US vs. EU- Information Technology Case DS375 (DS376/DS377 )

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE ASEAN COMPREHENSIVE INVESTMENT AGREEMENT (ACIA)
Advertisements

Supplementary International Search (SIS) (PCT Rule 45bis)
Bananas: EU vs US. By Izabella Zakaryan Andrea Zizack.
PUBLISH NOTIFY / TAKE COMMENTS ANSWER ENQUIRIES Notification Obligations 1.Statement on Implementation 2.Notification of Technical Regulations or Conformity.
Presentation on the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures By Shashank Priya, Director, Department of Commerce.
Settlement of Trade Dispute Dr. Mrs. Vijaya Katti Professor & Chairperson, IIFT New Delhi.
1 Learning Module Series Introduction to Standards and Trade.
WTO Customs Valuation Agreement
Hamid Dom Reg WS March 04 1 INTRODUCTION THE GATS and DOMESTIC REGULATION.
Experience and Observations from the Secretariat in Providing Assistance to Interested WTO Members and Observers Presentation for IT Symposium – 19 October.
1 Session 9 – Government-to-government dispute settlement procedures WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding Vesile Kulaçoglu, WTO Secretariat Dar es Salaam,
Dispute Settlement in the WTO
Sheri Rosenow - WTO Trade Facilitation Section
European Union Cohesion Policy
August 28, 2009 Federal Emergency Management Agency Public Assistance Arbitration Process.
Basel II as seen by Israel’s Banking System
Bush Steel Tariffs Case Presented By: Kultara Vongsumedh Rob Miller Michelle Vine Brendan Gibbons.
Copyright © 2009 South-Western Legal Studies in Business, a part of South-Western Cengage Learning. CHAPTER 9 GATT Law and the World Trade Organization:
GATT Law and the World Trade Organization: Basic Principles
ITA Product Evoluation © Copyright 2010 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice.
Agreement on Duty Free Treatment of Multi-Chip Integrated Circuits.
WTO Dispute Settlement
Brendan McGivern Partner White & Case LLP May 20, 2009 US – Continued Suspension and the Deference Standard BIICL - Ninth Annual WTO Conference Panel 4:
Chapter 3 Dispute Settlement System and Trade Policy Review Mechanism 14/21-SEP-2006.
Copyrights© 2004 AU SCIENTIFIC TECHNICAL AND RESEARCH COMMISSION PAIPO STATUTE By Mohammed Kyari (SSOC)
Dispute Settlement Services offered by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center Heike Wollgast, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.
WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION: AN OVERVIEW. BACKGROUND Great Depression, Protectionism and the Consequences Bretton Woods Institutions GATT 1947 and Failure.
Online  Trade shows  Magazines  Research (NASDAQ-GS: GSOL) Global Sources’ 2009Importer Survey.
1 Budapest, June 14, Cross border communication among registers - Practical aspects - Yves Gonner Managing director - Trade and Companies Register.
African Aviation Training Organization
1 GATT Law and the World Trade Organization: Basic Principles Chapter 9 © 2005 West Legal Studies in Business/Thomson Learning.
U.S. CHINA TRADE LITIGATION IN THE WTO Timothy John Convy Dmitry Chudinovskikh Mary Della Vecchina ITRN /24/2015 Professor Stuart Malawer.
BANANA WARS Countries Involved Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, U.S(Complainant) and EU(Respondent) Request for consultation: 5 th Feb 1996.
WTO Case DS437 GROUP 7 Martha Van Lieshout Mauricio Valdes Yulia Tsimafeishyna 1.
WTO FORUM: ARTICLE 25 OF THE DSU Christian Albanesi Managing Counsel ICC International Court of Arbitration.
Single undertaking Article II “…2.The agreements and associated legal instruments included in Annexes 1, 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as "Multilateral.
