DOCSLIB.ORG

Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products WORLD TRADE WT/DS34/R 31 May 1999 ORGANIZATION (99-2081) Original: English TURKEY – RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS OF TEXTILE AND CLOTHING PRODUCTS Report of the Panel The report of the Panel on Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products is being circulated to all Members, pursuant to the DSU. The report is being circulated as an unrestricted document from 31 May 1999, pursuant to the Procedures for the Circulation and Derestriction of WTO Documents (WT/L/160/Rev.1). Members are reminded that in accordance with the DSU only parties to the dispute may appeal a panel report. An appeal shall be limited to issues of law covered in the Panel report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. There shall be no ex parte communications with the Panel or Appellate Body concerning matters under consideration by the Panel or Appellate Body. Note by the Secretariat: This Panel Report shall be adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) within 60 days after the date of its circulation unless a party to the dispute decides to appeal or the DSB decides by consensus not to adopt the report. If the Panel Report is appealed to the Appellate Body, it shall not be considered for adoption by the DSB until after the completion of the appeal. Information on the current status of the Panel Report is available from the WTO Secretariat. WT/DS34/R Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 On 21 March 1996, India requested consultations with Turkey pursuant to Article 4.4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") and Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT") regarding the unilateral imposition of quantitative restrictions ("QRs") by Turkey on imports of a broad range of textile and clothing products from India as from 1 January 1996 (WT/DS34/1). 1.2 India and Turkey did not enter into consultations, due to disagreement on the appropriateness of participation of the European Communities in such consultations, and consequently the dispute could not be resolved at that stage. The Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB") was informed accordingly on 24 April 1996.1 1.3 In a communication dated 2 February 1998, India requested the DSB to establish a panel to examine the matter in the light of GATT and the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing ("ATC"), in accordance with Article 6.2 of the DSU (WT/DS34/2). In its communication, India claimed that the restrictions imposed by Turkey were inconsistent with Turkey’s obligations under Articles XI and XIII of GATT and were not justified by Article XXIV of GATT, which did not authorize the imposition of discriminatory QRs, and that the restrictions were inconsistent with Turkey’s obligations under Article 2 of the ATC. India also claimed that the restrictions appeared to nullify or impair benefits accruing to it directly or indirectly under GATT and the ATC. 1.4 On 13 March 1998, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request of India, with the following standard terms of reference (Article 7.1 of the DSU):2 "To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by India in document WT/DS34/2, the matter referred to the DSB by India in that document and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements." 1.5 On 11 June 1998, the parties to the dispute agreed on the following composition of the Panel (WT/DS34/3): Chairman: Ambassador Wade Armstrong Members: Dr. Luzius Wasescha Prof. Robert Hudec 1.6 Following the resignation of Prof. Robert Hudec, the parties to the dispute agreed to appoint a new member to the Panel, on 21 July 1998. Accordingly, the composition of the Panel was as follows (WT/DS34/4): Chairman: Ambassador Wade Armstrong Members: Dr. Luzius Wasescha Mr. Johannes Human 1.7 Hong Kong, China; Japan; the Philippines; Thailand; and the United States reserved their third-party rights in accordance with Article 10 of the DSU. 1.8 On 14 August 1998, Turkey requested preliminary rulings by the Panel on a number of issues. On 28 August 1998, the Panel invited India, as well as the third parties, to present their views on the points raised by Turkey. India submitted written comments on the issues; Japan, the Philippines and 1 WT/DSB/M/15, pp. 3-5. 2 WT/DSB/M/43, p. 6. WT/DS34/R Page 2 the United States, as third parties, also submitted written communications. The Panel met on 19 September 1998 with Turkey and India on this matter, and issued its ruling on 25 September 1998. 1.9 The Panel received the first written submissions from the parties on 21 August 1998 (India) and on 18 September 1998 (Turkey). Written submissions were also received from Hong Kong, China; Japan; the Philippines; and Thailand, as third parties. 1.10 The first substantive meeting of the Panel with the parties took place on 5-6 October 1998 and the Panel met with third parties on 6 October 1998. 