pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, Canada, New Zealand and the United States agreed (WT/DS103/10-WT/DS113/10) on the reasonable period of time for implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (the DSB) in the matter of “Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products”. According to the terms of the 23 December 1999 agreement, as amended on 11 December 2000 (WT/DS103/13-WT/DS113/13), the staged implementation process, including any new measures for the export of dairy products, was to be completed by 31 January 2001.

    On 19 January 2001, Canada circulated to all Members of the DSB (WT/DS103/12/Add.6-WT/DS/113/12/Add.6) its “final status report”, pursuant to Article 21.6 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the DSU). In that report Canada affirmed “that it will be in full compliance with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB by the conclusion of the implementation period” on 31 January 2001.

    New Zealand and the United States consider that Canada has failed to comply with the above-mentioned recommendations and rulings of the DSB by 31 January 2001.

    Without prejudice to their rights under the WTO, and in accordance with paragraph 1 of the 21 December 2000 “Agreed Procedures between Canada, New Zealand and the United States under Articles 21 and 22 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding in the follow-up to the dispute in Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products” (WT/DS113/14 and WT/DS103/14, respectively) (“Agreed Procedures”), New Zealand and the United States requested consultations with Canada on 2 February 2001. Consultations were held on 9 February 2001, but failed to resolve the dispute.

    On 16 February 2001, pursuant to Article 21.5, and as envisaged in the Agreed Procedures, New Zealand and the United States accordingly requested the establishment of a panel in this matter and requested that the DSB refer the matter to the original panel, if possible (WT/DS113/16 and WT/DS103/16, respectively.)

  • Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products (WT/DS207): Award of the Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005, pp 1237-1256

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 23 October 2002, the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report, in Chile –Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products (“Chile – Price Band System”). At the DSB meeting of 11 November 2002, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), Chile informed the DSB of its ongoing consultations with Argentina to find a mutually agreeable solution and that it would require a “reasonable period of time”, pursuant to the terms of Article 21.3, to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute.

    On 6 December 2002, Chile notified the DSB that consultations with Argentina had not resulted in agreement on the reasonable period of time for implementation, and therefore, Chile requested that such period be determined by binding arbitration, in accordance with Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. By joint letter dated 16 December 2002, Chile and Argentina requested that I serve as arbitrator. They also indicated in that letter that they had agreed to extend the deadline for the completion of the arbitration until 90 days after the date of appointment of the Arbitrator. They agreed further that, notwithstanding this extension of the 90-day period of time stipulated in Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, the arbitration award would be deemed to be an award under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. My acceptance of the designation as Arbitrator was conveyed to the parties by letter dated 17 December 2002.

    Written submissions were received from Chile and Argentina on 27 January 2003, and an oral hearing was held on 17 February 2003. Chile and Argentina each submitted additional documentation during the oral hearing. Neither raised any objection to the submission of such documentation by the other party. The parties were permitted to file written comments on each other's submissions by Thursday, 20 February. Both parties submitted comments, but raised no objection to my consideration of the new documentation. That documentation has accordingly been included in the record of this arbitration.

  • Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milkand the Exportation of Dairy Products – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States (WT/DS103, WT/DS113): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005, pp 213-254

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Canada appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by New Zealand and the United States that certain measures taken by Canada to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) in Canada – Dairy are not consistent with Canada's obligations under the Agreement on Agriculture and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement ”).

    In Canada – Dairy, the original panel and the Appellate Body found, inter alia, that Canada provided, through Special Milk Classes 5(d) and 5(e), “export subsidies” within the meaning of Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture. The original panel and the Appellate Body also found that Canada provided these export subsidies in excess of the quantity commitment levels specified in its Schedule to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Schedule”) and that, therefore, Canada had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 3.3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture. On 27 October 1999, the DSB adopted the original panel and Appellate Body reports.

    On 23 December 1999, pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), Canada, New Zealand, and the United States agreed that the reasonable period of time for Canada to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB would expire on 31 December 2000. On 11 December 2000, the parties agreed to extend this period of time until 31 January 2001.

    Canada subsequently adopted certain measures with a view to implementing the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. These measures are described in Section II of this Report. Taking the view that certain of these measures were not consistent with Canada's obligations under the Agreement on Agriculture and the SCM Agreement, New Zealand and the United States requested, on 16 February 2001, that the matter be referred to a panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.