 U.S.-China Dispute Settlement: Auto Part Imports into China Jay Eric Andrew 1.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN ANTI-DUMPING 2 June 2005 PRESENTATION: JASPER WAUTERS Legal Affairs Officer Rules Division WTO Secretariat
UPDATES ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AGREEMENT (ITA) EXPANSION Noor Wahida Noordin Ministry of International Trade & Industry Malaysia 20 June 2013
 The WTO’s predecessor,the general agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT).It establishedafter World War 2 in the wake of other multilateral institutions.
Dispute settlement GATT 1947 provided for a dispute settlement system based on consultations and negotiations between Members. The Contracting Parties.
Dispute Settlement General Aspects of WTO Dispute Settlement Russian Federation, September 2012 Susan Hainsworth, ITTC, WTO.
CHILEAN SCENARIO ON FREE TRADE OR ASSOCIATION AGREEMENTS 1.FTA CURRENTLY IN EFFECT: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (negotiations began in The FTA became.
International Trade Regulation Oxicorp Case - P. 6.1 Victor H. Bouganim WCL, American University.
Features of the DSU A single and coherent system of rules and procedures for dispute settlement; existence of special rules in some Multilateral Agreements.
International Trade Regulations: the Law of the WTO Professor Mohammad F. A. Nsour Class 3 1.
World Trading System: Rules and Commitments. The Effect of Protectionism on World Trade: January February March April May June July August September.
WTO-WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION. FOUNDATION WTO is an international organization which was founded on The WTO was born out of the GATT(General Agreement.
Victor H. Bouganim WCL, American University
Chapter 10: International Cooperation Among Nations International Business, 4 th Edition Griffin & Pustay.
Trade Policy Review Mechanism Collective appreciation and evaluation of individual trade policies of Member States. It cannot be used for the enforcement.
Thomas A. Hammer, President National Oilseed Processors Association NBB - Regulatory & Trade Committee June 18, 2014.
China — Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Automobiles from the United States WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: DISPUTE DS440 By: Joanna Zaffaroni.
0 Dispute Resolution Case Study: China v. U.S. (A/D on Shrimp) (DS 422) (Panel 2012) October 7, 2015 ITRN 603 – Evan Setzer, Marin Sullivan, Gary Szabo,
DISPUTE RESOLUTION CASE STUDY CHINA - U.S. TIRES (DS399) (AB2011) TYLER CAMPBELL LISA CASTRO CINTHYA CHATÉ.
10-1 Chapter 10: International Cooperation Among Nations International Business, 4 th Edition Griffin & Pustay.
SPS Workshop Taipei, 5-6/12/2001 WTO Dispute Settlement and the SPS Agreement.
Rami Alshaibani Corey Albright Daniela Abril
Team 5 Marina Gayed Miray Gooding Orbora Gumatho
US-CHINA DSU CASE STUDY: Electronic Payment Services
United States — Measures Affecting Imports of Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from China By Firas Bannourah, Judith Bartkowski and Hennewaah.
Information Technology Agreement (ITA)
Package of agreements annexed to the WTO Agreement
The WTO The Uruguay Round Trade Liberalization
INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
Complaints under the DSU
United States — Countervailing and Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Products from China Bijou, Promito, Vasily.
U.S.- China Automotive Countervailing Duty Dispute DS440
MEASURES RELATED TO THE EXPORTATION OF TUNGSTEN & MOLYBDENUM
The WTO-Agreement on Import Licensing
Presentation transcript:

