In US Clause Samples

In US. Cotton Yarn, which concerned a safeguard measure of the United States on imports of cotton yarn from Pakistan (see paragraph 53 below), the Panel found that the United States violated Article 6.2 by excluding from the scope of the "domestic industry" the vertically integrated fabric producers that produced yarn for their own internal use. The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding49, inter alia because the definition of domestic industry is "product-oriented and not producer-oriented, and […] the definition must be based on the products 50 produced by the domestic industry which are to be compared with the imported product in terms of their being like or directly competitive".51

In US. Wool Shirts and Blouses, months after US – Underwear, the Panel followed a different approach: "In our view, the wording of Article 6.2 and 6.3 of the ATC makes it clear that all relevant economic factors, namely, all those factors listed in Article 6.3 of the ATC, had to be addressed by CITA, whether subsequently discarded or not, with an appropriate explanation. The wording of paragraph 3, which reads '… the Member shall examine the effect of those imports on the state of the particular industry, as reflected in changes in such relevant economic variables as output, productivity, utilization of capacity, inventories, market share, exports, wages, employment, domestic prices, profits and investment.', (emphasis added) implies two requirements. First, the relevant economic variables must be examined. Second, output, productivity, utilization of capacity, etc. ... are relevant economic variables. The wording of Article 6.3 of the ATC '... the Member shall examine the effects ... on the state of the particular industry, as reflected in changes in such relevant economic variables as output, productivity, etc ' makes clear that each of the listed factors is not only relevant but must be examined. Effectively, the listed economic variables are examples of relevant economic variables, they are presumed to be 'relevant economic variables' and must be examined by the importing country in its determination." The wording of the first sentence of Article 6.3 of the ATC imposes on the importing Member the obligation to examine, at the time of its determination, at least all of the factors listed in that paragraph. The importing Member may decide – in its assessment of whether or not serious damage or actual threat thereof has been caused to the domestic industry – that some of these factors carry more or less weight. At a minimum, the importing Member must be able to demonstrate that it has considered the relevance or otherwise of each of the factors listed in Article 6.3 of the ATC. The last part of Article 6.3 of the ATC, which states that 'none of which, either alone or combined with other factors, can necessarily give decisive guidance', confirms that some consideration and a relevant and adequate explanation have to be provided of 77 G/TMB/R/64, paras. 23-24.

In US. Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Measures (China), the complainant made a claim under Article 19, but failed to specify a particular paragraph of Article 19 in its panel request. The Appellate Body, in addressing whether China's panel request was consistent with the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU, described the various provisions of Article 19. The Appellate Body stated:

In US. Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Measures (China), involving the same complainant and respondent as in US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China), the Panel addressed whether Article 19.3 "obliges an investigating authority to assess the existence of double remedies when concurrently imposing CVDs and anti-dumping duties calculated under an NME methodology and if so, whether such an obligation applies not only to administrative reviews, but also to original investigations, in the context of a retrospective system of duty assessment".12 The United States argued that the Appellate Body's interpretation in US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China) did not relate to the phrase "in the appropriate amounts" within Article 19.

In US. Customs Bond Directive, the Panel examined a claim that an enhanced bond requirement (EBR) for certain shrimp, imposed pursuant to the Amended Customs Bond Directive (Amended CBD) was inconsistent with Article 9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 19 of the SCM Agreement. The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that bonds provided under the Amended CBD are not anti-dumping duties or countervailing duties, fall outside the scope of Articles 9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and 19 of the SCM Agreement, and consequently are not inconsistent as such with Articles 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 and 9.3.1 of the Agreement nor with Articles 19.2, 19.3 and 19.4 of the SCM Agreement:3 "A bond under the Amended CBD secures the payment of a duty. A bond, by itself, is not a duty as it does not entail any transfer of money from the importer to the government. Therefore, the EBR imposed pursuant to the Amended CBD cannot be characterized as a 'duty' within the meaning of Article 9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 19 of the SCM Agreement."4

