SUBJECT INDEX BY CASE: APPELLATE BODY REPORTS

M-S

 

Index: A  B  C-D  E-F  G-H  I  J  K-L  M-S  T  U-Z 


ON THIS PAGE:

> Mexico — Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice
> Mexico — Corn Syrup (Article 21.5 — US)
> Mexico — Taxes on Soft Drinks
> Philippines — Distilled Spirits

Mexico — Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice (WT/DS295/AB/R)     back to top

Anti-Dumping Agreement (AD)/GATT 1994 VI relationship, “may levy” (GATT VI:2), critical date A.3.16.4

burden of proof

legislation as such challenge B.3.2.18

prima facie case

alternatives to DSU 11 as basis of claim in relation to B.3.2.19

evidence and legal arguments in support of claim, need for B.3.2.20

text of legislation, sufficiency B.3.2.18

standard of proof B.3.2.18

consultations (DSU 4), measure at issue (DSU 4.4), as identified in request for establishment of panel (DSU 6.2), need for identity with R.2.2.21–R.2.2.22

countervailing duties (SCM Part V), non-discriminatory basis (SCM 19.3), expedited review, right to S.2.27.3

determination of injury (AD 3/SCM 15)

“positive evidence”/“objective examination” requirement (AD 3.1)

“objective examination” A.3.17.5

“positive” A.3.16.4–5

double remedies (concurrent imposition of AD and CV duties) (GATT VI:5)

double counting as S.2.27.3

NME methodology S.2.27.3

duration and review of AD duties and price undertakings/CV measures (AD 11/SCM 21)

obligation to review (AD 11.2/SCM 21.2) A.3.44B.1–2, S.2.31.8–9

requirements (AD 11.2/SCM 21.2) A.3.44B.1–2

elapse of reasonable period of time A.3.44B.1–2, S.2.31.8–9

“positive information” A.3.44B.1, S.2.31.8

evidentiary rules (AD 6/SCM 12)

“ample opportunity to present in writing all evidence” (AD 6.1)

applicability to all exporters and foreign producers receiving questionnaire A.3.30.1.6–7, S.2.21B.1–2

entitlement of “known” producers to receive text of application (AD 6.1.3) A.3.30.2.1

“ample opportunity to present in writing all evidence” (AD 6.1/SCM/12.1)

right to impose time-limits (AD 6.1.1/SCM 12.1.1)

dies a quo (Art. 6.1.1, Footnote 15) A.3.30.1.5–6

time-limits for investigation (AD 5.10/SCM 11.11) A.3.28B.1, S.2.21A.1

“facts available” S.2.21C.1

facts available to investigating authority, right to use (AD 6.8/AD Annex II/SCM 12.7), failure to submit necessary information “within reasonable period” (AD 6.8)/“reasonable time” (Annex II(1)) A.3.33.3–4

imposition and collection of AD duties (AD 9)

new shipper reviews (AD 9.5) A.3.44A.1

prospective assessment (AD 9.3.2) A.3.40A.1, A.3.40B.1–2

retrospective assessment (AD 9.3.1) A.3.40A.1

individual margins of dumping “as a rule” (AD 6.10), “known exporter or producer” A.3.37.1.1

investigation of dumping (AD 5)/subsidy (SCM 11)

termination (AD 5.8/SCM 11.9)

de minimis standard, applicability, individual de minimis margin, need for A.3.28A.1

exporters excluded from definitive anti-dumping measure A.3.28A.4

issuance of order/decision not to issue as “terminating” step A.3.28A.3

unified nature of investigation A.3.28A.2

time-limits (AD 5.10/SCM 11.11) A.3.28B.1, S.2.21A.1

judicial economy, “positive solution to dispute” requirement C.7.23, R.2.2.23

legal basis of claim (DSU 6.2) (request for establishment of panel), identity of claims at time of consultations (DSU 4.4) and panel request (DSU 6.2), relevance C.7.21–22, R.2.2.21–R.2.2.22

legislation as such, right to challenge, burden of proof B.3.2.18

public notice and explanation of determinations on AD investigation/CV duties (AD 12/SCM 22), “interested parties known to the investigating authorities” (AD 12.1) A.3.53A.1

