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 2 July 1996, the United States requested India to hold consultations pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Article 64 of the Agreement on Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) regarding the absence in India of either patent protection for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products or formal systems that permit the filing of patent applications for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products and that provide exclusive marketing rights in such products (WT/DS50/1). No mutually satisfactory solution was reached in these consultations, held on 27 July 1996. The United States requested the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), in a communication dated 7 November 1996, to establish a panel to examine the matter (WT/DS50/4). At its meeting of 20 November 1996, the DSB agreed to establish a panel with standard terms of reference in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU.

In document WT/DS5O/5 of 5 February 1997, the DSB was informed that the terms of reference and the composition of the Panel were as follows:

Terms of Reference

“To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the United States in document WT/DS50/4, 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.“

Composition

Chairman: Mr. Thomas Cottier

Panelists: Mr. Douglas Chester

Mr. Yanyong Phuangrach

The Panel heard the parties to the dispute on 15 April and 13 May 1997. The Panel decided to give the parties the chance to comment, after the second session, in writing on each other's arguments related to the United States’ claim based on Article 63, which claim had been made for the first time at the first session. The interim report was issued to the parties on 27 June 1997. Only India requested the Panel to review parts of the interim report and no request was received to hold an additional meeting.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

The questions before this Panel concern the obligations India has as a WTO Member by virtue of certain transitional provisions of the TRIPS Agreement and are to be divided into questions related to the provisions of Article 70.8 of the TRIPS Agreement and questions related to the provisions of Article 70.9 of that Agreement.

Summary

INTERIM REVIEW

On 2 April 1997, the European Communities, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and United States requested the Panel to review in accordance with Article 15.2 of the DSU precise aspects of the interim reports that had been issued to the parties on 18 March 1997. The European Communities also requested the Panel to hold a further meeting with the parties on the issues identified in its written comments. The Panel met with the parties on 14 April 1997 in order to hear their arguments concerning the interim reports. We carefully reviewed the arguments presented by the EC and by the Complaining parties, jointly or individually, and the responses offered by the other side.

With respect to procedural matters, the Complaining parties commented on the Panel's interpretation of the requisite degree of specificity of a panel request in light of the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU. They also raised concerns as to the Panel's refusal to consider claims made or endorsed by one or more of them after the filing of the first written submissions. As regards those claims which the Panel had found unnecessary to address, the Complaining parties further argued that several of them, e.g., allegations regarding overfiling under the activity function rules and the distribution of licences to producers, were not issues of secondary importance and should be addressed by the Panel in addition to those aspects of the licensing procedures which had been found to be inconsistent with WTO rules. Furthermore, they suggested several drafting changes. We carefully considered these arguments and where we agreed, we modified the Findings in response in paragraphs 7.40, 7.42 and 7.49.

The EC and the Complaining parties asked for a number of specific modifications or additions to those paragraphs in the Findings which summarize their legal arguments. Since these proposed changes concerned the representation of the parties’ own legal arguments, we generally accepted them. In particular, in reaction to suggestions by the EC, we modified or expanded paragraphs 7.65, 7.78, 7.104, 7.169, 7.200, 7.205, 7.224, 7.287, 7.301 and 7.313. In our view, these adjustments in general did not entail repercussions for the legal analysis in the Findings.

Summary

INTRODUCTION

India appeals from certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, India - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products (the “Panel Report“). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by the United States against India concerning the absence in India of either patent protection for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products under Article 27 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (the “TRIPS Agreement“), or of a means for the filing of patent applications for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products pursuant to Article 70.8 of the TRIPS Agreement and of legal authority for the granting of exclusive marketing rights for such products pursuant to Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement. The relevant factual aspects of India's “legal regime” for patent protection for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products are described at paragraphs 2.1 to 2.12 of the Panel Report.

The Panel Report was circulated to the Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO“) on 5 September 1997. The Panel reached the following conclusions:

On the basis of the findings set out above, the Panel concludes that India has not complied with its obligations under Article 70.8(a) and, in the alternative, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 63 of the TRIPS Agreement, because it has failed to establish a mechanism that adequately preserves novelty and priority in respect of applications for product patents in respect of pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical inventions during the transitional period to which it is entitled under Article 65 of the Agreement, and to publish and notify adequately information about such a mechanism; and that India has not complied with its obligations under Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement, because it has failed to establish a system for the grant of exclusive marketing rights.

