Dispute Settlement Reports Online

An online collection of the authorized and paginated WTO Dispute Settlement Reports in English. Includes the entire backlist of reports from 1996.

Summary

INTRODUCTION

On 12 June 1998, the European Communities requested consultations with the United States pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) and Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) with respect to the imposition of countervailing duties by the United States on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products (leaded bars) originating in the United Kingdom in the context of three successive annual reviews (WTO document WT/DS138/1). The European Communities and the United States held consultations on 29 July 1998, but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory solution.

On 14 January 1999, pursuant to Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the GATT 1994 and Article 30 of the SCM Agreement, the European Communities requested the establishment of a panel with respect to the imposition of countervailing duties by the United States on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products originating in the United Kingdom in the context of three successive annual reviews (WTO documents WT/DS138/3 and WT/DS138/3/Corr.1).

At its meeting on 17 February 1999, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel pursuant to the above request. At that meeting, the parties to the dispute agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference were:

“To examine, in light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the European Communities in documents WT/DS138/3 and WT/DS138/3/Corr.1, 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”.

On 16 March 1999, the Panel was constituted as follows:

Chairman: Mr. Ole Lundby

Members: Mr. Paul O'Connor

Mr. Arie Reich

Brazil and Mexico reserved their rights as third parties to the dispute.

The Panel met with the parties on 15-16 June 1999 and 14-15 July 1999. It met with the third parties on 16 June 1999.

Summary

REFERENCE TO ARBITRATION

On 12 January 2000, the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, in Chile - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages (“Chile - Alcoholic Beverages”). On 1 February 2000, Chile 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 but that it would require a “reasonable period of time” to do so, as provided for in Article 21.3 of the DSU.

Consultations between Chile and the European Communities regarding the duration of the reasonable period of time for implementation took place in Geneva, on 22 February 2000, and subsequently by telephone-conference, but these consultations did not produce agreement.

By joint letter of 27 March 2000, Chile and the European Communities 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 timeperiod for the arbitration process, fixed at 90 days by Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, by a further 51 days, that is until 31 May 2000. Notwithstanding this extension of the time-period for the arbitration process, 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 to act as Arbitrator was conveyed to the parties by letter of 28 March 2000.

Written submissions were received from Chile and the European Communities on 10 April 2000 and an oral hearing was held on 25 April 2000.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Chile

Chile begins its submission by noting that, under the Constitución Política de la República de Chile (“Constitution”), tax related matters must be regulated by formal laws (leyes) adopted by Chile's National Congress. The Constitution also upholds the “principle of tax legality” which requires “the equal distribution of taxes, in proportion with individual income or in the progressive manner established by law.”

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Canada, the European Communities and Japan appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, Canada - Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by the European Communities and Japan with respect to a Canadian measure which provides a duty exemption for the importation of certain automobiles, buses and other specified commercial vehicles (“motor vehicles”). According to the Panel, the Canadian measure consists of the Motor Vehicles Tariff Order, 1998 (the “MVTO 1998”) and Special Remission Orders (the “SROs”) promulgated by the Government of Canada. Pertinent aspects of the Canadian measure are described in Section II below.

The Panel considered claims by the European Communities and Japan that the measure is inconsistent with Article I:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”); with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994; with Article 2 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (the “TRIMs Agreement ”); with the prohibition on export subsidies under Article 3.1(a) of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement ”); with the prohibition on subsidies contingent on the use of domestic over imported goods under Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement; with Article II of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (the “GATS”); and with Article XVII of the GATS. The Panel Report was circulated to the Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 11 February 2000.

The Panel concluded as follows: (a) that Canada acts inconsistently with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994; (b) that the inconsistency with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 is not justified under Article XXIV of the GATT 1994; (c) that Canada acts inconsistently with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, as a result of the application of the Canadian value added requirements; (d) that the European Communities and Japan failed to demonstrate that Canada acts inconsistently with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, as a result of the application of the production- to-sales ratio requirements; (e) that Canada acts inconsistently with Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement; (f) that the European Communities and Japan failed to demonstrate that Canada acts inconsistently with its obligations under Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement; (g) that Canada acts inconsistently with Article II of the GATS;

Summary

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Ecuador's Request for Authorization of Suspension of Concessions or Other Obligations Pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU

On 8 November 1999, Ecuador requested authorization by the DSB to suspend concessions or other obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, the GATS and GATT 1994 in an amount of US$450 million.

