DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REPORTS 2008 VOLUME 8PDF电子书下载

Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION 2785

Ⅱ. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THE THIRD PARTICIPANTS 2793

A. Claims of Thailand - Appellant in US - Shrimp （Thailand） 2793

1. Ad Note to Article Ⅵ：2 and 3 of the GATT 1994 2793

2. Cash Deposits and Anti-dumping Duties 2797

3. The Reasonableness of the EBR， as Applied to Subject Shrimp 2800

B. Arguments of the United States - Appellee in US - Shrimp （Thailand） 2800

1. Ad Note to Article Ⅵ：2 and 3 of the GATT 1994 2800

2. Cash Deposits and Anti-dumping Duties 2806

3. The Reasonableness of the EBR， as Applied to Subject Shrimp 2807

C. Claims of the United States - Other Appellant in US -Shrimp （Thailand） 2808

1. The Reasonableness of the EBR， as Applied to Subject Shrimp 2808

2. The Panel’s Analysis of the Term “Necessary” under Article XX（d） of the GATT 1994 2810

D. Arguments of Thailand - Appellee in US - Shrimp （Thailand） 2811

1. The Reasonableness of the EBR， as Applied to Subject Shrimp 2811

2. The Panel’s Analysis of the Term “Necessary” under Article XX（d） of the GATT 1994 2814

E. Claims of India - Appellant in US - Customs Bond Directive 2815

1. Ad Note to Article Ⅵ：2 and 3 of the GATT 1994 2815

2. Cash Deposits and Anti-dumping Duties 2819

3. The Reasonableness of the EBR， as Applied to Subject Shrimp 2820

4. “As Such” Consistency of the Amended CBD with Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles 10 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement 2820

5. Consistency of the Amended CBD with Article 9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 19 of the SCM Agreement 2821

6. Completing the Analysis on Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement 2822

7. The Panel’s Terms of Reference 2823

8. The Availability of a Defence under Article XX（d） of the GATT 1994 to the United States 2824

9. Prima Facie Case by the Panel under Article XX（d） of the GATT 1994 2825

F. Arguments of the United States - Appellee in US -Customs Bond Directive 2826

1. Ad Note to Article Ⅵ：2 and 3 of the GATT 1994 2826

2. Cash Deposits and Anti-dumping Duties 2829

3. The Reasonableness of the EBR， as Applied to Subject Shrimp 2830

4. “As Such” Consistency of the Amended CBD with Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles 10 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement 2831

5. Consistency of the Amended CBD with Article 9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 19 of the SCM Agreement 2831

6. Completing the Analysis on Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement 2832

7. The Panel’s Terms of Reference 2832

8. The Availability of a Defence under Article XX（d）of the GATT 1994 to the United States 2833

9. Prima Facie Case by the Panel under Article XX（d）of the GATT 1994 2833

G. Claims of the United States - Other Appellant in US -Customs Bond Directive 2834

1. The Reasonableness of the EBR， as Applied to Subject Shrimp 2834

2. The Panel’s Analysis of the Term “Necessary” under Article XX（d） of the GATT 1994 2835

H. Arguments of India - Appellee in US - Customs Bond Directive 2836

1. The Reasonableness of the EBR， as Applied to Subject Shrimp 2836

2. The Panel’s Analysis of the Term “Necessary” underArticle XX（d） of the GATT 1994 2840

I. Arguments of the Third Participants 2840

1. Brazil 2840

2. Chile 2843

3. European Communities 2844

4. India 2846

5. Japan 2847

6. Korea 2849

7. Thailand 2850

Ⅲ. ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS 2851

Ⅳ. THE MEASURE AT ISSUE 2853

A. Introduction 2853

B. Background 2854

1. The Retrospective Anti-Dumping Duty Assessment System of the United States 2854

2. Overview of Customs Bond Requirements in the United States 2855

3. The Enhanced Continuous Bond Requirement 2856

Ⅴ. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE AD NOTE TO ARTICLE Ⅵ：2 AND 3 OF THE GATT 1994 2860