US vs. EU- Information Technology Case DS375 (DS376/DS377 ) Professor: Stuart Malawer ITRN-603 Soujanya Komatreddy G00503353

Back Drop “The United States, Japan and Taiwan complained to the WTO in 2008 that EU customs authorities had reimposed tariffs on three Information Technology products after new features were added”. The Three Products in question are Flat-Panel Displays Multi-Function Printers TV set-top boxes. “The EU imported about $11 billion worth of the three products from all suppliers in 2007, in many cases collecting tariffs of 6 to 14 percent”.

The EC & these Products The EU said- not High-Tech According to the EC - The EC declined three categories of goods: television cable converter boxes that also deliver the Internet, flat-panel computer screens, and printers that also scan, fax or copy. The EU argued that these products were old-fashioned consumer goods, not cutting-edge high-tech products. Under the EU's tariff classifications, these goods were considered ordinary cable boxes, TV screens and photocopiers, subject to tariffs between 6% and 14%. The dispute among the signatories was over the definition of "high-tech." The EU's total imports of these products were valued at $11 billion in 2007, according to the ITIC

The US and others - lobby to reduce Tariffs The U.S., Japan and Taiwan for years lobbied the EU to reduce these tariffs. The three countries are home to some of the world's largest makers of electronic goods. Companies with operations in the U.S., such as Hewlette-Packard Co., Dell Inc. and Japan-based Canon Inc., lobbied for the EU to lower its tariffs Also lobbied the U.S. government to take the case to the WTO. The EU was "manipulating tariffs to discourage technological innovation." - says U.S. trade official The EU declined to remove the tariffs.

The US and others – their Claim The three countries claim that the EC is obliged to grant duty-free treatment under the European Communities Schedule of Concessions to the GATT 1994 ("the EC Schedule") under Information Technology Agreement or "ITA” “The primary purpose of the case is not just the three products that are under consideration, but to preserve the ITA, which starting in 1997 eliminated tariffs on most information technology products” Pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU and Article XXII:1 of the GATT 1994 regarding the tariff treatment to information technology products: The United States and Japan requested Consultations with European Communities on 28 May 2008 Chinese Taipei (Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu) requested Consultations with European Communities on 12 June 2008

WTO - Information Technology Agreement - ITA A multilateral agreement emerging from the Uruguay Round, eliminating tariffs on specific technology and telecommunications products by signatory countries. The most favored nation (MFN) principle, mandates the benefits of ITA tariff liberalization to be extended to all WTO members. Objectives : Increased trade, global diffusion of information technology, and enhanced global economic growth and welfare through trade liberalization for information technology (IT) products. Concluded in late 1996 with 29 WTO member countries and now includes 72 WTO members

Global Trade covered by ITA Global trade in products covered by the ITA increased to $4 trillion in 2008 from $1.2 trillion in 1996.

Panel - Establishment & Composition On 23 September 2008, the Dispute Settlement Body established a single Panel pursuant to the joint panel request of the United States, Japan and Chinese Taipei. Document WT/DS375/8, WT/DS376/8 and WT/DS377/6 in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU. On 12 January 2009 and 22 January 2009 – composition of the Panel established by the Director General. Countries that participated in Panel Proceedings as Third Parties: Australia; Brazil; China; Costa Rica; Hong Kong, China; India; Japan (in respect of the United States' and Chinese Taipei's complaints); Korea; the Philippines; Singapore; Chinese Taipei (in respect of the United States' and Japan's complaints); Thailand; Turkey; the United States (in respect of Japan's and Chinese Taipei's complaints); and Vietnam

Measures at Issue EC raised concerns on the status of the complaining parties as third parties to this dispute EC objected to the inclusion of its member States as responding parties of this dispute. Products at Issue: Flat panel display devices – FPDs Set-top Boxes having a Communication function – STBCs Multifunctional Digital Machines – MFMs Pursuant to Article 13.1 of the DSU, the World Customs Organization ("WCO") Secretariat replied for certain issues relating to the Harmonized System ("HS") – on 29 September 2009

The EC’s Inconsistence - Findings FPDs and MFMs: EC - Inconsistence with Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 by according certain FPDs treatment less favorable than that provided in the EC Schedule”. Imposed ordinary customs duties, or other duties and charges, in excess of those set forth in the EC Schedule. STBCs EC inconsistence with Articles X:1 and X:2 – Did not promptly publish the Explanatory Notes identified above in respect to these products Applied duties to these products using the approach specified in these Explanatory Notes prior to the date of their publication.