1.11 On 28 October 1998, the Panel addressed a letter to the European Communities, seeking certain relevant factual and legal information under Article 13.2 of the DSU. The European Communities answered in writing the specific questions raised by the Panel on 13 November 1998. 1.12 On 19 November 1998, the Panel received the second written submissions from the parties, with whom it met again on 25 November 1998. 1.12 In a communication dated 20 January 1999, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that the Panel would not be able to issue its report within six months. The reasons for that delay are stated in document WT/DS34/5. 1.13 The Panel issued its interim report to the parties on 3 March 1999. On 12 March 1999, both parties submitted written requests for the Panel to review precise aspects of the interim report; no further meeting with the Panel was requested. 1.14 The Panel submitted its final report to the parties on 26 March 1999. II. FACTUAL ASPECTS 2.1 This section addresses the factual aspects of the dispute in a sequential order, in which the QRs at issue are described in paragraphs 2.39 to 2.41 below. In view of the nature of the dispute, this section outlines first the factual context in which the dispute is addressed. A. REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS IN THE GATT/WTO FRAMEWORK 2.2 The relationship between the most-favoured-nation ("MFN") principle and Article XXIV of the GATT, which deals with free-trade areas and customs unions, has not always been harmonious. In 1947, their coexistence in the framework of international trade relations had been viewed as ultimately positive, reflecting the perception that genuine customs unions and free-trade areas were congruent with the MFN principle and directed towards the same objective, i.e. multilaterally-agreed trade liberalization.3 2.3 As a matter of fact, trade liberalization under the GATT paralleled a process of increasing economic integration among contracting parties: from 1948 to end-1994, 107 regional trade agreements ("RTAs") were notified to the GATT under Article XXIV.4 3 Customs unions and free-trade areas were viewed as trade-creating instruments (susceptible to expand trade both among the parties and between these and third parties), but there were also concerns about their possible trade-distorting effects. 4 Of these, only 36 remain today in force, reflecting in most cases the evolution over time of the RTAs themselves, as they were superseded by more modern agreements between the same signatories (usually going deeper in integration), or by their consolidation into wider groupings. WT/DS34/R Page 3 2.4 Before 1957, the GATT contracting parties dealt with only three such agreements, covering a small fraction of their aggregate trade (see Figure II.1), on which compatibility with Article XXIV was temporarily waived and which were maintained under surveillance.5 Article XXIV provisions confronted their first real applicability test with the notification of the Treaty of Rome in 1957, which concerned the integration of major players in the international scene. From then on, the examination of RTAs notified to the GATT did not lead to clear-cut assessments of full consistency with the rules, except in one instance.6 Frictions between GATT contracting parties arising in the context of the formation of customs unions or free-trade areas were dealt with pragmatically.7 2.5 The perception that RTAs could contribute to the expansion of world trade was reiterated during the Uruguay Round, when negotiators re-visited certain aspects of Article XXIV, in an endeavour to clarify some of its provisions.8 Figure II.1 – Number of RTAs notified to the GATT/WTO under Article XXIV 1996 1992 Uruguay Round 1988 1984 1980 1976 Tokyo Round 1972 1968 Kennedy Round 1964 1960 Dillon Round 1956 1952 1948 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2.6 During the course of the Uruguay Round, there was an increase in the number of new RTAs notified to the GATT. The conclusion of the Round and the establishment of the WTO did not put to 5 See in this respect: Report on the Customs Union between South Africa and Southern Rhodesia (BISD II/176) and corresponding Decisions (BISD II/29, and 3S/47); Decision on the Free-Trade Area Treaty between Nicaragua and El Salvador (BISD II/30); and Decision on Participation of Nicaragua in Central American Free-Trade Area (BISD 5S/29).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Three Approaches to Fixing the World Trade Organization's Appellate