The Panel made the following recommendation:

The Panel recommends that the Dispute Settlement Body request India to bring its transitional regime for patent protection of pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products into conformity with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement …

Summary

INTRODUCTION

On 25 September 1997, the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB“) adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Reports, as modified, in European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, complaint by Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States (the “Complaining Parties“). On 16 October 1997, the European Communities 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 fully respect its international obligations with regard to this matter. At the same meeting, the European Communities stated that - while intending to act expeditiously - it would, in view of the complexity of the matter at issue, require a reasonable period of time in which to examine all the options to meet its international obligations.

On 24 October 1997, the European Communities requested consultations with the Complaining Parties in order to reach agreement on a “reasonable period of time” for the implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB adopted on 25 September 1997. These consultations, however, did not lead to an agreement. The Complaining Parties therefore requested, on 17 November 1997, that the “reasonable period of time” be determined by binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.

In the absence of an agreement between the parties on the appointment of an arbitrator within 10 days after referring the matter to arbitration, the Complaining Parties requested, on 1 December 1997, the Director-General of the World Trade Organization (“WTO“) to appoint the arbitrator, as provided for in footnote 12 to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. After consultation with the parties, the Director-General decided, on 8 December 1997, to appoint me as the Arbitrator. He indicated to the parties that, as a Member of the Appellate Body, I would consult with the other Members of the Appellate Body in accordance with its practice of collegiality.

Written submissions were received from the European Communities and the Complaining Parties on 15 December 1997, and an oral hearing was held on 17 December 1997. Consultations with the other Members of the Appellate Body took place on 19 December 1997.

Summary

INTRODUCTION

On 5 February 1996, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States acting jointly and severally, requested consultations with the European Communities (“the Community” or the “EC”) pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT”), Article 6 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures (to the extent that it related to Article XXIII of GATT), Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture (to the extent that it related to Article XXIII of GATT), and Article 8 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (to the extent that it related to Article XXIII of GATT) regarding the EC regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas established by Council Regulation (EEC) 404/93, and the subsequent EC legislation, regulations and administrative measures, including those reflecting the provisions of the Framework Agreement on Bananas, which implemented, supplemented and amended that regime (WT/DS27/1).

Consultations were held on 14 and 15 March 1996. As they did not result in a mutually satisfactory solution of the matter, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States, in a communication dated 11 April 1996, requested the establishment of a panel to examine this matter in light of the GATT, the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, the Agreement on Agriculture, the General Agreement on Trade in Services (“GATS”) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (WT/DS27/6).

The Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”), at its meeting on 8 May 1996, established a panel with standard terms of reference in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU (WT/DS27/7). Belize, Canada, Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ghana, Grenada, India, Jamaica, Japan, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Suriname, Thailand and Venezuela reserved their third party rights to make a submission and to be heard by the Panel in accordance with Article 10 of the DSU. Several of these countries also requested additional rights (see paragraph 7.4). Thailand subsequently renounced its third party rights.

Summary

INTERIM REVIEW

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The Philippines and Brazil appeal from certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, Brazil - Measures Affecting Desiccated Coconut (the “Panel Report”). That Panel was established to consider a complaint by the Philippines against Brazil relating to the countervailing duties imposed by Brazil on imports of desiccated coconut from the Philippines pursuant to Interministerial Ordinance No. 11 (the “Ordinance”) on 18 August 1995.

The application for initiation of the countervailing duty investigation was filed with the Brazilian authorities on 17 January 1994. The investigation was initiated on 21 June 1994, provisional countervailing duties were imposed on 23 March 1995, and definitive countervailing duties were imposed on 18 August 1995. The Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the “WTO Agreement”) entered into force for both parties to this dispute, Brazil and the Philippines, on 1 January 1995, that is, after the application for, and the initiation of, the investigation and prior to the imposition of the provisional and definitive countervailing duties.