With respect to the withdrawal of concessions in the goods sector, Ecuador submitted that such suspension is at present not practicable or effective, and that the circumstances are serious enough to request authorization to suspend concessions and other obligations under the GATS and the TRIPS Agreement.

As regards trade in services, Ecuador proposed to suspend the following subsector in its GATS Schedule of specific commitments:

Wholesale Trade Services (CPC 622)

As regards intellectual property rights, Ecuador specified that its request concerned the following categories set out in Part II of the TRIPS Agreement:

Section 1: Copyright and related rights, Article 14 on “Protection of performers, producers of phonograms (sound recordings) and broadcasting organizations”;

Section 3: Geographical indications;

Section 4: Industrial designs.

At the same time, Ecuador noted in its request under Article 22.2 that it reserved the right to suspend tariff concessions or other tariff obligations granted in the framework of the GATT 1994 in the event that these may be applied in a practicable and effective manner.

Ecuador intends to apply the suspension of concessions or other obligations, if authorized by the DSB, against 13 of the EC member States.

The European Communities’ Request for Arbitration Pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU

On 19 November 1999, the European Communities requested arbitration pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU. The relevant part of that provision reads:

“… However, if the Member concerned objects to the level of suspension proposed, or claims that the principles and procedures set forth in paragraph 3 have not been followed where a complaining party has requested authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations pursuant to paragraph 3(b) or (c), the matter shall be referred to arbitration. …”

Summary

INTRODUCTION

On 18 November 1997, 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”), Article XXIII:1 of GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”) with respect to “Sections 921-927 of the Internal Revenue Code and related measures establishing special tax treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” (“FSCs”)”.

On 4 March 1998, the European Communities requested the consultations “to be extended also to include consultations under Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture” (“AA”).

The European Communities and the United States held consultations on 17 December 1997, 10 February 1998, and 3 April 1998, but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory solution. On 1 July 1998, the European Communities requested the establishment of a panel under Article 6 of the DSU, Article 4 of the SCM Agreement, Article 19 of the AA, and Article XXIII of GATT 1994.

At its meeting on 22 September 1998, 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/DS108/2, the matter referred to the DSB by the European Communities in document WT/DS108/2, and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.”

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

On 9 November 1998, the parties to the dispute agreed on the composition of the Panel as follows:

Chairman: Mr. Crawford Falconer

Members: Mr. Didier Chambovey

Professor Seung Wha Chang

The Panel met with the parties on 9-10 February 1999 and 16 March 1999. It met with the third parties on 10 February 1999.

ACTUAL ASPECTS

A FSC is a corporation created, organised, and maintained in a qualified foreign country or US possession outside the customs territory of the United States under the specific requirements of Sections 921-927 of the US Internal Revenue Code.

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Argentina and the European Communities appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the Panel Report, Argentina - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by the European Communities with respect to the application by Argentina of certain safeguard measures on imports of footwear.

On 14 February 1997, Argentina initiated a safeguard investigation and adopted Resolution 226/97, which imposed provisional measures in the form of minimum specific duties on imports of certain footwear. On the same day, the Argentine Ministry of Economy and Public Works repealed the minimum specific duties on imports of footwear (“DIEMs”) that had been maintained by Argentina since 31 December 1993. The opening of the safeguard investigation and the implementation of a provisional safeguard measure were notified to the Committee on Safeguards by Argentina in a communication dated 21 February 1997 and, by further communication dated 5 March 1997, Argentina transmitted a copy of the provisional duty resolution to the Committee on Safeguards.

On 25 July 1997, Argentina notified the Committee on Safeguards of the determination of serious injury made by its competent authorities, the Comisión Nacional de Comercio Exterior (“CNCE”). Attached to this notification was Act 338, the report of the CNCE on serious injury. Act 338 incorporates by reference the Technical Report, a summary by CNCE staff of the factual data gathered during the safeguard investigation. On 1 September 1997, Argentina notified the Committee on Safeguards of its intention to impose a definitive safeguard measure. On 12 September 1997, Argentina adopted Resolution 987/97, which imposed, effective 13 September 1997, a definitive safeguard measure in the form of minimum specific duties on certain imports of footwear. On 26 September 1997, Argentina transmitted a copy of this Resolution to the Committee on Safeguards, and Uruguay, as Pro Tempore President of the Mercado Común del Sur (“MERCOSUR”) notified the definitive safeguard measure imposed by that Resolution. On 28 April 1998, Argentina published Resolution 512/98 modifying Resolution 987/97. On 26 November 1998, Argentina published Resolution 1506/98, further modifying Resolution 987/97, and, on 7 December 1998, the Argentine Secretariat of Industry, Commerce and Mines published Resolution 837/98 implementing Resolution 1506/98. The relevant factual aspects of this dispute are set out in further detail at paragraphs 2.1-2.6 and 8.1-8.20 of the Panel Report.