    Institute of International Economic Law Georgetown University Law Center 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 [email protected]; http://iielaw.org/ THREE APPROACHES TO FIXING THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION’S APPELLATE BODY: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY? By Jennifer Hillman, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center* The basic rule book for international trade consists of the legal texts agreed to by the countries that set up the World Trade Organization (WTO) along with specific provisions of its predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). At the heart of that rules-based system has been a dispute settlement process by which countries resolve any disputes they have about whether another country has violated those rules or otherwise negated the benefit of the bargain between countries. Now the very existence of that dispute settlement system is threatened by a decision of the Trump Administration to block the appointment of any new members to the dispute settlement system’s highest court, its Appellate Body. Under the WTO rules, the Appellate Body is supposed to be comprised of seven people who serve a four-year term and who may be reappointed once to a second four-year term.1 However, the Appellate Body is now * Jennifer Hillman is a Professor from Practice at Georgetown University in Washington, DC and a Distinguished Senior Fellow of its Institute of International Economic Law. She is a former member of the WTO Appellate Body and a former Ambassador and General Counsel in the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). She would like to thank her research assistant, Archana Subramanian, along with Yuxuan Chen and Ricardo Melendez- Ortiz from the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) for their invaluable assistance with this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Canada-Renewable Energy: Implications for WTO Law on Green
    October 2014 RFF DP 14-38 PER Canada–Renewable Energy: Implications for WTO Law on Green and Not-So- Green Subsidies Steve Charnovitz and Carolyn Fischer 1616 P St. NW Washington, DC 20036 202-328-5000 www.rff.org DISCUSSION PA Canada–Renewable Energy: Implications for WTO Law on Green and Not-So-Green Subsidies Steve Charnovitz and Carolyn Fischer Abstract In the first dispute on renewable energy to come to World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement, the domestic content requirement of Ontario’s feed-in tariff was challenged as a discriminatory investment-related measure and as a prohibited import substitution subsidy. The panel and Appellate Body agreed that Canada was violating the GATT and the TRIMS Agreement. But the SCM Article 3 claim by Japan and the European Union remains unadjudicated, because neither tribunal made a finding that the price guaranteed for electricity from renewable sources constitutes a ‘benefit’ pursuant to the SCM Agreement. Although the Appellate Body provides useful guidance to future panels on how the existence of a benefit could be calculated, the most noteworthy aspect of the new jurisprudence is the Appellate Body’s reasoning that delineating the proper market for ‘benefit’ analysis entails respect for the policy choices made by a government. Thus, in this dispute, the proper market is electricity produced only from wind and solar energy. Key Words: feed-in tariff, renewable energy, subsidies, international trade, WTO, green growth, local content requirement JEL Codes: K33, Q48, Q56, Q58 © 2014 Resources for the Future. All rights reserved. No portion of this paper may be reproduced without permission of the authors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vital Role of the WTO Appellate Body in the Promotion of Rule of Law and International Cooperation: a Case Study
    American University Washington College of Law Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals Scholarship & Research 2019 The Vital Role of the WTO Appellate Body in the Promotion of Rule of Law and International Cooperation: A Case Study Padideh Ala'i Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev Part of the International Trade Law Commons, and the Rule of Law Commons The Yale Journal of International Law Online The Vital Role of the WTO Appellate Body in the Promotion of Rule of Law and International Cooperation: A Case Study By Padideh Ala’i† President Trump’s 2018 Trade Policy Agenda (“2018 Trade Agenda”) proclaims that “[t]he United States will not allow the WTO—or any other multilateral organization—to prevent us from taking actions that are essential to the economic well-being of the American people.”1 As part of this agenda, the United States has targeted the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in particular.2 The United States claims that the Appellate Body has disregarded the rules as set by WTO Members and has adopted a “non-text based interpretation”3 of WTO provisions through an “activist approach.”4 The 2018 Trade Agenda concludes, “[t]he United States has grown increasingly concerned with the activist approach of the Appellate Body on procedural issues, interpretative approach, and substantive interpretations.”5 The United States’ position is based on Article IX.2 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (“Marrakesh Agreement”) and Article 3.2 of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (“DSU”).
