|
ON THIS PAGE:
> Brazil — Aircraft (Article 21.5 — Canada),
para. 78
> US — Certain EC Products, paras. 89-90
> US — Cotton Yarn, para. 127
> US — Upland Cotton, para. 511
> US — Upland Cotton, para. 748
> US — Upland Cotton, para. 762
|
M.3.1 Brazil — Aircraft (Article 21.5
— Canada),
para. 78 back to top
(WT/DS46/AB/RW)
… As Brazil has failed to prove one of the
elements necessary to prove that payments made under the revised PROEX
are justified by item (k), we do not believe it is necessary to examine
the issue of whether export subsidies under the revised PROEX are “the
payment [by governments] of all or part of the costs incurred by
exporters or financial institutions in obtaining credits” within the
meaning of the first paragraph of item (k). Therefore, we do not address
the Article 21.5 Panel’s findings on this issue. These findings of the
Article 21.5 Panel are moot, and, thus, of no legal effect.
M.3.2 US — Certain EC
Products,
paras. 89-90 back to top
(WT/DS46/AB/RW)
Having found that the 3 March Measure is the
measure at issue in this dispute, and that the 19 April action is
outside its terms of reference, the Panel should have limited its
reasoning to issues that were relevant and pertinent to the 3 March
Measure. By making statements on an issue that is only relevant to the
19 April action, the Panel failed to follow the logic of, and thus acted
inconsistently with, its own finding on the measure at issue in
this dispute. The Panel, therefore, erroneously made statements that
relate to a measure which it had itself previously determined to
be outside its terms of reference.
For these reasons, we conclude that the Panel
erred by making the statements in paragraphs 6.121 to 6.126 of the Panel
Report on the mandate of arbitrators appointed under Article 22.6 of the
DSU. Therefore, these statements by the Panel have no legal effect.
M.3.3 US — Cotton Yarn,
para. 127 back to top
(WT/DS192/AB/R)
We finally turn to the United States’ appeal
against the Panel’s interpretation that Article 6.4 requires
attribution to all Members the imports from whom cause serious damage or
actual threat thereof. In this respect, we note that the scope of this
dispute is defined by Pakistan’s claims before the Panel. Pakistan
claimed that the United States acted inconsistently with Article 6.4
because it “attributed serious damage to imports from Pakistan without
making a comparative assessment of the imports from Pakistan and Mexico
and their respective effects”. The Panel considered it necessary, in
its reasoning, to rule on the broader interpretative question of whether
Article 6.4 requires attribution to all Members the imports from whom
cause serious damage or actual threat thereof. The United States also
appeals the Panel’s interpretation on this broader question. However,
our findings resolve the dispute as defined by Pakistan’s claims
before the Panel. We, therefore, do not rule on the issue of whether
Article 6.4 requires attribution to all Members the imports from whom
cause serious damage or actual threat thereof. In these circumstances,
the Panel’s interpretation on this question is of no legal effect.
M.3.4 US — Upland Cotton,
para. 511 back to top
(WT/DS267/AB/R)
… we believe that an interpretation of the
phrase “world market share” in Article 6.3(d) of the SCM
Agreement is unnecessary for purposes of resolving this dispute. We
emphasize that we neither uphold nor reverse the Panel’s findings on
the interpretation of the phrase “world market share” in Article 6.3(d) of the SCM Agreement.
M.3.5 US — Upland Cotton,
para. 748 back to top
(WT/DS267/AB/R)
For these reasons, we decline Brazil’s
request that we reverse the Panel’s conclusion that Brazil did not
make a prima facie case that the ETI Act of 2000 is inconsistent
with the United States’ WTO obligations. In declining to rule on
Brazil’s request, we neither endorse nor reject the manner in which
the Panel applied the burden of proof in the context of examining Brazil’s
claim against the ETI Act of 2000.
M.3.6 US — Upland Cotton,
para. 762 back to top
(WT/DS267/AB/R)
We … believe that an interpretation of the
phrase “any form of subsidy which operates to increase the export”
in Article XVI:3 of the GATT 1994 is unnecessary for purposes of
resolving this dispute. We emphasize that we neither uphold nor reverse
the Panel’s interpretation of this phrase in the second sentence of
Article XVI:3.
|
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.
|
