|
ON THIS PAGE:
> US — 1916 Act, paras. 153-154
> Chile — Price Band System, para. 286
> Canada — Wheat Exports and Grain Imports,
paras. 162-163
|
C.5.1 US — 1916 Act, paras. 153-154
back to top
(WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R)
In their joint other appellant’s submission, the European
Communities and Japan ask us to rule that the 1916 Act is inconsistent
with United States’ obligations under Articles III:4 and XI of the
GATT 1994 and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. With
respect to Articles III:4 and XI of the GATT 1994, their requests are
conditioned on our reversal of the Panel’s findings that the 1916 Act
falls within the scope of Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping
Agreement. With respect to Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement,
their requests are conditioned on our reversal of the Panel’s findings
with respect to jurisdiction and the distinction between mandatory and
discretionary legislation. Since, however, the conditions on which these
requests are predicated have not been fulfilled, there is no need for us
to examine the conditional appeals of the European Communities and
Japan.
For these reasons, we decline to rule on the conditional appeals of
the European Communities and Japan relating to Articles III:4 and XI of
the GATT 1994 and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
C.5.2 Chile — Price Band System, para. 286 back to top
(WT/DS207/AB/R)
Argentina asks us to rule that Chile’s price band system is
inconsistent with the first sentence of Article II:1(b).
Argentina’s request is, however, conditioned on our reversal of the
Panel’s finding that Chile’s price band system is inconsistent with
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. As this condition
has not been fulfilled, and as Chile has not requested a finding with
respect to the first sentence of Article II:1(b), we do not see
it as necessary for us to rule on whether Chile’s price band system is
inconsistent with the first sentence of Article II:1(b) of the GATT
1994.
C.5.3 Canada — Wheat Exports and Grain Imports,
paras. 162-163
(WT/DS276/AB/R)
back to top
Canada states that it would welcome “guidance” from the Appellate
Body as to whether a conditional request to complete the analysis of a
particular issue should be raised in an appellee’s submission filed
pursuant to Rule 22 of the Working Procedures, or in another
appellant’s submission filed pursuant to Rule 23. …
As we have not reversed the Panel’s interpretation of subparagraph
(b) of Article XVII:1, the condition on which Canada’s request to
complete the analysis is made has not been satisfied. … In the
circumstances of this appeal, it is neither necessary nor appropriate
for us to provide “guidance” on the issue of how conditional
requests to complete the analysis are properly brought before the
Appellate Body.
|
The texts reproduced here do not have the legal standing of the original
documents which are entrusted and kept at the WTO Secretariat in Geneva.
|