A. Introduction 2860

B. The Temporal Scope of the Ad Note 2863

1. Interpretation of the Phrase “pending final determination of the facts in any case of suspected dumping 2869

2. Impermissible Response to Dumping 2873

3. The Ad Note to Article Ⅵ：2 and 3 of the GATT 1994 and Article 7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement （Provisional Measures） 2874

4. The Panel’s Legal Characterization of Cash Deposits 2875

C. Conclusion 2878

Ⅵ. THE REASONABLENESS OF THE EBR， AS APPLIED TO SUBJECT SHRIMP 2878

A. The Assessment of Reasonableness under the Ad Note 2884

B. The Reasonableness of the EBR， as Applied to Subject Shrimp 2887

Ⅶ. INDIA’S CLAIMS THAT THE AMENDED CBD IS “AS SUCH” INCONSISTENT WITH ARTICLES 1 AND 18.1 OF THE ANTI-DUMPING AGREEMENT AND ARTICLES 10 AND 32.1 OF THE SCMAGREEMENT 2889

Ⅷ.INDIA’S CLAIMS THAT THE AMENDED CBD IS INCONSISTENT WITH ARTICLE 9 OF THE ANTI-DUMPING AGREEMENT AND ARTICLE 19 OF THE SCMAGREEMENT 2891

Ⅸ. INDIA’S REQUEST FOR COMPLETION OF THE ANALYSIS ON ARTICLE 18.4 OF THE ANTI-DUMPING AGREEMENT AND ARTICLE 32.5 OF THE SCMAGREEMENT 2893

Ⅹ. THE PANEL’S TERMS OF REFERENCE 2894

Ⅺ. WHETHER THE PANEL MADE A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE UNITED STATES 2900

Ⅻ. THE PANEL’S ANALYSIS OF THE TERM “NECESSARY” IN ARTICLE XX（D） OF THE GATT 1994 2902

ⅩⅢ.FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 2909

Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION 2936

A. Complaint of India 2936

Ⅱ. FACTUAL ASPECTS 2938

A. The Enhanced Continuous Bond Requirement （the “EBR”） 2938

B. Imposition of Continuous Bonds and Other Security Requirements in the Context of the US Retrospective Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Assessment System 2939

1. Overview of anti-dumping and countervailing duty procedures 2939

2. Timeline for anti-dumping and countervailing duty procedures 2941

C. Implementation of the amended continuous bond directive （the “amended cbd”） 2942

D. The Impact of the Enhanced Continuous Bond Requirement （the “EBR”） on Subject Shrimp Importers 2946

Ⅲ. PARTIES’ REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2948

Ⅳ. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES 2951

Ⅴ. ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES 2951

Ⅵ. INTERIM REVIEW 2951

A. India’s Comments on the Interim Report 2952

1. Sequence of events surrounding implementation of the EBR 2952

2. One hundred per cent surety collateral requirements 2952

3. India’s Article X：3（a） as such claim 2953

4. The relationship of the Ad Note and the Anti-Dumping Agreement 2953

5. Classification of Appellate Body reasoning as dicta in US - Zeroing （EC） and US - Zeroing （Japan） 2954

6. Text of footnote 203 2954

7. India’s claims under the GATT 1994 and the United States’ defence under Article XX（d） of the GATT 1994 2954

B. The United States’ Comments on the Interim Report 2956

1. Typographical errors 2956

2. Treatment of amendments as part of the measure at issue 2956

3. Description of the United States’ argument regarding Article 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement 2957

4. The EBR formula 2957

5. The relationship between Article 9.3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and retrospective dutyassessment 2957

6. Characterisation of the “enhanced” bond requirement 2958

7. The legal standard for determining whether or not the application of the EBR resulted in “reasonable” security requirements 2958