The Panel Report was circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 17 October 1996. It contains the following conclusions:

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Canada and the United States appeal from certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, Canada - Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by the United States against Canada concerning three measures: Tariff Code 9958, which prohibits the importation into Canada of certain periodicals, including split-run editions; Part V.1 of the Excise Tax Act, which imposes an excise tax on split-run editions of periodicals; and the application by Canada Post Corporation (“Canada Post”) of commercial “Canadian”, commercial “international” and “funded” publications mail postal rates, the latter through the Publications Assistance Program (the “PAP”) maintained by the Department of Canadian Heritage (“Canadian Heritage”) and Canada Post.

The Panel Report was circulated to the Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 14 March 1997. It contains the following conclusions:

(a) Tariff Code 9958 is inconsistent with Article XI:1 of GATT 1994 and cannot be justified under Article XX(d) of GATT 1994; (b) Part V.1 of the Excise Tax Act is inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence, of GATT 1994; (c) the application by Canada Post of lower ”commercial Canadian” postal rates to domestically-produced periodicals than to imported periodicals, including additional discount options available only to domestic periodicals, is inconsistent with Article III:4 of GATT 1994; but (d) the maintenance of the “funded” rate scheme is justified under Article III:8(b) of GATT 1994.

The Panel made the following recommendation:

The Panel recommends that the Dispute Settlement Body request Canada to bring the measures that are found to be inconsistent with GATT 1994 into conformity with its obligations thereunder.

On 29 April 1997, Canada notified the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) of its intention to appeal certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), and filed a Notice of Appeal with the Appellate Body, pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review (the “Working Procedures”).

Summary

INTRODUCTION

On 1 November 1996, the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) adopted (WT/DSB/M/25) the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, in Japan - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages (WT/DS8/11, WT/DS10/11 and WT/DS11/8). As required by Article 21(3) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), Japan informed the DSB on 20 November 1996 of its intentions in respect of the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings (WT/DSB/M/26). Japan indicated that it would not be able to implement immediately but only within a “reasonable period of time”. Japan did not propose to the DSB a “reasonable period of time” for the latter's approval as provided for under Article 21(3)(a) of the DSU. It indicated that it would initiate negotiations with the European Communities, the United States and Canada, the other parties to the dispute, on what constitutes “a reasonable period of time”. These negotiations did not succeed, and no mutual agreement within the meaning of Article 21(3)(b) of the DSU was reached. The negotiations with the European Communities did, however, lead to an agreement on an accelerated reduction of the tariff rates on whisky and brandy as compensation for delayed implementation, but this agreement does not prejudge their position on the issue of a “reasonable period of time”.

In the absence of an agreement under Article 21(3)(b) of the DSU, the United States requested on 24 December 1996, that the “reasonable period of time” should be determined through binding arbitration as is provided for by Article 21(3)(c). After Japan and the United States failed to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator within the ten days envisaged by the note to Article 21(3)(c), the United States requested on 7 January 1997 that the Director-General appoint an arbitrator. Following consultations with the United States and Japan, the Director-General appointed me as arbitrator on 17 January 1997.

At an organizational meeting on 20 January 1997, it was agreed that all the original parties to the dispute could participate in the arbitration process, notwithstanding that only the United States had requested binding arbitration.

Summary

INTRODUCTION

India appeals from certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, United States - Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India, WT/DS33/R (the “Panel Report”). That Panel was established on 17 April 1996 to consider a complaint by India against the United States relating to a transitional safeguard restraint imposed on imports of woven wool shirts and blouses (category 440) from India.

The measure was imposed by the United States on 14 July 1995 after bilateral consultations with India in April and June 1995 did not result in a mutually- agreed solution. The restraint was effective as from 18 April 1995 for one year and was later extended through 17 April 1997. The United States took this transitional safeguard action pursuant to Article 6 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (the “ATC”). As required by Article 6.10 of the ATC, the United States referred the matter to the Textiles Monitoring Body (the “TMB”), which concluded and confirmed upon review that the transitional safeguard action in this case was imposed in accordance with the requirements of the ATC. The TMB found that “actual threat of serious damage had been demonstrated” and that “this actual threat could be attributed to the sharp and substantial increase in imports from India”. At India's request, the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) established a panel (the “Panel”) to examine the legality of the United States’ transitional safeguard measure.