    [Show full text]
  • From Afterthought to Centerpiece: the WTO Appellate Body and Its Rise
    Allrightsreserved. Nopartofthispapermaybereproducedinanyform withoutthepermissionoftheauthor(s). ThisWorkingPaperseriesfromtheFacultyofLaw,UniversityofMaastricht,aimstofurther excellenceinscholarship.ItallowsMaastricht-basedauthorstobringtheirwork-in-progressto awideaudience,facilitatingfruitfuldiscussionandcriticalinputonnascentideasandprojects tothebenefitofbothauthorandreader.Tothisend,readersareencouragedtotreattheseries asinteractiveandtocontactauthorswiththeircomments. Thosewishingtosubmitpapersforconsiderationareinvitedtosendworkto [email protected] . Oursubmissionguidelinesandfurtherinformationareavailableat http://www.unimaas.nl/maastrichtworkingpapers ©PeterVandenBossche PublishedinMaastricht,October2005 FacultyofLaw UniversiteitMaastricht Postbox616 6200MD Maastricht TheNetherlands Authoremail:[email protected] ThispaperistobecitedasMaastrichtFacultyofLawWorkingPaper2005/1 1 FromAfterthoughttoCenterpiece TheWTOAppellateBodyanditsRisetoProminence intheWorldTradingSystem PeterVandenBossche 1 TableofContents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 3 2. TheHumbleOriginsoftheAppellateBody .................................................................. 4 2.1 UruguayRoundnegotiationsondisputesettlement............................................... 5 2.2 EstablishmentoftheAppellateBody..................................................................... 7 3. TheRoadtoProminence.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law (113:4 Am J Int'l L)
    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 2019 Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law (113:4 Am J Int'l L) Jean Galbraith University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the International Law Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, National Security Law Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons Repository Citation Galbraith, Jean, "Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law (113:4 Am J Int'l L)" (2019). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 2106. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/2106 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Copyright © 2019 by The American Society of International Law CONTEMPORARY PRACTICE OF THE UNITED STATES RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL LAW EDITED BY JEAN GALBRAITH* In this section: • President Trump “Unsigns” Arms Trade Treaty After Requesting Its Return from the Senate • Senate Gives Advice and Consent to Ratification of Four Bilateral Tax Treaties • United States Continues to Block New Appellate Body Members for the World Trade Organization, Risking the Collapse of the Appellate Process • United States Resists Efforts to Have the Arctic Council Make Climate-Related Statement • Trump Administration Takes Domestic and International Measures to Restrict Asylum • Secretary of State Establishes Commission on Unalienable Rights • Trump Administration’s Iran Policies Raise Questions About the Executive’s Authority to Use Force Against Iran • U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The U.S.-EU Beef Hormone Dispute
    The U.S.-EU Beef Hormone Dispute Renée Johnson Specialist in Agricultural Policy January 14, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R40449 The U.S.-EU Beef Hormone Dispute Summary The United States and the European Union (EU) have engaged in a long-standing and acrimonious trade dispute over the EU’s decision to ban hormone-treated meat. Despite an ongoing series of dispute settlement proceedings and decisions by the World Trade Organization (WTO), there is continued disagreement between the United States and the EU on a range of legal and procedural issues, as well as the scientific evidence and consensus concerning the safety of hormone-treated beef. To date, the EU continues to ban imports of hormone-treated meat and restricts most meat exports to the European Union to a limited quantity of beef imports that are certified as produced without the use of hormones. Starting in 1981, the EU adopted restrictions on livestock production limiting the use of natural hormones to therapeutic purposes, banning the use of synthetic hormones, and prohibiting imports of animals and meat from animals that have been administered the hormones. In 1989, the EU fully implemented its ban on imports of meat and meat products from animals treated with growth promotants. Initially the ban covered six growth promotants that are approved for use and administered in the United States. The EU amended its ban in 2003, permanently banning one hormone—estradiol-17β—while provisionally banning the use of the five other hormones. The United States has suspended trade concessions with the European Union by imposing higher import tariffs on EU products.
