DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REPORTS 2008 VOLUME 8PDF|Epub|txt|kindle电子书版本网盘下载

DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REPORTS 2008 VOLUME 8PDF格式电子书版下载

注意：本站所有压缩包均有解压码： 点击下载压缩包解压工具

Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION2785

Ⅱ. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THE THIRD PARTICIPANTS2793

A. Claims of Thailand - Appellant in US - Shrimp （Thailand）2793

1. Ad Note to Article Ⅵ：2 and 3 of the GATT 19942793

2. Cash Deposits and Anti-dumping Duties2797

3. The Reasonableness of the EBR， as Applied to Subject Shrimp2800

B. Arguments of the United States - Appellee in US - Shrimp （Thailand）2800

1. Ad Note to Article Ⅵ：2 and 3 of the GATT 19942800

2. Cash Deposits and Anti-dumping Duties2806

3. The Reasonableness of the EBR， as Applied to Subject Shrimp2807

C. Claims of the United States - Other Appellant in US -Shrimp （Thailand）2808

1. The Reasonableness of the EBR， as Applied to Subject Shrimp2808

2. The Panel’s Analysis of the Term “Necessary” under Article XX（d） of the GATT 19942810

D. Arguments of Thailand - Appellee in US - Shrimp （Thailand）2811

1. The Reasonableness of the EBR， as Applied to Subject Shrimp2811

2. The Panel’s Analysis of the Term “Necessary” under Article XX（d） of the GATT 19942814

E. Claims of India - Appellant in US - Customs Bond Directive2815

1. Ad Note to Article Ⅵ：2 and 3 of the GATT 19942815

2. Cash Deposits and Anti-dumping Duties2819

3. The Reasonableness of the EBR， as Applied to Subject Shrimp2820

4. “As Such” Consistency of the Amended CBD with Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles 10 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement2820

5. Consistency of the Amended CBD with Article 9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 19 of the SCM Agreement2821

6. Completing the Analysis on Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement2822

7. The Panel’s Terms of Reference2823

8. The Availability of a Defence under Article XX（d） of the GATT 1994 to the United States2824

9. Prima Facie Case by the Panel under Article XX（d） of the GATT 19942825

F. Arguments of the United States - Appellee in US -Customs Bond Directive2826

1. Ad Note to Article Ⅵ：2 and 3 of the GATT 19942826

2. Cash Deposits and Anti-dumping Duties2829

3. The Reasonableness of the EBR， as Applied to Subject Shrimp2830

4. “As Such” Consistency of the Amended CBD with Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles 10 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement2831

5. Consistency of the Amended CBD with Article 9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 19 of the SCM Agreement2831

6. Completing the Analysis on Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement2832

7. The Panel’s Terms of Reference2832

8. The Availability of a Defence under Article XX（d）of the GATT 1994 to the United States2833

9. Prima Facie Case by the Panel under Article XX（d）of the GATT 19942833

G. Claims of the United States - Other Appellant in US -Customs Bond Directive2834

1. The Reasonableness of the EBR， as Applied to Subject Shrimp2834

2. The Panel’s Analysis of the Term “Necessary” under Article XX（d） of the GATT 19942835

H. Arguments of India - Appellee in US - Customs Bond Directive2836

1. The Reasonableness of the EBR， as Applied to Subject Shrimp2836

2. The Panel’s Analysis of the Term “Necessary” underArticle XX（d） of the GATT 19942840

I. Arguments of the Third Participants2840

1. Brazil2840

2. Chile2843

3. European Communities2844

4. India2846

5. Japan2847

6. Korea2849

7. Thailand2850

Ⅲ. ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS2851

Ⅳ. THE MEASURE AT ISSUE2853

A. Introduction2853

B. Background2854

1. The Retrospective Anti-Dumping Duty Assessment System of the United States2854

2. Overview of Customs Bond Requirements in the United States2855

3. The Enhanced Continuous Bond Requirement2856

Ⅴ. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE AD NOTE TO ARTICLE Ⅵ：2 AND 3 OF THE GATT 19942860