After the release of the interim report of the Panel, the United States announced that it would withdraw the transitional safeguard measure, effective as of 22 November 1996, “due to a steady decline in imports of woven wool shirts and blouses from India and the adjustment of the industry”. Nevertheless, India requested that the Panel continue its work and produce a comprehensive report on the dispute. The Panel Report in United States - Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India was circulated to the Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 6 January 1997. The Panel Report contains the following conclusions and recommendations:

We conclude that the US restraint applied as of 18 April 1995 on imports of woven wool shirts and blouses, category 440, from India and its extensions violated the provisions of Articles 2 and 6 of the ATC.

Summary

INTRODUCTION

In a communication dated 14 March 1996, India requested that a panel be established at the next meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) pursuant to Article XXIII:2 of GATT 1994, Article 6 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Article 8.10 and other relevant provisions of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) (WT/DS33/1). This arose from a restraint introduced by the United States in respect of India's exports of woven wool shirts and blouses (US category 440), under Article 6 of the ATC.

India noted that the matter had remained unresolved in spite of bilateral consultations between India and the United States held under Article 6.7 of the ATC in April and June 1995; the examination of the matter by the Textiles Monitoring Body (TMB) under Article 6.10 of the ATC in August and September 1995; the communication sent to the TMB under Article 8.10 of the ATC, within one month of the TMB recommendation under Article 6.10 of the ATC, explaining the reasons for India's inability to conform to the TMB recommendations; and the review of the matter by the TMB under Article 8.10 of the ATC in November 1995. Consequently, India considered that it had met all requirements in Article 8.10 of the ATC for direct recourse to Article XXIII:2 of GATT 1994. At its meeting held on 17 April 1996, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request of India, with standard terms of reference, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU (WT/DSB/M/14).

On 27 June 1996, the DSB informed Members that the terms of reference and the composition of the panel (WT/DS33/2) were as follows:

Terms of Reference

“To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by India in document WT/DS/33/1, the matter referred to the DSB by India 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.”

Composition

Chairman: Mr. Jacques Bourgeois

Panelists: Mr. Robert Arnott

Mr. Wilhelm Meier

Five Members reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties; namely Canada, the European Communities, Norway, Pakistan and Turkey.

Summary

INTRODUCTION: FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF THE APPEAL

This is an appeal by Costa Rica from certain issues of law and legal interpretations set out in the Panel Report, United States - Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man-made Fibre Underwear (the “Panel Report”). That Panel (the “Panel”) had been established to consider a complaint by Costa Rica relating to a transitional safeguard measure imposed by the United States on imports of cotton and man-made fibre underwear from Costa Rica under Article 6 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (“ATC”).

The factual background essential to understanding this appeal, may be sketched quickly.

On 27 March 1995, the United States requested consultations with Costa Rica on trade in cotton and man-made underwear under Article 6.7 of the ATC. At the same time, the United States provided Costa Rica with a “Statement of Serious Damage”, dated March 1995 (the “March Statement”), on the basis of which the United States proposed the introduction of a restraint on imports of underwear from Costa Rica. Notice of the request for consultations, the proposed restraint and the proposed restraint level was published in the United States Federal Register on 21 April 1995. The consultations were held but the United States and Costa Rica failed to negotiate a mutually acceptable settlement during these consultations. The United States then invoked Article 6.10 of the ATC, and intro-duced a transitional safeguard measure in respect of cotton and man-made fibre underwear imports from Costa Rica on 23 June 1995. The measure was, by its terms, to be valid for a period of 12 months, effective as of 27 March 1995 (i.e., the date of the request for consultations).

At the same time, the United States referred the matter to the Textiles Monitoring Body (the “TMB”). The TMB found that the United States had failed to demonstrate serious damage to the United States domestic industry. However, the TMB did not reach a consensus on the existence of an actual threat of serious damage. The TMB similarly failed to make any findings on the effective date of application of the United States restraint. Accordingly, the TMB recommended that the United States and Costa Rica hold further consultations with a view to resolving the matter.

Summary

INTRODUCTION

On 27 November 1995, the Philippines requested consultations with Brazil under Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”) concerning the countervailing duty imposed by Brazil on imports of desiccated coconut from the Philippines. (WT/DS22/1/Rev.1).

On 8 December 1995, Brazil replied that it was prepared to enter into consultations with the Philippines as long as it was mutually understood that those consultations would be undertaken exclusively under the 1979 Agreement on Interpretation and Application of Articles VI, XVI and XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (“Tokyo Round SCM Code”), under the auspices of which Brazil conducted the coconut subsidies investigations and imposed the countervailing duties.