    [Show full text]
  • Background Information on the WTO
    Background Information On the WTO Institutional Issues Membership of the WTO. .................................................................................1 WTO Organizational Structure .............................................................................4 Plurilateral Agreements and Membership .....................................................................5 WTO Accession Application and Status ......................................................................6 2001 WTO Budget Contributions ...........................................................................9 2001 Budget for the WTO Secretariat .......................................................................12 WTO Secretariat Personnel Statistics .......................................................................14 Dispute Settlement Indicative List of Governmental and Non-Governmental Panelists .................................................16 Appellate Body Membership .............................................................................29 Rules of Conduct for the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes .............................................................32 The WTO Work Program and Selected Issues May 1998 Declaration on Global Electronic Commerce .........................................................40 WTO Subsidy Notifications Reviewed in 2000 ................................................................41 Regional Trade Agreements Notified to the WTO ..............................................................42
    [Show full text]
  • WT/GC/205 20 December 2019 (19-8922
    WT/GC/205 20 December 2019 (19-8922) Page: 1/25 GENERAL COUNCIL ANNUAL REPORT (2019) The present report has been prepared in pursuance of the Procedures for an Annual Overview of WTO Activities and for Reporting under the WTO (WT/L/105). Since its previous annual report1, the General Council has held five meetings, on 28 February, 7 May, 23-24 July, 15-16 October and 9-10 December 2019, and a special meeting on 10 May. The minutes of these meetings, which remain in the record of the General Council's work, are contained in documents WT/GC/M/176, WT/GC/M/177, WT/GC/M/178, WT/GC/M/179, WT/GC/M/180 and WT/GC/M/1812. The following subjects are included in the report: 1 REPORTS BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE AND REPORTS BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL ............................................................................ 4 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BALI, NAIROBI AND BUENOS AIRES OUTCOMES – STATEMENTS BY THE CHAIR ........................................................................................... 5 3 INFORMAL PROCESS ON MATTERS RELATED TO THE FUNCTIONING OF THE APPELLATE BODY ............................................................................................................. 6 3.1 Statement by the Chair ................................................................................................ 6 3.2 Report by the Facilitator ............................................................................................... 6 3.2.1 Report by the Facilitator and Draft Decision on the Functioning of the Appellate
    [Show full text]
  • The Inherent Jurisdiction of WTO Tribunals: the Select Application of Public International Law Required by the Judicial Function
    Michigan Journal of International Law Volume 31 Issue 3 2010 The Inherent Jurisdiction of WTO Tribunals: The Select Application of Public International Law Required by the Judicial Function Andrew D. Mitchell Melbourne Law School David Heaton Mallesons Stephen Jaques, Australia Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil Part of the Courts Commons, International Trade Law Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, and the Organizations Law Commons Recommended Citation Andrew D. Mitchell & David Heaton, The Inherent Jurisdiction of WTO Tribunals: The Select Application of Public International Law Required by the Judicial Function, 31 MICH. J. INT'L L. 559 (2010). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol31/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Journal of International Law at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE INHERENT JURISDICTION OF WTO TRIBUNALS: THE SELECT APPLICATION OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW REQUIRED BY THE JUDICIAL FUNCTIONt Andrew D. Mitchell* David Heaton** IN TRODU CTION ...................................................................................... 560 I. INHERENT JURISDICTION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW ................. 562 A. What Is Inherent Jurisdiction?.......................................... 562
    [Show full text]
  • Secretariat and Budget Secretariat and Budget
    Secretariat and budget Secretariat and budget • The WTO has 634 staff on the regular budget. • In 2013, the WTO increased the number of nationalities represented among its staff to 78. • The WTO’s total budget for 2014 is CHF 197,203,900. • In 2013, the WTO inaugurated a new reception centre, a renovated atrium, and a new building alongside the existing headquarters, bringing all staff under one roof for the first time. Secretariat and budget WTO Secretariat 136 New recruits 136 WTO Secretariat organizational chart 137 Allocation of staff by division 138 WTO staff on regular budget by grade and gender 139 WTO staff on regular budget by gender and nationality 140 Budget, finance and administration 142 Consolidated expenditure 2013 144 Consolidated budget 2014 144 Members’ contributions to the WTO budget and the budget of the Appellate Body 2014 145 AND BUDGET AND SECRETARIAT Background on Secretariat and budget The WTO Secretariat has over 600 regular staff and coordinates the activities of the WTO. Most of the WTO’s annual budget consists of contributions by its 159 members. World Trade Organization Annual Report 2014 135 Secretariat and budget WTO Secretariat The WTO Secretariat is based in the WTO’s headquarters in Geneva. It has 634 staff on the regular budget and is headed by Director-General Roberto Azevêdo, who began his term of office on 1 September 2013. His deputies – the four Deputy Directors-General – began their terms of office on 1 October. They are Yonov Frederick Agah of Nigeria, Karl Brauner of Germany, David Shark of the United States and Xiaozhun Yi of China.