A. Introduction2860

B. The Temporal Scope of the Ad Note2863

1. Interpretation of the Phrase “pending final determination of the facts in any case of suspected dumping2869

2. Impermissible Response to Dumping2873

3. The Ad Note to Article Ⅵ：2 and 3 of the GATT 1994 and Article 7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement （Provisional Measures）2874

4. The Panel’s Legal Characterization of Cash Deposits2875

C. Conclusion2878

Ⅵ. THE REASONABLENESS OF THE EBR， AS APPLIED TO SUBJECT SHRIMP2878

A. The Assessment of Reasonableness under the Ad Note2884

B. The Reasonableness of the EBR， as Applied to Subject Shrimp2887

Ⅶ. INDIA’S CLAIMS THAT THE AMENDED CBD IS “AS SUCH” INCONSISTENT WITH ARTICLES 1 AND 18.1 OF THE ANTI-DUMPING AGREEMENT AND ARTICLES 10 AND 32.1 OF THE SCMAGREEMENT2889

Ⅷ.INDIA’S CLAIMS THAT THE AMENDED CBD IS INCONSISTENT WITH ARTICLE 9 OF THE ANTI-DUMPING AGREEMENT AND ARTICLE 19 OF THE SCMAGREEMENT2891

Ⅸ. INDIA’S REQUEST FOR COMPLETION OF THE ANALYSIS ON ARTICLE 18.4 OF THE ANTI-DUMPING AGREEMENT AND ARTICLE 32.5 OF THE SCMAGREEMENT2893

Ⅹ. THE PANEL’S TERMS OF REFERENCE2894

Ⅺ. WHETHER THE PANEL MADE A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE UNITED STATES2900

Ⅻ. THE PANEL’S ANALYSIS OF THE TERM “NECESSARY” IN ARTICLE XX（D） OF THE GATT 19942902

ⅩⅢ.FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS2909

Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION2936

A. Complaint of India2936

Ⅱ. FACTUAL ASPECTS2938

A. The Enhanced Continuous Bond Requirement （the “EBR”）2938

B. Imposition of Continuous Bonds and Other Security Requirements in the Context of the US Retrospective Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Assessment System2939

1. Overview of anti-dumping and countervailing duty procedures2939

2. Timeline for anti-dumping and countervailing duty procedures2941

C. Implementation of the amended continuous bond directive （the “amended cbd”）2942

D. The Impact of the Enhanced Continuous Bond Requirement （the “EBR”） on Subject Shrimp Importers2946

Ⅲ. PARTIES’ REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS2948

Ⅳ. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES2951

Ⅴ. ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES2951

Ⅵ. INTERIM REVIEW2951

A. India’s Comments on the Interim Report2952

1. Sequence of events surrounding implementation of the EBR2952

2. One hundred per cent surety collateral requirements2952

3. India’s Article X：3（a） as such claim2953

4. The relationship of the Ad Note and the Anti-Dumping Agreement2953

5. Classification of Appellate Body reasoning as dicta in US - Zeroing （EC） and US - Zeroing （Japan）2954

6. Text of footnote 2032954

7. India’s claims under the GATT 1994 and the United States’ defence under Article XX（d） of the GATT 19942954

B. The United States’ Comments on the Interim Report2956

1. Typographical errors2956

2. Treatment of amendments as part of the measure at issue2956

3. Description of the United States’ argument regarding Article 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement2957

4. The EBR formula2957

5. The relationship between Article 9.3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and retrospective dutyassessment2957

6. Characterisation of the “enhanced” bond requirement2958

7. The legal standard for determining whether or not the application of the EBR resulted in “reasonable” security requirements2958