Decision by the WTO – the US hails Victory On 16 August 2010 - The World Trade Organization ordered the European Union to strike down import tariffs on billions of dollars of high-tech goods or risk retaliatory trade sanctions. The arbitration panel requested "the European Communities to bring the relevant measures into conformity with its obligations.“ U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk hailed the decision as "an important victory for U.S. technology manufacturers and workers.“ “This ruling affirms the principle that changes in technology are not an excuse to apply new duties to products covered by the Information Technology Agreement”. Biggest wins yet for the U.S. at the Geneva-based trade body in dollar terms

The EU- WTO Appeal period 60 days to appeal. WTO will rule within three months in case the EU appeals. EU officials may renegotiate the entire ITA. “If the EU doesn't respect the WTO ruling and lift the tariffs, the U.S., Japan and Taiwan would have the right to impose tariffs on goods made in Europe—including cars, pharmaceuticals and cheese—valued at an amount equal to the tariffs that the WTO has now ruled illegal.”

Panel and Appellate Proceeding Timeline 28 May 2008: US Request for Consultations 18 August 2008: US, Japan, Taipei request the establishment of a panel. 23 September 2008: Establishment of panel 12 January 2009: US, Japan, Taipei requested the Director-General to compose the panel. 4 February 2009 : Parties and the Panel held their organizational meeting 25 August 2009: Panel issued the draft descriptive part of its Panel Reports 8 September 2009: Panel received comments from the parties on the draft descriptive part 11 June 2010 - Panel issued its Interim Reports to the parties 23 July 2010 Panel Issued Final Reports to the parties 16 August 2010 : Decision Made

Articles and Agreements cited: Article 2: Administration – “Administer these rules and procedures and, except as otherwise provided in a covered agreement, the consultation and dispute settlement provisions of the covered agreements. Accordingly, the DSB shall have the authority to establish panels, adopt panel and Appellate Body reports, maintain surveillance of implementation of rulings and recommendations, and authorize suspension of concessions and other obligations under the covered agreements. With respect to disputes arising under a covered agreement which is a Plurilateral Trade Agreement, the term “Member” as used herein shall refer only to those Members that are parties to the relevant Plurilateral Trade Agreement. Where the DSB administers the dispute settlement provisions of a Plurilateral Trade Agreement, only those Members that are parties to that Agreement may participate in decisions or actions taken by the DSB with respect to that dispute”. Article 4: Consultations – “ Members affirm their resolve to strengthen and improve the effectiveness of the consultation procedures employed by Members”. Article 10: Third Parties – “The interests of the parties to a dispute and those of other Members under a covered agreement at issue in the dispute shall be fully taken into account during the panel process”. Article 13: Right to Seek Information – “Each panel shall have the right to seek information and technical advice from any individual or body which it deems appropriate. However, before a panel seeks such information or advice from any individual or body within the jurisdiction of a Member it shall inform the authorities of that Member. A Member should respond promptly and fully to any request by a panel for such information as the panel considers necessary and appropriate. Confidential information which is provided shall not be revealed without formal authorization from the individual, body, or authorities of the Member providing the information”. Article 22: Compensation and the Suspension of Concessions - “Compensation and the suspension of concessions or other obligations are temporary measures available in the event that the recommendations and rulings are not implemented within a reasonable period of time. However, neither compensation nor the suspension of concessions or other obligations is preferred to full implementation of a recommendation to bring a measure into conformity with the covered agreements. Compensation is voluntary and, if granted, shall be consistent with the covered agreements.”

Sources http://www.internationaltraderelations.com/Article.WTO%20Case%20(ITA%20Agrement)%20(WSJ%208.17.10).htm http://ca.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idCATRE67F2YK20100816 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65965720100610 http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news10_e/dsb_21sep10_e.htm http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/1250 http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2010/august/united-states-wins-wto-dispute-eu-high-tech-product http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/edmmisc232add33_en.pdf The WTO – European Communities and its member States – Tariff Treatment of certain Information Technology Products – Reports of the Panel