8. Challenges to mandatory measures under the “mandatory/discretionary” distinction 2961

9. Consistency between DS343 and DS345 2961

Ⅶ. FINDINGS 2962

A. Preliminary Issues 2962

1. Parallel panel proceedings in DS343 and DS345 2962

2. Overview of the Panel’s approach to consideration of India’s claims 2963

3. Order of analysis 2964

B. India’s As Applied claims 2965

1. Scope of the measure concerned 2965

2. Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement， and the Ad Note 2969

（a） Does the application of the EBR constitute “specific action against dumping”？ 2970

（b） Was the EBR applied “in accordance with” the provisions of the GATT 1994， as interpreted by the Anti-Dumping Agreement？ 2979

（c） Conclusion 3006

3. Articles 7.1 （iii）， 7.2 and 7.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement 3007

（a） Main arguments of India 3007

（b） Main arguments of the United States 3008

（c） Evaluation by the Panel 3008

4. Articles 9.1， 9.2， 9.3， and 9.3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement， and Article Ⅵ：2 of the GATT 1994 3010

（a） Main arguments of India 3010

（b） Main arguments of the United States 3011

（c） Evaluation by the Panel 3012

5. Other as applied claims by India under the GATT 1994 3014

C. India’s as such Claims 3018

1. Scope of the measure concerned 3018

（a） Scope of the Amended CBD 3018

（b） The statutory provision 19 U.S.C. 1673 and the regulatory provision 19 C.F.R.§ 113.13 3018

2. Whether the measure at issue may be challenged “as such” 3028

3. The “mandatoty/discretionary” distinction as an analytical tool 3030

4. Application of the “mandatory/discretionary” distinction in this dispute 3034

5. Whether the Amended CBD is inconsistent as such with Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement， Articles 10 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement， and the Ad Note 3039

（a） Main arguments of India 3039

（b） Main arguments of the United States 3040

（c） Evaluation by the Panel 3041

6. Articles 7.1 （iii）， 7.2， and 7.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles 17.1（c）.17.2 and 17.4 of the SCM Agreement 3043

（a） Main arguments of India 3043

（b） Main arguments of the United States 3044

（c） Evaluation by the Panel 3045

7. Articles 9.1， 9.2， 9.3 and 9.3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement， Articles 19.2， 19.3 and 19.4 of the SCM Agreement， and Article Ⅵ：3 of the GATT 1994 3047

（a） Main arguments of India 3047

（b） Main arguments of the United States 3047

（c） Evaluation by the Panel 3047

8. Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement，Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article ⅩⅥ of the WTO Agreement 3050

（a） Main arguments of India 3050

（b） Main arguments of the United States 3050

（c） Evaluation by the Panel 3050

9. Other as such claims by India under the GATT 1994 3051

D. Notification Requirement under Article 18.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 32.6 of the SCM Agreement 3052

1. Main arguments of India 3052

2. Main arguments of the United States 3053

3. Evaluation by the Panel 3053

E. United States’ Defence under Article XX（d） of the GATT 1994 3055

1. Main arguments of the United States 3055

2. Main arguments of India 3056

3. Evaluation by the Panel 3057

（a） Whether the EBR is necessary to secure compliance with US laws and regulations as provided in Article XX（d） of the GATT 1994 3058

（b） Conclusion 3066

Ⅷ. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3067

ANNEX A EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES OF THE FIRST WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES 3069

Annex A-1 Executive Summary of the first written submission of the United States 3069

Annex A-2 Executive Summary of the first written submission of India 3081

ANNEX B EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES OF THE SECOND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES 3096

Annex B-1 Executive Summary of the second written submission of the United States 3096

Annex B-2 Executive Summary of the second written submission of India 3108

ANNEX C EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES OF THE FIRST WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE THIRD PARTIES 3124

Annex C-1 Executive Summary of the first written submission of Brazil 3124

Annex C-2 Executive Summary of the first written submission of China 3131

Annex C-3 Executive Summary of the first written submission of the European Communities 3138

Annex C-4 Executive Summary of the first written submission of Japan 3144

Annex C-5 Executive Summary of the first written submission of Thailand 3149