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Korea and the European Communities appeal from certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, Korea - Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products (“the Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by the European Communities relating to a definitive safeguard measure imposed by Korea on imports of certain dairy products.

On 17 May 1996, the Korean Trade Commission initiated an investigation of injury to the domestic industry by imports of skimmed milk powder preparations. The results of this investigation were published by the Korean Trade Commission in the Investigation Report on Industrial Injury by the Office of Administration and Investigation (the “OAI Report”). On 7 March 1997, Korea published in its Government Gazette its decision to apply a definitive safeguard measure in the form of a quantitative restriction on imports of the dairy products at issue. Korea notified the initiation and results of its investigation, as well as its decision to apply a safeguard measure, to the Committee on Safeguards. On 12 August 1997, following consultations in the Committee on Safeguards, the European Communities requested consultations with Korea under the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”) regarding the consistency of Korea's safeguard measure with its WTO obligations. The European Communities subsequently requested the establishment of a panel to examine the consistency of Korea's safeguard measure with its obligations under Articles 2, 4, 5 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX of the GATT 1994. The United States participated as a third party in the proceedings before the Panel. The factual aspects of this dispute are set out in greater detail in the Panel Report.

In its Report circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (“the WTO”) on 21 June 1999, the Panel concluded that Korea's definitive safeguard measure was imposed inconsistently with its WTO obligations in that:

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Chile appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretation developed in the Panel Report, Chile - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages. Following a request for consultations, a Panel was established on 25 March 1998 by the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) to consider a complaint by the European Communities against Chile regarding its Special Sales Tax on Spirits, as modified by the Additional Tax on Alcoholic Beverages (“Impuesto Adicional a las Bebidas Alcohólicas” or “ILA”).

The ILA provides a transitional tax system (the “Transitional System”) for distilled spirits (“spirits”) which is applicable until 1 December 2000, and a revised tax system (the “New Chilean System”) which will be applied from 1 December 2000. The New Chilean System taxes all spirits on the basis of their alcohol content and price. Spirits with an alcohol content of 35° or less are taxed at a rate of 27 per cent ad valorem. From a rate of 27 per cent ad valorem, the tax rate increases in increments of 4 percentage points per additional degree of alcohol, until a maximum rate of 47 per cent ad valorem is reached for all spirits over 39°. The Panel found that roughly 75 per cent of the total volume of domestically produced spirits will be taxed at 27 per cent ad valorem, while over 95 per cent of the total volume of imported spirits will be taxed at 47 per cent ad valorem. A detailed description of the factual aspects of the dispute is provided at paragraphs 2.1 to 2.29 of the Panel Report.

The Panel considered claims made by the European Communities that the measure at issue is inconsistent with Article III:2, second sentence, of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”) because it accords preferential tax treatment to pisco, a distilled alcoholic beverage produced in Chile, thereby affording “protection” to domestic production in relation to certain imported alcoholic beverages. The Panel Report was circulated to the Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 15 June 1999. The Panel reached the conclusion that “the domestic distilled alcoholic beverages produced in Chile, including pisco, and the imported products presently identified by HS classification 2208, are directly competitive or substitutable products.”

Summary

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This proceeding has been initiated by a complaining party, the European Communities.

On 25 November 1998, the European Communities requested consultations with the United States under Article XXII:1 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 Dispute (“DSU”) with regard to Title III, chapter 1 (Sections 301-310) of the United States Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C., paragraphs 2411-2420)(WT/DS152/1). The United States agreed to the request. Dominica Republic, Panama, Guatemala, Mexico, Jamaica, Honduras, Japan, and Ecuador requested, in communications dated 7 December 1998 (WT/DS152/2), 4 December 1998 (WT/DS152/3), 9 December 1998 (WT/DS152/4, WT/DS152/5 and WT/DS152/6), 7 December 1998 (WT/DS152/7), and 10 December 1998 (WT/DS152/8 and WT/DS152/10) respectively, to be joined in those consultations, pursuant to Article 4.11 of the DSU. Consultations between the European Communities and the United States were held on 17 December 1998, but the parties were unable to settle the dispute.

