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
United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (WT/DS136, WT/DS162): Report of the Appellate Body
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
The United States, the European Communities and Japan appeal from certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Reports, United States - Anti- Dumping Act of 1916, complaint by the European Communities (the “EC Panel Report”)
and United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, complaint by Japan (the “Japan Panel Report”). These Panel Reports were rendered by two Panels composed of the same three persons. The two Panel Reports, while not identical, are alike in all major respects.
The Panel was established to consider claims by the European Communities and Japan that Title VIII of the United States Revenue Act of 1916 (the “1916 Act”) is inconsistent with United States’ obligations under the covered agreements. The 1916 Act allows, under certain conditions, civil actions and criminal proceedings to be brought against importers who have sold foreign-produced goods in the United States at prices which are “substantially less” than the prices at which the same products are sold in a relevant foreign market.
The European Communities claimed that the 1916 Act is inconsistent with Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti- Dumping Agreement ”) and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the “WTO Agreement”). In the alternative, the European Communities claimed that the 1916 Act is inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. Japan claimed that the 1916 Act is inconsistent with Articles III:4, VI and XI of the GATT 1994, Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 18.1 and 18.4 of the Anti- Dumping Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Dispute Settlement Reports 2000 , pp. 4553 - 4589Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2003
- 1
- Cited by