ON THIS PAGE:

> Mexico — Corn Syrup (Article 21.5 — US)

Mexico — Corn Syrup (Article 21.5 — US) (WT/DS132/AB/RW)     back to top

Anti-Dumping Agreement (AD), determination of injury (AD 3)

threat of material injury (AD 3.7) A.3.27

establishment “based on facts, not merely allegation, conjecture or remote possibility” A.3.27.1

a “clearly foreseen and imminent” change of circumstances, need for A.3.27.2

as responsibility of investigating authorities A.3.27.1

Anti-Dumping Agreement (AD), standard/powers of review (AD 17.6)

assessment of the facts (AD 17.6(i)) A.3.58.4, A.3.59.6-7

“unbiased and objective” A.3.58.4

authorities’ establishment of facts (AD 17.6(i)), “proper” A.3.58.4

“facts made available” (AD 17.5(ii)), limitation to A.3.59.6-7

interpretation of relevant provisions of AD (AD 17.6(ii)), assessment of the facts (AD 17.6(i)) and, cumulative effect A.3.58.4

competence (panels)

objections, requirements

specificity/explicitness D.2.2.13, O.1.5-6, P.3.1.7

timeliness D.2.2.13, D.2.2.15, O.1.5-6, P.3.1.7

waiver of right, implied D.2.2.15, O.1.6

obligation to examine

ex proprio motu C.7.10, D.2.2.12, J.1.13, J.2.1.12-13

standing/right to bring claim (DSU 3.7) O.1.7, R.5.4

consultations (DSU 4)

agreed solution, possibility of C.7.5

benefits C.7.5

third parties C.7.5

clarification of issues and C.7.5

establishment of panel, as prerequisite C.7.6, R.2.4.2

exceptions R.2.4.2

agreement within 60 day period that consultations have failed to settle dispute (DSU 4.7) C.7.7

party’s failure to respond to request for or enter into consultations (DSU 4.3) C.7.6, C.7.7, C.7.9

recognition of possibility (DSU 6.2) C.7.8-9

panel’s obligation to address absence of consultations C.7.10

due process (dispute settlement proceedings)

panel reports, rationale (DSU 12.7) and P.1.1.4-5

panel’s obligation to address issues raised by parties (DSU 7.2/12.7) D.2.2.12, D.2.2.14, J.1.13, J.2.1.12

good faith (including pacta sunt servanda principle (VC 26)), objections to panel procedures D.2.2.13, O.1.6, P.3.1.7

judicial economy J.1.13

panel’s discretionary power to determine, which claims must be examined, obligation to address claims not examined J.1.13

panel reports

rationale, need for (DSU 12.7) P.1.1.4-5

certainty and predictability of WTO obligations, aid to P.1.1.4

direct quotation from previous report, desirability P.1.1.5

due process/transparency/fairness and P.1.1.4-5

sufficiency P.1.1.4

reference to previous panel report (DSU 21.5) P.1.1.4

procedure, fair, prompt and effective resolution of disputes and O.1.5-6

prompt and satisfactory resolution of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3)

procedure, role O.1.5-6

review of implementation of DSB rulings and R.4.3.2

request for establishment of panel, requirements (DSU 6.2)

consultations, indication as to whether held C.7.8, R.2.4.2

panel’s obligation to examine absence C.7.10

fruitfulness of action, determination by Member R.5.4

review of implementation of DSB rulings (DSU 21.5)

competence of DSU 21.5 (compliance) panel, as continuance of original proceedings R.4.3.3

prompt and satisfactory resolution of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3) and R.4.3.2

standing/right to bring claim (DSU 3.7)

fruitfulness of resort to dispute settlement procedures R.5.4

obligation for panel to examine proprio motu, whether R.5.4

self-regulating nature of provision R.5.4

Working Procedures (panel) (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), objections, requirements, good faith D.2.2.13, O.1.6, P.3.1.7

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.