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 74 of 82

  • United States – Import Measures on Certain Products from the European Communities (WT/DS165): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    26 June 2003, pp 373-409

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The European Communities and the United States appeal from certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, United States – Import Measures on Certain Products from the European Communities (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established under the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”) to consider a complaint relating to measures taken by the United States with respect to certain imports from the European Communities.

    The background to this dispute is set out in detail in the Panel Report. On 25 September 1997, the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) adopted the reports of the panel and the Appellate Body in European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas (“European Communities – Bananas”). The DSB recommended that the European Communities bring its banana import regime into conformity with its obligations under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the “WTO Agreement”). On 1 January 1999, the period of time for implementation, established under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, expired. At the DSB meeting of 2 February 1999, the United States alleged that the European Communities had failed to bring its banana import regime into compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute, and requested authorization to suspend the application of concessions or other obligations in accordance with Article 22.2 of the DSU. At the same meeting, the European Communities requested that the level of the suspension of concessions or other obligations proposed by the United States be referred to arbitration by the original panelists, in accordance with Article 22.6 of the DSU.

    In accordance with the 60-day time-frame provided for in Article 22.6 of the DSU, the decision of the arbitrators appointed under Article 22.6 was to be circulated on 2 March 1999. On that date, the arbitrators informed the United States and the European Communities that they were unable to circulate their decision, and requested additional information from the parties. On 4 March 1999, the Director of the Trade Compliance Division of the United States Customs Service issued a memorandum entitled “European Sanctions”, in which he instructed Customs Area and Port Directors to take certain action with respect to designated products imported from the European Communities, with effect from 3 March 1999.

  • Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef (WT/DS161, WT/DS169): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    26 June 2003, pp 59-372

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 1 February 1999, the United States requested consultations with the Republic of Korea (“Korea”) 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 (GATT 1994), Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Article 6 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, with respect inter alia to Korea's import measures on fresh, chilled, and frozen beef as well as its internal sale on the Korean market. Australia requested consultations with Korea on the same matter on 13 April 1999.

    Consultations between the United States and Korea were held on 11 and 12 March 1999 and joined by Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Consultations between Australia and Korea were held 28 May 1999 and were joined by Canada, New Zealand and the United States. As the above-mentioned consultations did not result in a mutually satisfactory solution of the matter, the United States, in a communication dated 15 April 1999, requested the establishment of a panel with standard terms of reference as set out in Article 7 of the DSU (WT/DS161/5). Australia, in a communication dated 12 July 1999, requested the establishment of a panel with standard terms of reference as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU (WT/DS169/5).

    At its meeting on 25 May 1999 the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel in accordance with the request made by the United States in document WT/DS161/5. At its meeting of 26 July 1999, the DSB agreed to Australia's request for the establishment of a panel (WT/DS/169/5) in the same matter. It also agreed, as provided for in Article 9 of the DSU in respect of multiple Complainants, that the Panel established on 26 May 1999 to examine the complaint by the United States will also examine Australia's complaint.

  • United States - Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act (WT/DS160): Award of the Arbitrator (under Article 25 DSU)

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    26 June 2003, pp 667-716

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Proceedings

    On 23 July 2001, the European Communities (EC) and the United States (hereinafter also the “parties”) notified to the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) their mutual agreement to resort to arbitration pursuant to Article 25 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (hereafter the “DSU”). The stated object of the arbitration was to determine the level of nullification or impairment of benefits to the European Communities as a result of the operation of Section 110(5)(B) of the US Copyright Act.

    The parties have resorted to this arbitration further to the adoption by the DSB of the report of the panel which, at the request of the European Communities, reviewed the compatibility of Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act, as amended by the Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1998, with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. The conclusions and recommendations of the panel read as follows:

    “7.1 In the light of the findings in paragraphs 6.92-6.95, 6.133, 6.159, 6.211, 6.219, 6.266 and 6.272 above, the Panel concludes that:

    (a) Subparagraph (A) of Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act meets the requirements of Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement and is thus consistent with Articles 11bis(1)(iii) and 11(1)(ii) of the Berne Convention (1971) as incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement by Article 9.1 of that Agreement.

    (b) Subparagraph (B) of Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act does not meet the requirements of Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement and is thus inconsistent with Articles 11bis(1)(iii) and 11(1)(ii) of the Berne Convention (1971) as incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement by Article 9.1 of that Agreement.