8. Challenges to mandatory measures under the “mandatory/discretionary” distinction2961

9. Consistency between DS343 and DS3452961

Ⅶ. FINDINGS2962

A. Preliminary Issues2962

1. Parallel panel proceedings in DS343 and DS3452962

2. Overview of the Panel’s approach to consideration of India’s claims2963

3. Order of analysis2964

B. India’s As Applied claims2965

1. Scope of the measure concerned2965

2. Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement， and the Ad Note2969

（a） Does the application of the EBR constitute “specific action against dumping”？2970

（b） Was the EBR applied “in accordance with” the provisions of the GATT 1994， as interpreted by the Anti-Dumping Agreement？2979

（c） Conclusion3006

3. Articles 7.1 （iii）， 7.2 and 7.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement3007

（a） Main arguments of India3007

（b） Main arguments of the United States3008

（c） Evaluation by the Panel3008

4. Articles 9.1， 9.2， 9.3， and 9.3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement， and Article Ⅵ：2 of the GATT 19943010

（a） Main arguments of India3010

（b） Main arguments of the United States3011

（c） Evaluation by the Panel3012

5. Other as applied claims by India under the GATT 19943014

C. India’s as such Claims3018

1. Scope of the measure concerned3018

（a） Scope of the Amended CBD3018

（b） The statutory provision 19 U.S.C. 1673 and the regulatory provision 19 C.F.R.§ 113.133018

2. Whether the measure at issue may be challenged “as such”3028

3. The “mandatoty/discretionary” distinction as an analytical tool3030

4. Application of the “mandatory/discretionary” distinction in this dispute3034

5. Whether the Amended CBD is inconsistent as such with Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement， Articles 10 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement， and the Ad Note3039

（a） Main arguments of India3039

（b） Main arguments of the United States3040

（c） Evaluation by the Panel3041

6. Articles 7.1 （iii）， 7.2， and 7.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles 17.1（c）.17.2 and 17.4 of the SCM Agreement3043

（a） Main arguments of India3043

（b） Main arguments of the United States3044

（c） Evaluation by the Panel3045

7. Articles 9.1， 9.2， 9.3 and 9.3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement， Articles 19.2， 19.3 and 19.4 of the SCM Agreement， and Article Ⅵ：3 of the GATT 19943047

（a） Main arguments of India3047

（b） Main arguments of the United States3047

（c） Evaluation by the Panel3047

8. Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement，Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article ⅩⅥ of the WTO Agreement3050

（a） Main arguments of India3050

（b） Main arguments of the United States3050

（c） Evaluation by the Panel3050

9. Other as such claims by India under the GATT 19943051

D. Notification Requirement under Article 18.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 32.6 of the SCM Agreement3052

1. Main arguments of India3052

2. Main arguments of the United States3053

3. Evaluation by the Panel3053

E. United States’ Defence under Article XX（d） of the GATT 19943055

1. Main arguments of the United States3055

2. Main arguments of India3056

3. Evaluation by the Panel3057

（a） Whether the EBR is necessary to secure compliance with US laws and regulations as provided in Article XX（d） of the GATT 19943058

（b） Conclusion3066

Ⅷ. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS3067

ANNEX A EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES OF THE FIRST WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES3069

Annex A-1 Executive Summary of the first written submission of the United States3069

Annex A-2 Executive Summary of the first written submission of India3081

ANNEX B EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES OF THE SECOND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES3096

Annex B-1 Executive Summary of the second written submission of the United States3096

Annex B-2 Executive Summary of the second written submission of India3108

ANNEX C EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES OF THE FIRST WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE THIRD PARTIES3124

Annex C-1 Executive Summary of the first written submission of Brazil3124

Annex C-2 Executive Summary of the first written submission of China3131

Annex C-3 Executive Summary of the first written submission of the European Communities3138

Annex C-4 Executive Summary of the first written submission of Japan3144

Annex C-5 Executive Summary of the first written submission of Thailand3149