GD/271
Brazil - Imposition of Provisional and Definitive Countervailing Duties on Milk Powder and certain Types of Milk from the European Economic Community
Other titles
Brazil EEC Milk (Source: GATT Analytical Index)
Products at Issue
| Products at issue |
Milk powder
|
| Type of product |
Agricultural
|
| Product sub-type |
Dairy products
|
Related disputes
| GATT | |
| WTO |
Key legal aspects
| Legal basis |
|
| Claims raised |
|
| Defences raised |
|
Adjudicators
| Type | Panel |
| Chairperson | Thomas A. Bernes (Canada) |
| Other members | Mark Trainor (New Zealand), J. Antonio Buencamino (Philippines) |
| Type | Panel |
| Legal basis at issue |
|
| Claims at issue |
|
| Defences at issue |
|
| No of Pages (total / legal reasoning) | 80 (and 6 annex) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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/179 (16/12/1993) Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures - Brazil - Imposition of Provisional and Definitive Countervailing Duties on Milk Powder and Certain Types of Milk from the European Economic Community - Report of the Panel: The Panel concluded that Brazil had acted inconsistently with Article 5:1 by reaching a preliminary affirmative finding which was not the result of an investigation conducted in accordance with the requirements of Articles 2:3 and 2:5 of the Agreement on Interpretation and Application of Articles VI, XVI and XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (the Agreement). The Panel also concluded that, by not forwarding to the EEC a notice of its preliminary affirmative finding made on 8 April 1992, Brazil had acted inconsistently with Article 2:15 of the Agreement. The Panel considered that the analysis of the import volume offered by the Brazilian authorities was inadequate to meet the requirement of Article 6:2 that authorities consider "whether there has been a significant increase in subsidized imports..." and the requirement of Article 6:1 of an objective examination. The Brazilian authorities had considered the level of the relative import volume but did not make it clear that they had considered whether there had been a significant increase in the import volume. The Panel therefore concluded that the final finding made by the Brazilian authorities of material injury caused by subsidized imports of milk powder from the EEC was inconsistent with the requirements of Articles 6:1 and 6:2 with regard to the analysis of the volume of these imports. The Panel concluded that the analysis and findings of the Brazilian authorities regarding the impact of the imports of milk powder from the EEC were inconsistent with the requirements of Article 6:3 because: (i) the considerations in Administrative Order No. 569 did not permit the Panel to find that the Brazilian authorities had carried out a comprehensive analysis of "all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry" ; and (ii) the Order did not adequately explain the reference to "stagnation of domestic production" as an indicator of injury caused by the subsidized imports of milk powder from the EEC, as a result, in particular, of the lack of definition of the relevant domestic industry or domestic industries in relation to which the Brazilian authorities had examined the existence of material injury. The Panel also concluded that Brazil's final affirmative finding on imports of milk powder from the EEC was inconsistent with the requirements of Article 6:4 because: (i) the finding was inconsistent with the requirements of Article 6:2 with respect to the analysis by the Brazilian authorities of the volume of the imports of milk powder from the EEC, and inconsistent with Article 6:3 with respect to the analysis by the Brazilian authorities of the impact of the imports on domestic producers, and (ii) in view of the absence of any discussion in Administrative Order No. 569 of the possible role of factors other than the imports of milk powder from the EEC, the Panel could not satisfy itself that the Brazilian authorities had acted consistently with the requirements of the second sentence of Article 6:4. The Panel concluded that the final affirmative finding with regard to imports of certain types of milk was inconsistent with the requirements of Articles 6:1-4, because Administrative Order No. 569 did not enable the Panel to satisfy itself that the Brazilian authorities had considered the volume of imports of milk, their effect on domestic prices of the like product, and the consequent impact of imports of milk on domestic producers of like products. The Panel also concluded that in imposing definitive countervailing duties on certain types of milk, Brazil had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 1 of the Agreement. |