  • United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products from the European Communities (WT/DS212): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005, pp 73-212

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 10 November 2000, the European Communities requested consultations with the United States under Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”) and Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”). The European Communities’ request was related to the continued application by the US Department of Commerce of countervailing duties based on its “change in ownership” methodology which consisted of a presumption that non-recurring subsidies granted to a former producer of goods, prior to a change in ownership, “pass through” to the current producer of the goods following the change in ownership.

    Consultations took place in Geneva on 7-8 December 2000, but the parties failed to reach a mutually satisfactory solution. On 1 February 2001, the European Communities requested further consultations with the United States. Further consultations took place in Geneva on 3 April 2001, but the parties did not reach a mutually satisfactory solution.

    On 8 August 2001, the European Communities requested the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) to establish a panel, pursuant to Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU, Article 30 of the SCM Agreement and Article XXII of the GATT 1994 with respect to the practice by the United States of imposing countervailing duties on certain products exported from the European Communities “without establishing the existence of a financial contribution or a benefit to the producers under investigation and hence the existence of a countervailable subsidy as defined in the SCM Agreement.” These duties had been imposed or maintained notwithstanding privatizations or changes of ownership in reliance, inter alia, on Section 771(5)(F) of the Tariff Act 1930, as amended, (19 USC Section 1677(5)(F)) and according to the European Communities were not based on an analysis of the existence of a countervailable subsidy benefiting the producer concerned during the period of investigation or review.

  • Argentina – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Preserved Peaches (WT/DS238): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005, pp 1037-1162

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 14 September 2001, Chile requested consultations with Argentina pursuant to Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs of 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”) and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards. This request was related to the definitive safeguard measure applied by Argentina on imports of peaches preserved in water containing added sweetening matter, including syrup, preserved in any other form or in water, imported under MERCOSUR Common Nomenclature (MCN) tariff codes 2008.70.10 and 2008.70.90.

    The consultations took place on 2 November 2001, but the parties failed to reach a mutually satisfactory solution. On 6 December 2001, Chile requested the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) to establish a panel, in accordance with Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU in order to examine the definitive safeguard measure applied by Argentina on imports of preserved peaches.

    At its meeting on 18 January 2002, the DSB established a Panel in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU. At that meeting, the parties agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference of the Panel were, therefore, the following:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Chile in document WT/DS238/2, the matter referred to the DSB by Chile 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 April 2002, the parties agreed to the following composition of the Panel:

  • Chair: Ms. Elaine Feldman

  • Members: Mr. Jorge Castro Bernieri

  • Mr. Mateo Diego-Fernandez

    • The European Communities, Paraguay and the United States reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties.

    The Panel met with the parties on 10 and 11 July 2002 and on 11 September 2002. The Panel met with the third parties on 11 July 2002.

  • United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (WT/DS217, WT/DS234): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005, pp 489-952

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 21 December 2000, Australia, Brazil, Chile, the European Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea and Thailand, made a joint request for consultations with the United States of America under Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), Article XXII:1 of the GATT, Articles 17.2 and 17.3 of the Anti- Dumping Agreement, and Articles 7.1 and 30 of the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement (the “SCM Agreement”) regarding the amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930 signed into law by the President on 28 October 2000 with the title of “Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000” (WT/DS217/1). On 6 February 2001, consultations were held in Geneva, but failed to resolve the dispute.

    On 21 May 2001, Canada and Mexico requested consultations with the United States pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU, Article XXII:1 of GATT 1994, Articles 7.1 and 30 of the SCM Agreement and Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement regarding the same matter (WT/DS234/1). Consultations were held on 29 June 2001 in Geneva, but the parties failed to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the dispute.

    On 12 July 2001, Australia, Brazil, Chile, the European Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea and Thailand requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 30 of the SCM Agreement, in accordance with the standard terms of reference provided for in Article 7.1 of the DSU (WT/DS217/5). At its meeting of 23 August 2001, the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) established the Panel.

