|Short Title||Full Case Title and Citation|
|Argentina – Ceramic Tiles||Panel Report, Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Ceramic Floor Tiles from Italy, WT/DS189/R, adopted 5 November 2001|
|Brazil – Aircraft (Article 21.5 – Canada II)||Panel Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft – Second Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU, WT/DS46/RW/2, adopted 23 August 2001|
|Canada – Aircraft||Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, WT/DS70/AB/R, adopted 20 August 1999, DSR 1999:III, 1377|
|EC – Bed Linen||Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India, WT/DS141/R, adopted 12 March 2001, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, WT/DS141/AB/R|
|EC – Hormones||Appellate Body Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 13 February 1998, DSR 1998:I, 135|
|EC – Tube and Pipe Fittings||Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil, WT/DS219/R, 7 March 2003 [appealed]|
|Egypt – Steel Rebar||Panel Report, Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey, WT/DS211/R, adopted 1 October 2002|
|Guatemala – Cement II||Panel Report, Guatemala – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Grey Portland Cement from Mexico, WT/DS156/R, adopted 17 November 2000, DSR 2000:XI, 5295|
|India – Patents (US)||Appellate Body Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, WT/DS50/AB/R, adopted 16 January 1998, DSR 1998:I, 9|
|India – Quantitative Restrictions||Appellate Body Report, India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products, WT/DS90/AB/R, adopted 22 September 1999, DSR 1999:IV, 1763|
|Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II||Appellate Body Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996, DSR 1996:I, 97|
|Mexico – Corn Syrup||Panel Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States, WT/DS132/R and Corr.1, adopted 24 February 2000, DSR 2000:III, 1345|
|Thailand – H-Beams||Appellate Body Report, Thailand – Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland, WT/DS122/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2001|
|US – Canadian Pork||Panel Report, United States – Countervailing Duties on Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Pork from Canada, adopted 11 July 1991, BISD 38S/30.|
|US – Countervailing Measures on Certain EC Products||Panel Report, United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products from the European Communities, WT/DS212/R, adopted 8 January 2003, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, WT/DS212/AB/R|
|US – Export Restraints||Panel Report, United States – Measures Treating Exports Restraints as Subsidies, WT/DS194/R and Corr.2, adopted 23 August 2001|
|US – Hot-Rolled Steel||Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan, WT/DS184/AB/R, adopted 23 August 2001|
|US – Lamb||Appellate Body Report, United States – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia, WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R, adopted 16 May 2001|
|US – Lead and Bismuth II||Appellate Body Report, United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom, WT/DS138/AB/R, adopted 7 June 2000, DSR 2000:V, 2601|
|US – Offset Act (Byrd Amendment)||Appellate Body Report, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, WT/DS217/AB/R, WT/DS234/AB/R, adopted 27 January 2003|
|US – Shrimp||Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VII, 2755|
|US – Softwood Lumber III||Panel Report, United States – Preliminary Determinations with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada, WT/DS236/R, adopted 1 November 2002|
"To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Canada in document WT/DS257/3, the matter referred by Canada to the DSB in that document, and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements".
"If there is no agreement on the panelists within 20 days after the date of the establishment of a Panel, at the request of either party, the Director-General, in consultation with the Chairman of the DSB and the Chairman of the relevant Council or Committee, shall determine the composition of the panel by appointing the panelists whom the Director-General considers most appropriate in accordance with any relevant special or additional rules or procedures of the covered agreement or covered agreements which are at issue in the dispute, after consulting with the parties to the dispute. The Chairman of the DSB shall inform the Members of the composition of the panel thus formed no later than 10 days after the date the Chairman receives such a request".
· find that the initiation of USDOC's investigation and the definitive countervailing duties imposed as a result violate Articles 10, 11.4, and 32.1 of SCM Agreement;
· find that USDOC'sinvestigation and the Final Determination, and the definitive countervailing duties imposed as a result violate Articles 1.2, 10, 12.1, 12.3, 12.8, 14, 14(d), 19.1, 19.4 and 32.1 of SCM Agreement and Article VI:3 of GATT 1994; and
· recommend that the US bring its measures into conformity with its WTO obligations, including by revoking the countervailing duty order, ceasing to impose countervailing duties and refunding the countervailing duties imposed as a result of the Lumber IV investigation and the Final Determination.
Provincial Tenures "Provide" Timber
Comparing the Government’s Price for a Good to the Fair Market Value of the Good in the Country of Provision Is Consistent with Article 14(d) of the SCM
Private Prices in Canada Did Not Provide a Reliable Basis to Determine Fair Market Value
Prices for Comparable Timber in Northern US States, Properly Adjusted, Provide a Reasonable Basis for Assessing the Fair Market Value of Timber in Canada
The SCM Does Not Define "Benefit" in Terms of Increased Output or Lower Prices for the Subject Merchandise and Does Not Create an Exception for Natural Resource Inputs
· first, Article 14(d) requires the use of benchmarks that are based on prevailing market conditions in the country of provision;
· second, substantial evidence of prevailing market conditions in Canada that could have been used as benchmarks to determine "adequacy of remuneration" was improperly rejected; and
· third, the US has offered no valid defence of its actions.
· use of a manifestly incorrect log scale conversion factor;
· massive inflation of the subsidy amount used in the numerator in its subsidy per unit calculation; and
· understatement of the denominator in the flawed calculation methodology it chose.