30 dispute settlement in the multilateral trading system
DS Canada Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry.
On July 3 1998, Japan requested consultations with Canada regarding the measures taken by Canada in the automotive industry in Japan has argued that the Canadian legislation implementing an agreement in automotive products Pact automobile between the United States and Canada, only a limited number of vehicle manufacturers are allowed to import duty-free vehicles in Canada and distribute motor vehicles in Canada retail distribution level and wholesale Japan also argued that this treatment free of duty is subject to two conditions.
A Canadian content requirement CVA value that applies to goods and services; and.
A requirement of manufacturing and sales in Japan alleges that these measures are inconsistent with Articles I 1 III 4 and XXIV of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMS Agreement, Article 3 of the Agreement SMC and sections II, VI and XVII of the GATS.
On August 17, 1998, the EC requested consultations with Canada regarding the same measures raised by Japan in document WT DS139 and cites the same provisions alleged to be in violation, with the exception of Article XXIV GATT 1994, which was cited by Japan but is not cited by the EC.
November 12, 1998, Japan requested the establishment of a panel regarding WT DS139 At its meeting of 25 November 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
Following requests for establishment of a panel by Japan and the EC, in its meeting on 1 February 1999, the DSB established a panel pursuant to Article 9 1 Understanding , to consider complaints WT DS139 and DS142 WT India, Korea, and the United States reserved their third party rights 15 March 1999, the EC and Japan requested the Director General to determine the composition of the Group March 25, 1999, the Panel was composed the panel report was circulated to Members on 11 February 2000, the panel found.
The conditions under which Canada granted exemption from import duties were inconsistent with Article I of the GATT 1994 and not justified under Article XXIV of GATT 1994.
The application of the CVA requirements are inconsistent with Article III 4 GATT 1994.
The exemption from import duties is a subsidy prohibited export in violation of Article 3 1a of the SCM Agreement.
How Canada determines access to the exemption of import duties is inconsistent with Article II of the GATS and could not justified under Article V of GATS.
The application of the CVA requirements constitutes a violation of Article XVII of the GATS.
On March 2, 2000, Canada notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the group The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members May 31, 2000 The Body call.
Reversed the Panel's conclusion that Article 3, 1b of the Agreement on Subsidies covered neither the fact contingency.
Found that the Panel had failed to consider whether the measure affected trade in services under Article I 1 of the GATS.
Reverse the exemption from import duties of the conclusion of the panel was incompatible with the requirements of Article II 1 of the GATS and the Panel's findings leading to that conclusion.
The DSB adopted the report of the Appellate Body and the Panel report, as modified by the report of the Appellate Body, 19 June 2000.
In accordance with Article 21 3 of the DSU, Canada informed the DSB July 19, 2000, he would comply with the DSB's recommendations One of the recommendations of the DSB was the Canada withdraws within 90 days of export subsidies found to be inconsistent with Article 3 1a of the Agreement on subsidies August 4, 2000, Japan and the European Communities requested, pursuant to Article 21 of 3c DSU, that the reasonable period be determined by arbitration the arbitrator determined that the reasonable time was 8 months from the date of adoption of the Appellate Body and the Panel, as amended by report the Appellate Body was therefore reasonable period to expire February 19, 2001.
At the DSB meeting of 12 March 2001, Canada declared that, as of February 18, 2001, it had complied with the DSB recommendations.
Problems viewing this page If so, please contact giving details of the operating system and Web browser you use.
Dispute Settlement WTO disputes, import duty exemption, report of the Appellate Body, reasonable period of time.