In US. Ripe Olives from Spain, the Panel rejected the European Union's argument that the USITC was prevented from considering sections of the market, i.e., customer groups in the context of its injury analysis, because those sections had not been explicitly included the USITC's definition of the domestic industry: 16.1. We find no support, however, for the different proposition espoused by the European Union, which is that an investigating authority may only consider sections of a market while undertaking an injury analysis when it has explicitly identified these sections in the definition of the domestic industry. There is no reason that an investigating authority's analysis of market segments would necessarily imply that the final injury determination was not made with respect to the domestic industry as defined by the investigating authority. We therefore disagree that the USITC's analysis of market segments posed a risk of distortion. In particular, in this case the three customer groups collectively represented the whole market. Their analysis by the USITC would thus not necessarily leave parts of the domestic industry unexamined. We therefore do not see any material risk of distortion arising from the fact that the USITC did not incorporate into its definition of the domestic industry reference to the various market segments it later analysed. … We consequently reject the European Union's claim that the USITC was prevented from considering customer groups because such customer groups were not explicitly referred to in the definition of the domestic industry."7

In US. Wool Shirts and Blouses, the Panel examined whether a certain United States transitional safeguard measure was consistent with Article 6. With respect to the relationship between Articles 2.4 and 6, the Panel indicated as follows: "Since we conclude that the safeguard action taken by the United States violated the provisions of Article 6 of the ATC, it is our view that the United States applied a restraint not authorized under the ATC, which, therefore, constitutes also a violation of Article 2.4 of the ATC."126 124 G/TMB/R/61, para. 53. 125 Panel Report, US – Underwear, paras. 7.15-7.16. 126 Panel Report, US – Wool Shirts and Blouses, para. 7.59. For same conclusion see Panel Report, US – Underwear, paras. 7.70-7.71

In US. Ripe Olives from Spain, the Panel disagreed with the European Union's argument that price undercutting was not, in and of itself, an effect on domestic prices: "[W]e disagree with the central premise of the European Union's argument: the proposition that price undercutting is not, in and of itself, an effect on domestic prices. … we find that the text of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 and Articles 15.1 and 15.2 does not support this interpretation. Rather, in our view, those provisions recognize that consideration of significant price undercutting under the second sentence of Article 3.2 and Article 15.2 on its own constitutes an 'examination of … the effect of the dumped imports on prices in the domestic market for like products' under Article 3.1 and Article 15.1. …

In US. Tài khoản tại Hoa Kz: Mã số thuế tại Hoa Kz: Hợp đồng ủy quyền đại diện tại Hoa Kz: Chủ sở hữu là tổ chức/cá nhân thuộc đối tượng chịu thuế của Chính phủ Hoa Kz sở hữu từ 10% trở lên: ☐ Cá nhân ☐ Tổ chức Khách hàng có phải là người nhận ủy thác của ủy thác nước ngoài hay không? ☐ Không ☐ Có Trường hợp Có, Qu{ khách vui lòng điền các thông tin sau: Tài sản ủy thác: Quyền sở hữu hưởng lợi tài sản ủy thác: Người liên lạc: Contact Person Chức vụ: Title Điện thoại công ty: Company Tel. (ext) Di động: Cell Phone Email: ☐ Internet Banking Tên truy cập Chức vụ: Xác thực bằng Mobile Xác thực bằng Email: ☐ Mobile Banking Họ tên: Chức vụ: Thẻ CCCD/CMND/ Hộ chiếu: Điện thoại: Họ tên: Chức vụ: Thẻ CCCD/CMND/ Hộ chiếu: Điện thoại: Khác: Lưu {: Trường hợp Tổ chức sử dụng các dịch vụ khác, tiến hành k{ kết Hợp đồng theo quy định hiện hành của Ngân hàng TMCP Quốc Dân cũng như pháp luật hiện hành của Việt Nam.