Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Brazil –Export Financing Programme for Aircraft Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU (WT/DS46): Report of the Panel
- Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the DSU (WT/DS70): Report of the Appellate Body
- Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the DSU (WT/DS70): Report of the Panel
- Canada - Term of Patent Protection (WT/DS170): Award of the Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU
- United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (WT/DS136, WT/DS162): Report of the Appellate Body
Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the DSU (WT/DS70): Report of the Panel
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 December 2017
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Brazil –Export Financing Programme for Aircraft Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU (WT/DS46): Report of the Panel
- Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the DSU (WT/DS70): Report of the Appellate Body
- Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the DSU (WT/DS70): Report of the Panel
- Canada - Term of Patent Protection (WT/DS170): Award of the Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU
- United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (WT/DS136, WT/DS162): Report of the Appellate Body
Summary
INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On 20 August 1999, the Dispute Settlement Body (“the DSB”) adopted the Appellate Body Report in WT/DS70/AB/R and the Panel Report and recommendations in WT/DS70/R as upheld by the Appellate Body Report in the dispute Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft (“Canada - Aircraft”). In its report, the Panel found, regarding Canada Account, that the Canada Account debt financing at issue constituted “subsid[ies] contingent in law … upon export performance” prohibited by Article 3.1(a) of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”), and that in granting this prohibited export subsidy, Canada had necessarily acted in violation of Article 3.2 of the SCM Agreement, i.e., that Canada Account debt financing since 1 January 1995 for the export of Canadian regional aircraft constituted export subsidies inconsistent with Article 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement. The Panel found with regard to Technology Partnerships Canada (“TPC”) that TPC assistance to the Canadian regional aircraft industry constituted “subsidies contingent … in fact … upon export performance”, contrary to Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement.
The Panel recommended that Canada withdraw these subsidies within 90 days. The Appellate Body recommended that the DSB request that Canada bring its export subsidies found in the Panel Report, as upheld by the Appellate Body Report, to be inconsistent with Canada's obligations under Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement into conformity with its obligations under that Agreement. Specifically, the Appellate Body recalled that the Panel had recommended that Canada withdraw the subsidies identified in sub-paragraphs (b) and (f) of paragraph 10.1 of the Panel Report within 90 days.
On 18 November 1999, Canada submitted to the Chairman of the DSB, pursuant to Article 21.6 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (“the DSU”), a status report (WT/DS70/8) on implementation of the recommendations of the DSB in the dispute. The status report described measures taken by Canada which in Canada's view implemented the DSB's rulings to withdraw the measures within 90 days.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Dispute Settlement Reports 2000 , pp. 4315 - 4536Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2003
- 1
- Cited by