    7.2 The Panel recommends that the Dispute Settlement Body request the United States to bring subparagraph (B) of Section 110(5) into conformity with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.”

    The parties requested the Chairman of the DSB to contact the original panelists in the dispute, to determine their availability to serve as arbitrators. The Chairperson of the original panel, Mrs. Carmen Luz Guarda and one Member, Mr. A. V. Ganesan, were no longer available.

  • United States - Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities (WT/DS166): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    26 June 2003, pp 717-775

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The United States and the European Communities appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by the European Communities with respect to a definitive safeguard measure imposed by the United States on certain imports of wheat gluten.

    On 1 October 1997, the United States International Trade Commission (the “USITC”) initiated a safeguard investigation into certain imports of wheat gluten. By Proclamation of the President of the United States, dated 30 May 1998, the United States imposed a definitive safeguard measure, in the form of a quantitative restriction on imports of wheat gluten, effective as of 1 June 1998. Products from Canada, a partner with the United States in the North American Free-Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”), and certain other countries were excluded from the application of the safeguard measure. The United States notified the initiation of the investigation, the determination of serious injury, and the decision to apply the safeguard measure to the Committee on Safeguards. The factual aspects of this dispute are set out in greater detail in the Panel Report.

    The Panel considered claims by the European Communities that, in imposing the safeguard measure on imports of wheat gluten, the United States acted inconsistently with Articles I and XIX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), and with Articles 2.1, 4, 5, 8, and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards.

    In its Report, circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 31 July 2000, the Panel concluded that:

    … the United States has not acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards or with Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 in:

    (i) redacting certain confidential information from the published USITC Report; or

    (ii) determining the existence of imports in “increased quantities” and serious injury.

  • United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities (WT/DS166): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    26 June 2003, pp 779-1292

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 17 March 1999, the European Community requested consultations with the United States pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (“GATT 1994”), Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards (“SA”) and Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture with regard to the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the United States on imports of wheat gluten (WTO document WT/DS166/1).

    On 1 April 1999, pursuant to paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the DSU, Australia notified its desire to be joined in the consultations under Article XXII:1 of GATT 1994 (WTO document WT/DS166/2).

    The European Community and the United States held consultations on 3 May 1999 in Geneva, but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory solution.

    On 3 June 1999, the European Community requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU, Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Article 14 SA, with regard to the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the United States on imports of wheat gluten (WTO document WT/DS166/3).

    At its meeting on 26 July 1999, the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) established a Panel in accordance with the request made by the European Community in document WT/DS166/3.

    At that meeting, the parties to the dispute also agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference were, therefore, the following:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the European Community in document WT/DS166/3, the matter referred to the DSB by the European Community in document WT/DS166/3, and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements”. (WTO document WT/DS166/4)

    On 11 October 1999, the parties to the dispute agreed on the following composition of the Panel:

    Chairman: Mr. Wieslaw Karsz

    Members: Ms. Usha Dwarka-Canabady

    Mr. Alvaro Espinoza

    Australia, Canada and New Zealand reserved their rights to participate in the panel proceedings as third parties.

    The Panel met with the parties on 20-21 December 1999 and 1-2 February 2000. It met with the third parties on 21 December 1999.

  • United States - Import Measures on Certain Products from the European Communities (WT/DS165): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2001
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    26 June 2003, pp 413-656

  • Summary

    PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

    This proceeding was initiated by the European Communities, as complaining party against the United States.

    On 4 March 1999, the European Communities requested consultations with the United States under Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT”) and Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Dispute (“DSU”) with regard to the US decision, effective as of 3 March 1999, to withhold liquidation on imports from the European Communities of a series of products (listed in the Annex to the document WT/DS165/1), together valued at over $500 million on an annual basis, and to impose a contingent liability for 100 per cent duties on each individual importation of affected products as of this date. The European Communities claimed that according to information provided by the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”), this measure includes administrative provisions which foresee, among other things, the posting of a bond to cover the full potential liability.

    On 11 May 1999, the European Communities requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU (WT/DS165/8).

    In its panel request, the European Communities claims that:

    “I have the honour to request, on behalf of the European Communities, the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) and Articles 4 and 6 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) with respect to the US decision, effective as of 3 March 1999, to withhold liquidation on imports from the EC of a list of products, together valued at $520 million on an annual basis, and to impose a contingent liability for 100 per cent duties on each individual importation of affected products as of this date (annex 1). This measure includes administrative provisions that foresee, among other things, the posting of a bond to cover the full potential liability.

  • Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the DSU (WT/DS70): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2000
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 February 2003, pp 4299-4314

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Brazil appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the Panel Report, Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the DSU (the “Article 21.5 Panel Report”). The Article 21.5 Panel was established to consider a complaint by Brazil that certain measures taken by Canada to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”), in Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft (“Canada - Aircraft”), were not consistent with Article 3.1(a) of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”).

    The original panel found, inter alia, that “Canada Account debt financing since 1 January 1995 for the export of Canadian regional aircraft” and “[Technology Partnerships Canada] assistance to the Canadian regional aircraft industry [constitute] export subsidies inconsistent with Article[s] 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement”. The original panel concluded that “Canada shall withdraw [these] subsidies … within 90 days.”

    Before the Appellate Body, Canada appealed certain of the original panel's legal interpretations relating to Technology Partnerships Canada (“TPC”) assistance. Canada did not appeal the original panel's findings relating to the Canada Account. The Appellate Body upheld the original panel's finding that TPC assistance to the Canadian regional aircraft industry constitutes export subsidies inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement.

    Canada took steps to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB with respect to both the Canada Account and TPC. Taking the view that these measures were not consistent with Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement, Brazil requested that the matter be referred to the original panel, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”). On 9 December 1999, in accordance with Article 21.5 of the DSU, the DSB referred the matter to the original panel. The Article 21.5 Panel Report was circulated to the Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 9 May 2000.

  • United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 Complaint by Japan (WT/DS136, WT/DS162): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2000
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 February 2003, pp 4793-4830

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The United States, the European Communities and Japan appeal from certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Reports, United States - Anti- Dumping Act of 1916, complaint by the European Communities (the “EC Panel Report”) and United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, complaint by Japan (the “Japan Panel Report”). These Panel Reports were rendered by two Panels composed of the same three persons. The two Panel Reports, while not identical, are alike in all major respects.

    The Panel was established to consider claims by the European Communities and Japan that Title VIII of the United States Revenue Act of 1916 (the “1916 Act”) is inconsistent with United States’ obligations under the covered agreements. The 1916 Act allows, under certain conditions, civil actions and criminal proceedings to be brought against importers who have sold foreign-produced goods in the United States at prices which are “substantially less” than the prices at which the same products are sold in a relevant foreign market.

    The European Communities claimed that the 1916 Act is inconsistent with Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti- Dumping Agreement ”) and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the “WTO Agreement”). In the alternative, the European Communities claimed that the 1916 Act is inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. Japan claimed that the 1916 Act is inconsistent with Articles III:4, VI and XI of the GATT 1994, Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 18.1 and 18.4 of the Anti- Dumping Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

  • Canada - Term of Patent Protection (WT/DS170): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2000
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 February 2003, pp 5093-5118

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Canada appeals from certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report in Canada - Term of Patent Protection (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider claims made by the United States that the term of patent protection provided in Canada's Patent Act2 is inconsistent with Canada's obligations under Articles 33 and 70 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the “TRIPS Agreement”).

    The measure at issue in this dispute is Section 45 of Canada's Patent Act. Before 1 October 1989, Canada provided patent protection for a term of seventeen years from the date of grant of a patent. Canada changed the law, with effect from 1 October 1989, to provide patent protection for a term of twenty years from the date of filing of the application for a patent. However, no mechanism was provided in the legislation to allow for conversion from one system to the other. Consequently, Section 44 of the Patent Act establishes the new rule for applications filed after 1 October 1989, while Section 45 maintains the seventeen year from grant rule for patent applications filed before 1 October 1989.

    Sections 44 and 45 of Canada's Patent Act read as follows:

  • 44. Subject to Section 46, where an application for a patent is filed under this Act on or after October 1, 1989, the term limited for the duration of the patent is twenty years from the filing date.

  • 45. Subject to Section 46, the term limited for the duration of every patent issued under this Act on the basis of an application filed before October 1, 1989, is seventeen years from the date on which the patent is issued.

    • Thus, Section 44 provides for a term of twenty years from the date of application for a patent for patent applications filed on or after 1 October 1989, while Section 45 provides for a term of seventeen years from the date of grant of a patent for patent applications filed before that date. Patents which are subject to Section 44 are commonly described in Canada as “New Act patents”, while those subject to Article 45 are described as “Old Act patents”. The Old Act patents are the subject of this dispute.

  • Canada - Term of Patent Protection (WT/DS170): Award of the Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2000
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 February 2003, pp 4537-4552

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 12 October 2000, the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) adopted the Panel Report as upheld by the Appellate Body Report in Canada - Term of Patent Protection (“Canada - Patent Term”). At the DSB meeting of 23 October 2000, Canada informed the DSB, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), that it would implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute and that it would require a “reasonable period of time” to do so, under the terms of Article 21.3 of the DSU.

    In view of the impossibility of reaching an agreement with Canada on the period of time required for the implementation of those recommendations and rulings, the United States requested that such period be determined by binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.

    By joint letter of 10 January 2001, Canada and the United States notified the DSB that they had agreed that the duration of the “reasonable period of time” for implementation should be determined through binding arbitration, under the terms of Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, and that I should act as Arbitrator. The parties also indicated in that letter that they had agreed to extend the time-period for the arbitration, fixed at 90 days from the date of adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports by the DSB, until 28 February 2001. Notwithstanding this extension of the timeperiod, the parties stated that the arbitration award would be deemed to be an award made under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. My acceptance of this designation as Arbitrator was conveyed to the parties by letter of 11 January 2001.

    Written submissions were received from Canada and the United States on 22 January 2001, and an oral hearing was held on 5 February 2001.

    ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

    Canada

    Canada requests the Arbitrator to fix the “reasonable period of time” at 14 months and two days, so that the “reasonable period of time” will expire on 14 December 2001, that is, the last day the Canadian Parliament is scheduled to sit before its Christmas recess in 2001.

  • United States - Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act (WT/DS160): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2000
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 February 2003, pp 3769-4066

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 26 January 1999, the European Communities and their member States (hereafter referred to as the European Communities) requested consultations with the United States under Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”) and Article 64.1 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS Agreement”) regarding Section 110(5) of the United States Copyright Act as amended by the “Fairness in Music Licensing Act” enacted on 27 October 1998.

    The European Communities and the United States held consultations on 2 March 1999, but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory solution. On 15 April 1999, the European Communities requested the establishment of a panel under Article 6 of the DSU and Article 64.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.

    At its meeting on 26 May 1999, the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) established a panel in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU with the following standard terms of reference:

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the European Communities in document WT/DS160/5, 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.”

    Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan and Switzerland reserved their rights to participate in the panel proceedings as third parties.

    On 27 July 1999, the European Communities made a request, with reference to Article 8.7 of the DSU, to the Director-in-charge to determine the composition of the Panel. On 6 August 1999, the Panel was composed as follows:

    Chairperson: Mrs. Carmen Luz Guarda

    Members: Mr. Arumugamangalam V. Ganesan

    Mr. Ian F. Sheppard

    The Panel met with the parties on 8-9 November 1999 and 7 December 1999. It met with the third parties on 9 November 1999.

    On 15 November, the Panel sent a letter to the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), that is responsible for the administration of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.

  • United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (WT/DS136, WT/DS162): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2000
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 February 2003, pp 4553-4589

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The United States, the European Communities and Japan appeal from certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Reports, United States - Anti- Dumping Act of 1916, complaint by the European Communities (the “EC Panel Report”)

    and United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, complaint by Japan (the “Japan Panel Report”). These Panel Reports were rendered by two Panels composed of the same three persons. The two Panel Reports, while not identical, are alike in all major respects.

    The Panel was established to consider claims by the European Communities and Japan that Title VIII of the United States Revenue Act of 1916 (the “1916 Act”) is inconsistent with United States’ obligations under the covered agreements. The 1916 Act allows, under certain conditions, civil actions and criminal proceedings to be brought against importers who have sold foreign-produced goods in the United States at prices which are “substantially less” than the prices at which the same products are sold in a relevant foreign market.

    The European Communities claimed that the 1916 Act is inconsistent with Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti- Dumping Agreement ”) and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the “WTO Agreement”). In the alternative, the European Communities claimed that the 1916 Act is inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. Japan claimed that the 1916 Act is inconsistent with Articles III:4, VI and XI of the GATT 1994, Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 18.1 and 18.4 of the Anti- Dumping Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

Page 74 of 82