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”), reliance on translation subsequently disputed S.3.2.8, S.7.3.29

“objective assessment of matter before it”, failure to analyse evidence S.3.2.7, S.7.3.28

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

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), completion of legal analysis, prompt settlement of disputes (DSU 3.3) P.4A.6

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

clarification of issues 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

DSU, applicability (DSU 1.1), security and predictability as objective (DSU 3.2) P.4A.6, P.4A.13, R.4.3.2

due process (dispute settlement proceedings)

panel reports, rationale (DSU 12.7) 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 engagement in dispute settlement procedures (DSU 3.10), objections to panel procedures D.2.2.13, O.1.6, P.3.1.7

interpretation of covered agreements, object and purpose C.7.6

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 procedures (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3)

due process/transparency/fairness requirement P.1.1.4–5

objections, requirements, good faith D.2.2.13, O.1.6, P.3.1.7

panel reports

adoption by DSB (DSU 16.4), findings unchallenged by parties P.4A.6

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

direct quotation from previous report, desirability P.1.1.5

sufficiency to disclose essential or fundamental justification P.1.1.4

reference to previous Panel Report (DSU 21.5) P.1.1.4

surety and predictability of WTO obligations (DSU 3.2), as aid to P.1.1.4

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

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

completion of legal analysis considerations P.4A.6

as “essential to the effective functioning of the WTO …” P.4A.6

procedure, role O.1.5–6

review of implementation of DSB rulings 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 recommendations and rulings (DSU 21.5)

applicability of DSU 6.2 (requirements for establishment of panel) R.2.5.1

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

as a continuum of events R.4.3.3

finality of panel/AB report, adopted panel reports P.4A.6, R.4.3.16

objectives, prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes (DSU 3) R.4.3.2

standard/scope of review (AB) (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’ “proper” 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)), cumulative effect A.3.58.4

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

threat of material injury, determination/requirements (AD 3.7/SCM 15.7) A.3.27.1–2

“clearly foreseen and imminent” change of circumstances A.3.27.2

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

as responsibility of investigating authorities A.3.27.1

Mexico — Taxes on Soft Drinks (WT/DS308/AB/R)     back to top

AB procedure, documents (WP 18), correction of clerical errors in submissions W.2.6A.2.1

amicus curiae briefs, NGO/association/private individual briefs A.2.1.14

competence (AB) (DSU 17.6), completion of legal analysis, prompt settlement of disputes (DSU 3.3) P.4A.12

competence (panels)

alternative forum, availability T.6.1.15

compétence de la compétence J.2.1.16, T.6.1.12

competence of panels and AB (DSU 3.2/DSU 11)

correct interpretation and application of covered agreements C.3.1.2

determination of violation of non-WTO agreement, exclusion C.3.1.2, C.3.2.4, J.2.1.20, J.2.1.22, P.3.8.1

not to add to or diminish rights and obligations (DSU 3.2/19.2)

refusal to exercise jurisdiction C.3.2.3, J.2.1.16–22, R.5.8, S.7.2.12, T.6.1.12

refusal to exercise jurisdiction as diminishment C.3.2.3, J.2.1.21, P.4A.12

conditional appeal, non-fulfilment of condition C.5.4

estoppel, prevention of recourse to dispute settlement mechanism P.3.8.1

impairment of benefits by measures taken by another Member (DSU 3.3) R.5.7–8

impairment of benefits by measures taken by another Member, prompt settlement (DSU 3.3)

“a Member considers” P.4A.12

Member’s entitlement to a ruling P.4A.12

judicial economy T.6.1.16

measures necessary to secure compliance with GATT-consistent measure (GATT XX(d))

coercion/certainty of success, relevance G.3.5B.4

“laws or regulations” G.3.5A.1–2

“international agreements” (GATT XX(h)) distinguished G.3.5A.2

international obligations of another WTO Member, exclusion G.3.5B.2–4

obligations under GATT XII:2 and DSU 22 and 23/exclusion of unilateral determination of breach under GATT XX(d) G.3.5B.3

