GD/255
EEC - Anti-dumping Actions on Cotton Yarn Originating from Brazil
Other titles
EEC Cotton Yarn (Source: GATT Analytical Index)
Products at Issue
| Products at issue |
Cotton yarn
|
| Type of product |
Non-agricultural
|
| Product sub-type |
Textiles and Apparel
|
Related disputes
| GATT | |
| WTO |
Key legal aspects
| Legal basis |
|
| Claims raised |
|
| Defences raised |
|
Adjudicators
| Type | Panel |
| Chairperson | Crawford Falconer (New Zealand) |
| Other members | Paul O'Connor (Australia), Mohan Kumar (India) |
| No of Pages (total / legal reasoning) | 131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 | ADP/137 (12/06/1995) Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices - EC - Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton Yarn from Brazil - Report of the Panel: The Panel dismissed Brazil's claim that the EC had failed to properly consider the particular market situation prevailing in Brazil and had thereby acted inconsistently with Article 2:4 of the Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (the Agreement). The Panel also dismissed Brazil's claim that the EC had violated Article 2:6 of the Agreement because it had failed to take into account distortions arising from high domestic inflation combined with frozen exchange rates in comparing normal value and export price. With respect to the injury determination by the EC, the Panel dismissed Brazil's claims that: (i) the EC had breached its obligations in Article 3:1 and 3:2 to base its findings of injury on positive evidence and to make an objective examination of the relevant facts; (ii) the EC had violated Articles 3:2, 3:3 and 3:4, because the facts stated in an injury analysis must reasonably support the determination that is reached, and the EC's decision was not in conformity with that requirement; (iii) the EC had acted inconsistently with Article 3:2 in combination with Article 8:2 of the Agreement when it had conducted its injury analysis, and (iv) the EC had breached Articles 3:2, 3:3 and 3:4, because the MFA precluded a finding of injury. Finally, the Panel dismissed Brazil's claim that the EC had breached Article 13 of the Agreement by not giving "special regard" to the "special situation" of Brazil and not exploring the possibility of constructive remedies proposed by Brazilian exporters. Note: Report adopted on 30/10/1995 at a regular meeting of the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (from the GATT Tokyo Round Anti-Dumping Agreement) recorded in document ADP/M/50, during the transitional period when the WTO Agreement on Anti-Dumping was already in force. |