Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 142 views

    assignment 1 Vũ Minh Hiếu K204021002 ver 2

    Uploaded by

    Hiếu Vũ Minh
    The appellate body upheld the panel's findings that Argentina's application of import measures violated Article II of GATT 1994. Specifically, the DIEM mechanism allowed Argentina to impose tariffs above the 35% ad valorem rate agreed in its schedule in some cases. However, the panel did not find a violation in all cases. Additionally, the appellate body agreed with the panel that Argentina's 3% statistical tax did not violate Article VIII and that the panel did not deny Argentina due process under Article 11 of DSU by accepting late evidence from the US.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    assignment 1 Vũ Minh Hiếu K204021002 ver 2

    Uploaded by

    Hiếu Vũ Minh
    142 views4 pages
    The appellate body upheld the panel's findings that Argentina's application of import measures violated Article II of GATT 1994. Specifically, the DIEM mechanism allowed Argentina to impose tariffs above the 35% ad valorem rate agreed in its schedule in some cases. However, the panel did not find a violation in all cases. Additionally, the appellate body agreed with the panel that Argentina's 3% statistical tax did not violate Article VIII and that the panel did not deny Argentina due process under Article 11 of DSU by accepting late evidence from the US.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The appellate body upheld the panel's findings that Argentina's application of import measures violated Article II of GATT 1994. Specifically, the DIEM mechanism allowed Argentina to impose tariffs above the 35% ad valorem rate agreed in its schedule in some cases. However, the panel did not find a violation in all cases. Additionally, the appellate body agreed with the panel that Argentina's 3% statistical tax did not violate Article VIII and that the panel did not deny Argentina due process under Article 11 of DSU by accepting late evidence from the US.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    142 views4 pages

    assignment 1 Vũ Minh Hiếu K204021002 ver 2

    Uploaded by

    Hiếu Vũ Minh
    The appellate body upheld the panel's findings that Argentina's application of import measures violated Article II of GATT 1994. Specifically, the DIEM mechanism allowed Argentina to impose tariffs above the 35% ad valorem rate agreed in its schedule in some cases. However, the panel did not find a violation in all cases. Additionally, the appellate body agreed with the panel that Argentina's 3% statistical tax did not violate Article VIII and that the panel did not deny Argentina due process under Article 11 of DSU by accepting late evidence from the US.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    Argentina — Textiles and Apparel1

    Appellate Body report, Argentina — Measures Affecting Imports of


    1

    Footwear, Textiles, Apparel and other Items – Complaint by United


    States, WT/DS56/AB/R, adopted 27/03/1998

    Facts: Argentina appealed the panel’s findings about the following


    things: first, second.US and the third parties present their argument. The
    appellate body upheld all of the panel’s original findings and
    conclusions.

    Issue: There were five issues in the case: first, whether Argentina’s
    application of the DIEM violated the Article II of GATT 1994. Second,
    whether the panel had made a mistake when concluding that Argentina’s
    usage of the DIEM means that Argentina had violated the Article II of
    the GATT 1994 “in all cases”. Third, Whether by ignoring Argentina’s
    duties to IMF, the panel had let the Article VIII of GATT 1994 to be
    wrongly applied to the 3% Ad valorem statistical tax. Fourth, whether
    the Article 11 of DSU had been violated by the panel.

    Law: Article II of the GATT 1994; Article VIII of the GATT 1994;
    Agreement Between the IMF and the WTO; The Declaration on the
    Relationship of the World Trade Organization with the International
    Monetary Fund; The Declaration on the Contribution of the World Trade
    Organization to Achieving Greater Coherence in Global Economic
    Policymaking; Article 11 of the DSU.

    Holding: The Appellate Body had made five conclusions: first, yes,
    Argentina had violated the Article II of GATT 1994 through the
    application of the DIEM. Second, no, the panel never made the
    conclusion the conclusion that Argentina had violated the Article II of
    GATT 1994 “ in all cases”. Third, no, the panel’s application of Article
    VIII of GATT 1994 to the 3% Ad valorem statistical tax is correct.
    Fourth, no, the panel did not violate the Article 11 of DSU.

    Reasoning: The Appellate Body’s decision could be explained as


    followed: First, Argentina application of the DIEM allowed them to
    collect and ad valorem higher 35%, which was what agreed in their
    schedule, the LXIV that went into effect in 1/1/1995. This is because in
    the event that the import price is lower than the representative
    international price, 35% of the DIEM or less than 35% of the DIEM
    could still be bigger than the 35% ad valorem duties. For example, if the
    import price is 100 dollars and the representative international price is
    150 dollars , the 35% ad valorem duties would be 35 dollars and 25 % of
    the DIEM would be 37.5 dollars. This combining with the fact that the
    Argentina customs was instructed to choose the duties that was higher
    means that there was definitely cases when Argentina is applying tariff
    that is higher than 35% ad valorem. Second, the Panel said that “... the
    very nature of the minimal particular obligation gadget imposed in
    Argentina at the objects at difficulty will necessarily lead, in sure
    instances, to the imposition of responsibilities above 35 consistent with
    cent advert valorem.” . This reference to "in sure instances" suggests that
    the Panel did now no longer finish that there has been infringement "in
    all cases". Third, The Agreement Between the IMF and the WTO,
    however, does now no longer adjust, upload to or decrease the rights and
    responsibilities of Members beneath the WTO Agreement, nor does it
    adjust man or woman States' commitments to the IMF. It does now no
    longer offer any noticeable policies regarding the decision of feasible
    conflicts among responsibilities of a Member beneath the WTO
    Agreement and responsibilities beneath the Articles of Agreement of the
    IMF or any settlement with the IMF. However, paragraph 10 of the
    Agreement Between the IMF and the WTO includes a route to the body
    of workers of the IMF and the WTO Secretariat to seek advice from on
    "troubles of feasible inconsistency among measures beneath discussion".
    Fourth, concerning the truth that the panel admitted the United States
    proof overdue and permitting Argentina to counter it. Article eleven of
    the DSU does now no longer set up closing dates for the submission of
    proof to a panel. Article 12.1 of the DSU directs a panel to observe the
    Working Procedures set out in Appendix three of the DSU, however on
    the identical time authorizes a panel to do in any other case after
    consulting the events to the dispute. The Working Procedures in
    Appendix three additionally do now no longer set up unique closing
    dates for the 66See Panel Report, paras. three.179 and 6.55.
    67Argentina's appellant's submission, paras. 107-108. WT/DS56/AB/R
    Page 29 presentation of proof with the aid of using a celebration to the
    dispute. sixty eight It is real that the Working Procedures "do now no
    longer prohibit" submission of extra proof after the primary noticeable
    assembly of a panel with the events. Regarding the consulting IMF
    difficulty. The most effective provision of the WTO Agreement that
    calls for consultations with the IMF is Article XV: 2 of the GATT 1994.
    This provision calls for the WTO to seek advice from the IMF while
    dealing with "issues regarding economic reserves, balances of bills or
    forex arrangements". seventy three However, this situation does now no
    longer relate to those matters. Article 13.1 of the DSU offers a panel "...
    the proper to are seeking for records and technical recommendation from
    any man or woman or frame which it deems appropriate." This is a
    supply of discretionary authority: a panel isn't always obligation-certain
    to are seeking for records in every and each case or to seek advice from
    specific specialists beneath this provision.
    REFFERENCE:

    Appellate Body report, Argentina — Measures Affecting Imports of


    Footwear, Textiles, Apparel and other Items – Complaint by United
    States, WT/DS56/AB/R, adopted 27/03/1998

    You might also like