“to secure compliance” G.3.5B.1–4, S.7.3.30

“necessary” distinguished G.3.5B.2, G.3.6.11

measures undertaken under any international government commodity agreement (GATT XX(h)), “laws or regulations” (GATT XX(d)) distinguished G.3.5A.2

necessity test (GATT XX(d)), relevant factors, “to secure compliance” requirement G.3.5B.2, G.3.6.10–11

panel procedures (DSU 12.1 and Appendix 3), panel’s discretion, limitations J.2.1.16–22, T.6.1.12–16

prompt and satisfactory settlement of disputes, Members’ right to (DSU 3), completion of legal analysis considerations P.4A.12

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”), finding of non-justifiability in law, relevance S.7.3.30

“such other findings as will assist the DSB” (DSU 7.1/DSU 11) S.7.2.12

suspension of concessions (DSU 22), authorization, need for (DSU 3.7, 22.6 and 23.2(c)) S.9.3

terms of reference of panels (DSU 7)

obligations

to address relevant provisions in covered agreement[#] cited by parties (DSU 7.2) T.6.2.21

to examine entirety of claims J.2.1.16–22

Philippines — Distilled Spirits (WT/DS396/AB/R, WT/DS403/AB/R)     back to top

business confidential information (BCI)

Additional Procedures to Protect Sensitive Information (10 August 2010), provision of BCI to third participants with request to treat as confidential B.4.12

applicability of DSU 18.2 B.4.12, C.6.5

confidentiality of proceedings (DSU 17.10/DSU 18.2), provision of BCI to third participants with request to treat as confidential, applicability of DSU 18.2 B.4.12, C.6.5

directly competitive or substitutable products (GATT III:2, Ad Note to second sentence)

criteria

consumer preferences N.1.6.9

price N.1.6.9

as dynamic relationship (including possibility of latent demand) N.1.6.10, N.1.6.12

object and purpose of provision N.1.6.10

directly competitive or substitutable products (GATT III:2)

criteria

consumer preferences D.1.13

directness of the competition N.1.6.8

interchangeability D.1.11

market as a whole D.1.14

potential to compete as determining factor D.1.11

price D.1.12

“like product” (GATT III:2)

criteria

competitive relationship N.1.3.1.6, N.1.3.2.4–7, T.4.2A.4.12

physical properties N.1.3.2.4–7

tariff classification/Harmonized System N.1.3.2.8

determination on case-by-case basis N.1.3.1.6

directly competitive or substitutable products distinguished N.1.3.1.5

Harmonized, relevance N.1.3.2.8

national treatment (GATT III:1) (general principle), “so as to afford protection”, equality of competitive conditions N.1.6.10

request for establishment of panel (requirements) (DSU 6.2)

parallel claims S.7.2.27

claim in the “alternative”, possibility of S.7.2.26

standard of review (panels) (DSU 11)

alleged disregard or distortion of evidence by panel (“objective assessment of the facts”)

discretion to select which evidence to refer to explicitly S.7.3.64

discretion/independence in evaluation of evidence S.7.3.64

obligation to treat parties’ evidence consistently and even-handedly S.7.3.64

“objective assessment of matter before it”, de minimis error S.7.3.64

“such other findings as will assist the DSB” (DSU 7.1/DSU 11) S.7.7.3

tax discrimination (GATT III:2)

“not similarly taxed”

determination on case-by-case basis N.1.8.4

threshold/de minimis differential N.1.8.4

“so as to afford protection”

design and structure of measure as evidence of protective application N.1.8.4

intention, relevance N.1.8.4

third participants (AB proceedings (DSU 17.4/WP 24)), provision of BCI with request to treat as confidential (DSU 18.2) B.4.12, C.6.5


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.