    On 10 August 2001, Canada and Mexico separately requested the establishment of a panel with respect to the same matter pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of GATT 1994, Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 30 of the SCM Agreement (WT/DS234/12 and WT/DS234/13). At its meeting of 10 September 2001, the DSB agreed to those requests and, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, referred the matter to the panel established on 23 August 2001 (WT/DS234/14).

  • European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by India (WT/DS141): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2003
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 July 2005, pp 965-1036

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    India appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton- Type Bed Linen from India – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by India (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by India with respect to the consistency with the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti- Dumping Agreement ”) and the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”) of the measures taken by the European Communities to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) in EC – Bed Linen.

    The original panel found that Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997, imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of cottontype bed linen from India, is inconsistent with Articles 2.4.2, 3.4, and 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. India and the European Communities appealed certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the original panel. The Appellate Body upheld the original panel's finding that “the practice of ‘zeroing’ when establishing ‘the existence of margins of dumping', as applied by the European Communities in the anti-dumping investigation at issue” is inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. In addition, the Appellate Body found that “the European Communities, in calculating amounts for administrative, selling and general costs and profits in the anti-dumping investigation at issue”, had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 2.2.2(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and, therefore, reversed the findings of the original panel to the contrary in paragraphs 6.75 and 6.87 of the original panel report.

    On 12 March 2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the original panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report. The parties to the dispute mutually agreed that the European Communities should have until 14 August 2001 to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.

  • European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines (WT/DS231/AB/R, WT/DS231/R): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2002
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    05 May 2005, pp 3451-3586

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    In a communication dated 20 March 2001, Peru requested consultations with the European Communities pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), and Article 14 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (the “TBT Agreement”), with respect to Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2136/89 (the “EC Regulation” or “Regulation”) laying down common marketing standards for preserved sardines.

    On 31 May 2001, Peru and the European Communities held the requested consultations but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory solution.

    In a communication dated 7 June 2001, Peru requested the establishment of a panel to examine the EC Regulation, with the standard terms of reference set out in Article 7 of the DSU. Peru made its request in accordance with Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU and Article 14 of the TBT Agreement. In its communication, Peru stated that it considered the EC Regulation to constitute an unnecessary obstacle to international trade which is inconsistent with Articles 2 and 12 of the TBT Agreement, Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and the principle of non-discrimination under Articles I and III of the GATT 1994.

    At its meeting on 24 July 2001, the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) established a panel pursuant to Peru's request in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU. Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, the United States and Venezuela reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties in accordance with Article 10 of the DSU.

    At the meeting of the DSB on 24 July 2001, the parties to the dispute agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference provided in Article 2.1 of the DSU. The terms of reference of the Panel are as follows:

    To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Peru in document WT/DS231/6, the matter referred to the DSB by Peru 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.

  • United States- Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (WT/DS221): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2002
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    05 May 2005, pp 2581-2666

  • Summary

    PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

    On 17 January 2001 Canada requested consultations with the United States pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (hereafter the “DSU”), Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereafter the “GATT 1994”), Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (hereafter the “SCM Agreement”) and Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereafter the “AD Agreement”) regarding section 129(c)(1) of the US Uruguay Round Agreements Act (hereafter the “URAA”) and the Statement of Administrative Action (hereafter the “SAA”) accompanying the URAA.

    Consultations were held in Washington, D.C., on 1 March 2001, but did not lead to a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter.

    On 24 July 2001, Canada requested the Dispute Settlement Body (hereafter the “DSB”) to establish a panel pursuant to Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the the GATT 1994, Article 30 of the SCM Agreement and Article 17 of the AD Agreement. Canada's panel request referenced only section 129(c)(1) of the URAA as the measure at issue. Canada claimed that section 129(c)(1) of the URAA is inconsistent with Articles VI:2, VI:3 and VI:6(a) of the the GATT 1994; Articles 10, 19.4, 21.1, 32.1 and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement; Articles 1, 9.3, 11.1, 18.1 and 18.4 of the AD Agreement; Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (hereafter the “WTO Agreement”); and Articles 3.2, 3.7, 19.1, 21.1 and 21.3 of the DSU.

    At its meeting on 23 August 2001, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request of Canada, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU. The panel was established with standard terms of reference. The terms of reference are the following:

    To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Canada in document WT/DS221/4, the matter referred to the DSB by Canada 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.

Page 68 of 82