On 26 January 1999, the European Communities requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU (WT/DS152/11).

In its panel request, the European Communities claims that:

“By imposing specific, strict time limits within which unilateral determinations must be made and trade sanctions must be taken, Sections 306 and 305 of the Trade Act of 1974 do not allow the United States to comply with the rules of the DSU in situations where a prior multilateral ruling under the DSU on the conformity of implementing measures has not yet been adopted by the DSB. Where measures have been taken to implement DSB recommendations, the DSU rules require either agreement between the parties to the dispute or a multilateral finding on non-conformity under Article 21.5 DSU before any determination of non-conformity can be made, let alone any measures of retaliation can be announced or implemented. The DSU procedure resulting in a multilateral finding, even if initiated immediately at the end of the reasonable period of time for implementation, cannot be finalized, nor can the subsequent DSU procedure for seeking compensation or suspension of concessions be complied with, within the time limits of Sections 306 and 305.

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The United States and the European Communities appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, United States - Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by the European Communities with respect to “Sections 921- 927 of the Internal Revenue Code and related measures establishing special tax treatment for ‘Foreign Sales Corporations’ ('FSCs’)”. Pertinent aspects of this “FSC measure” are described in Section II below.

In the Panel Report, circulated on 8 October 1999, the Panel concluded that, through the FSC measure:

Summary

INTRODUCTION

On 8 May 1998, the United States requested consultations with Mexico pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the AD Agreement) regarding the anti-dumping investigation of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) grades 42 and 55 from the United States conducted by the Secretariat of Commerce and Industrial Development (SECOFI) of the Government of Mexico, the 23 January 1998 notice of final determination of dumping and injury in that investigation and the consequent imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of HFCS grades 42 and 55 from the United States. The United States and Mexico held consultations on 12 June 1998, but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory solution.

On 8 October 1998, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII:2 of GATT 1994 and Article 17 of the AD Agreement, the United States requested the establishment of a panel to examine the consistency of Mexico's final anti-dumping measure, including actions preceding this measure, with Mexico's obligations under the AD Agreement and Article VI of GATT 1994.

At its meeting on 25 November 1998, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel pursuant to the above request. At that meeting, the parties to the dispute agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference were:

“To examine, in light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the United States in document WT/DS132/2, the matter referred to the DSB by the United States 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”.

Jamaica and Mauritius reserved their rights as third parties to the dispute.

On 13 January 1999, the Panel was constituted as follows:

Chairman: H.E. Mr. Christer Manhusen

Members: Mr. Gerald Salembier

Mr. Edwin Vermulst

The Panel met with the parties on 14-15 April 1999 and 25-26 May 1999. It met with the third parties on 15 April 1999.

The Panel submitted its interim report to the parties on 6 October 1999. On 20 October 1999, the United States and Mexico submitted written requests for the Panel to review precise aspects of the interim report.

Summary

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This proceeding has been initiated by a complaining party, the European Communities.

On 4 June 1997, the European Communities requested consultations with Chile under Article XXII:1 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 regard to the Special Sales Tax on Spirits of Chile (WT/DS87/1). Chile agreed to the request. Peru, the United States, and Mexico requested, in communications dated 19 June 1997 (WT/DS87/2), 23 June 1997 (WT/DS87/3) and 20 June 1997 (WT/DS87/4) respectively, to be joined in those consultations, pursuant to Article 4.11 of the DSU. Consultations between the European Communities and Chile were held on 3 July 1997, in which Peru, the United States and Mexico participated, but the parties were unable to settle the dispute.

On 3 October 1997, the European Communities requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU (WT/DS87/5).

In its panel request, the European Communities claims that:

Chile, by according a preferential tax treatment, through the Special Sales Tax on Spirits, to pisco vis-à-vis certain alcoholic beverages falling within HS heading 2208, has acted inconsistently with Article III:2 of GATT 1994, therefore nullifying or impairing the benefits accruing to the European Communities under GATT 1994.

The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) agreed to this request for a panel at its meeting of 18 November 1997, establishing a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference.

Canada, Mexico, Peru and the United States reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third-parties.