On 13 December 1995, the Philippines replied that Brazil's response constituted a refusal of the request for consultations under Article XXIII:1.

Taking the view that Brazil had failed to enter into consultations within the period provided for in the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), the Philippines, on 17 January 1996, requested the establishment of a Panel with standard terms of reference, pursuant to Article XXIII:2 of GATT 1994 and Articles 4.3 and 6 of the DSU. (WT/DS22/2).

At Brazil's request, a copy of document SCM/193, on the issue of the countervailing duties in question, was circulated to the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”). In that document, Brazil stated its view that the Tokyo Round SCM Code was the only legal framework applicable to the dispute. Brazil also indicated its understanding that the DSB was not the appropriate forum for the discussion on the dispute with the Philippines, and that document SCM/193 was circulated for information purposes only and without prejudice to its rights under the Tokyo Round SCM Code and to its position on the applicable law. (WT/DS22/3, attached as Annex 1).

At the 31 January 1996 meeting of the DSB, the Philippines stated that, for reasons mutually agreed to, the Philippines had not objected to postponing consideration of its request for establishment of a panel, but would make a statement at the next meeting of the DSB when this request would be considered.

Summary

INTRODUCTION

On 11 March 1996, the United States requested Canada to hold consultations pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) on certain measures maintained by Canada, namely, measures prohibiting or restricting the importation into Canada of certain periodicals; tax treatment of so-called “split-run” periodicals; and the application of favourable postage rates to certain Canadian periodicals (WT/DS31/1). These consultations were held on 10 April 1996. As they did not result in a satisfactory adjustment of the matter, the United States, in a communication dated 24 May 1996, requested the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to establish a panel to examine the matter (WT/DS31/2).

The DSB, at its meeting on 19 June 1996, established a panel on the matter in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU. In document WT/DS31/3, the Secretariat reported that the Panel would have the following standard terms of reference and composition:

“To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the United States in document WT/DS31/2, 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”.

On 25 July 1996, the Panel was constituted with the following composition:

Chairman: Mr. Lars Anell

Panelists: Mr. Victor Luiz do Prado

Mr. Michael Reiterer

No Members reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as a third party.

The Panel met with the parties to the dispute on 11 October 1996 and 14- 15 November 1996. The Panel submitted its report to the parties on 21 February 1997.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

This Panel concerns three Canadian measures: Tariff Code 9958 which prohibits the importation into Canada of certain periodicals; Part V.I of the Excise Tax Act, as enacted by Bill C-103 of 15 December 1995, which imposes an excise tax on certain “split-run” periodicals; and the application of certain postal rates to certain Canadian periodicals including through actions of Canada Post Corporation and the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Summary

INTRODUCTION

On 22 December 1995, Costa Rica requested consultations with the United States under Article 4 and other relevant provisions of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) and the corresponding provisions of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) (WT/DS24/1). Consultations were held on 18 January and 1 February 1996, however, no mutually satisfactory solution was reached. On 22 February 1996, Costa Rica requested the establishment of a panel (WT/DS24/2) which was considered by the DSB at its meeting on 5 March 1996 (WT/DSB/M/12). The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) accordingly agreed to establish a panel with standard terms of reference in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU.

On 19 April 1996, the DSB was informed that the terms of reference and the composition of the Panel (WT/DS24/3) were as follows:

Terms of Reference

“To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Costa Rica in document WT/DS24/2, the matter referred to the DSB by Costa Rica 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”.

Composition

Chairman: Mr. Thomas Cottier

Panelists: Mr. Martin Harvey

Mr. Johannes Human

The Panel heard the parties to the dispute on 24-25 June 1996 and 29 July 1996. The Panel also met with the parties on 15 October 1996 to review aspects of the interim report, at the request of the parties. The Panel submitted its complete findings and conclusions to the parties to the dispute on 25 October 1996.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

Outward Processing Regime: “807 Trade” and “Guaranteed Access Levels”

In the course of the last six years, there has been a significant change in the US cotton and man-made fibre underwear manufacturing industry which has significantly switched from producing and assembling underwear domestically to producing components in the United States for assembly in other countries and subsequent return to the same enterprises in the United States for marketing.

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

Summary

Summary