GD/187
United States - Collection of Countervailing Duties on Non-Rubber Footwear from Brazil
Other titles
US NonRubber Footwear (Source: GATT Analytical Index)
Products at Issue
| Products at issue |
Non-rubber footwear
|
| Type of product |
Non-agricultural
|
| Product sub-type |
Leather and footwear
|
Related disputes
| GATT | |
| WTO |
Key legal aspects
| Legal basis |
|
| Claims raised |
|
| Defences raised |
|
Adjudicators
| Type | Panel |
| Chairperson | Luzius Wasescha (Switzerland) |
| Other members | Robert John Arnott (Australia), Peter P. T. Cheung (Hong Kong) |
| No of Pages (total / legal reasoning) | 25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timeline
| Request for consultations | |
| Request for conciliation | |
| Conciliation meeting | |
| Request for establishment | |
| Establishment | |
| Composition | |
| Report | |
| Adoption of report |
Outcome
| Outcome of the proceedings |
Report adopted
|
| Additional Info | SCM/94 (04/10/1989) Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures - United States - Countervailing Duties on Non-Rubber Footwear from Brazil - Report by the Panel: The dispute between concerned the United States' obligations under the Anti-Dumping Code to provide an injury determination for its countervailing duty order on entries of non-rubber footwear from Brazil issued before the Agreement on Interpretation and Application of Articles VI, XVI and XXIII of the GATT ("the Code") entered into force for these two parties. At the centre of the dispute was whether the United States had an obligation to provide an injury determination with respect to all countervailing duties collected on imports from signatories after entry into force of the Code. In relation to the countervailing duty order concerning imports of non-rubber footwear from Brazil, which had not previously benefited from the injury test, the Panel concluded that the United States was, as of 1 January 1980, under an obligation to extend to Brazil a procedure for determining whether the subsidization in question would be causing injury if the countervailing duties were eliminated. In the Panel's view the US legislation implementing the Code effectively provided Brazil with a procedure for the examination of injury and the possible subsequent revocation of the pre-existing countervailing duty order as of the date of the request. The approach taken in this case was consistent with US obligations under the Code as derived from Article VI:6(a) of the General Agreement because Brazil's request could have been made on 1 January 1980 and, in the case of a negative injury determination, the countervailing duty order could have been revoked as of the date of the request. Brazil chose not to invoke its rights on 1 January 1980 but submitted its request at a later date. The Panel took the view that if the signatory subject to the pre-existing countervailing duty decision were to choose not to invoke its right as of 1 January 1980 but made its request at a later date, there was nothing in Article VI or in its subsequent interpretation in the Code to imply that any earlier date than the date of the request would be relevant for an injury determination and possible revocation of countervailing duties. For the foregoing reasons, the Panel concluded that the collection of countervailing duties by the United States on entries of non-rubber footwear from Brazil between 4 January 1980 and 28 October 1981 was consistent with the United States' obligations under the Code. |