    [Show full text]
  • Office of International Law
    Office of International Law SUBMISSION BY THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT TO THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIES CANBERRA October 2000 Error! Cannot open file. OVERVIEW The World Trade Organisation (WTO) provides the institutional framework for the conduct of trade relations among its 138 Member Governments. The goal of the WTO is to contribute to global economic development through reducing the barriers to trade. As decisions of the WTO are made by Members, its decisions are directly attributable to Governments. Each Member is also accountable for the performance of its obligations to other Members and this accountability can be enforced through the dispute resolution procedure within the WTO. Individual Members are accountable through their own national processes such as parliamentary scrutiny. The dispute settlement procedures introduced as part of the WTO represent one of the most significant achievements of the Uruguay Round. The WTO is widely recognised as providing a more effective dispute settlement procedure compared with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The growth in the number of disputes under these procedures and the diversity of the matters considered have required additional resources and a broader skills base in both managing and conducting the litigation. The Office of International Law is the focal point within the Attorney-General's Department for providing advice and other services on international law. The Office has a depth of knowledge, expertise and experience in international law including in the conduct of international litigation. The Office provides a wide range of services including: • specialist legal advice on international law and on the implementation of international law; • assistance in domestic and international litigation involving international law; • international legal aspects of policy development; • assistance in the conduct of treaty negotiations; and • the conduct of litigation before international courts and tribunals.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkey– Additional Duties on Certain Products from the United States
    TURKEY– ADDITIONAL DUTIES ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM THE UNITED STATES (DS561) U.S. Responses to Questions from the Panel to the Parties After the First Substantive Meeting January 30, 2020 TABLE OF REPORTS AND AWARDS Short Form Full Citation China – Raw Materials Appellate Body Reports, China – Measures Related to the (AB) Exportation of Various Raw Materials, WT/DS394/AB/R / WT/DS395/AB/R / WT/DS398/AB/R, adopted 22 February 2012 Dominican Republic – Panel Report, Dominican Republic – Safeguard Measures on Safeguard Measures Imports of Polypropylene Bags and Tubular Fabric, WT/DS415/R, (Panel) WT/DS416/R, WT/DS417/R, WT/DS418/R, and Add.1, adopted 22 February 2012 EC – Fasteners (China) Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Definitive Anti- (AB) Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China, WT/DS397/AB/R, adopted 28 July 2011 EC – Selected Customs Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Selected Matters (AB) Customs Matters, WT/DS315/AB/R, adopted 11 December 2006 Indonesia – Iron or Appellate Body Reports, Indonesia – Safeguard on Certain Iron or Steel Products (AB) Steel Product, WT/DS490/AB/R, WT/DS496/AB/R, and Add. 1, adopted 27 August 2018 Indonesia – Iron or Panel Report, Indonesia – Safeguard on Certain Iron or Steel Steel Products (Panel) Product, WT/DS490/R, WT/DS496/R, and Add. 1, adopted 27 August 2018 US – Countervailing Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Duty Measures (China) (AB) Measures on Certain Products from China, WT/DS437/AB/R, adopted 16 January 2015 US – Wool Shirts and Appellate Body Report, United States – Measure Affecting Imports Blouses (AB) of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India, WT/DS33/AB/R, adopted 23 May 1997, and Corr.
    [Show full text]