On 15 December 1997, the European Communities further requested consultations with Chile under Article XXII:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the DSU with regard to the Additional Tax on Alcoholic Beverages (“Impuesto Adicional a las Bebidas Alcoholicas”), as modified by Law No. 19,534 (WT/DS110/1). The United States and Mexico requested, in communications dated 23 December 1997 (WT/DS110/2) and 27 December 1997 (WT/DS110/3) respectively, to be joined in those consultations, pursuant to Article 4.11 of the DSU. Also, on 16 December 1997, the United States requested consultations with Chile under Article XXII of GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the DSU (WT/DS109/1).

Summary

INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On 16 June 1999, the Dispute Settlement Body (“the DSB”) adopted the report and recommendations of the Panel in the dispute Australia - Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive Leather (WT/DS126/R) (“Australia - Automotive Leather”). In that report, the Panel found that payments under a grant contract between the Government of Australia, and Howe and Company Proprietary Ltd. (“Howe”) and Howe's parent company Australia Leather Holdings, Ltd. (“ALH”) were subsidies within the meaning of Article 1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“the SCM Agreement”) contingent upon export perform ance within the meaning of Article 3.1(a) of that Agreement, The Panel accordingly recommended, pursuant to Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement, that Australia withdraw those subsidies without delay, which the Panel specified to be within 90 days.

On 6 July 1999 Australia submitted a communication to the Chairman of the DSB pursuant to Article 21.3 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), regarding “surveillance of implementation of recommendations and rulings- time-period for implementation” (WT/DS126/6). In that communication, Australia stated that the United States had been informed at a bilateral meeting in Canberra on 25 June 1999 that Australia intended to implement the DSB recommendations, and that Australia intended to implement the DSB recommendations within the time-frame provided for in the panel report.

On 17 September 1999, Australia submitted to the Chairman of the DSB a “status report by Australia” to inform the DSB of Australia's progress in implementing the recommendations and rulings in the dispute (WT/DS126/7). In that communication, Australia stated that on 14 September 1999, Howe had repaid the Australian Government $A8.065 million, an amount which covered any remaining inconsistent portion of the grants made under the grant contract. Australia further stated that the Australian Government had also terminated all subsisting obligations under the grant contract. Australia concluded that this implemented the recommendations and rulings in the dispute to withdraw the measures within 90 days.

On 4 October 1999, the United States submitted a communication seeking recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU (WT/DS126/8). In that communication, the United States indicated its view that the measures taken by Australia to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB were not consistent with the SCM Agreement and the DSU.

Dispute Settlement Reports Online

An online collection of the authorized and paginated WTO Dispute Settlement Reports in English. Includes the entire backlist of reports from 1996.

Refine search

Refine search

Actions for selected content:

1628 results in Dispute Settlement Reports Online

Frontmatter

Contents

United States - Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom (WT/DS138): Report of the Panel

Summary

Chile - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages (WT/DS87/15, WT/DS110) Award of the Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU

Summary

Contents

Canada - Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry (WT/DS139, WT/DS142): Report of the Appellate Body

Summary

European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas (WT/DS27) Decision by the Arbitrators under Article 22.6 DSU

Summary

United States - Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” (WT/DS108): Report of the Panel

Summary

Argentina - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear (WT/DS121/AB/R) Report of the Appellate Body

Summary

Korea - Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products (WT/DS98/AB/R, WT/DS98/R): Report of the Appellate Body

Summary

Contents

Chili - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages (WT/DS87/AB/R, WT/DS110/AB/R, WT/DS87/R, WT/DS110/R): Report of the Appellate Body

Summary

United States - Sections 301 - 310 of the Trade Act of 1974 (WT/DS152): Report of the Panel

Summary

United States - Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” (WT/DS108): Report of the Appellate Body

Summary

Mexico - Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States (WT/DS132): Report of the Panel

Summary

Frontmatter

Chili - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages (WT/DS87/AB/R, WT/DS110/AB/R, WT/DS87/R, WT/DS110/R): Report of the Panel

Summary

Cumulative Index of Published Disputes

Australia - Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive Leather - Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States (WT/DS126): Report of the Panel

Summary

Contents

Dispute Settlement Reports Online

An online collection of the authorized and paginated WTO Dispute Settlement Reports in English. Includes the entire backlist of reports from 1996.

Refine search

Refine search

Actions for selected content:

Save Search

1628 results in Dispute Settlement Reports Online

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary