|espaŮol - franÁais - portuguÍs|
UNITED STATES - FINAL COUNTERVAILING DUTY
Report of the Appellate Body
Notification of an Appeal by the United States
The following notification, dated 21 October 2003, sent by the United States to the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), is circulated to Members. This notification also constitutes the Notice of Appeal, filed on the same day with the Appellate Body, pursuant to the Working Procedures for Appellate Review.
Pursuant to Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, the United States hereby notifies its decision to re-file its appeal to the Appellate Body of certain issues of law covered in the Report of the Panel on United States - Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada (WT/DS257/R) and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel.
1. The United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panelís legal conclusion that the determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce ("USDOC") of the existence and amount of benefit to the producers of the subject merchandise was inconsistent with Articles 14 and 14(d) of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("SCM Agreement"), and that therefore the imposition of countervailing duties on the basis of that determination was inconsistent with Articles 14, 14(d), 10, and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement. (Panel Report, paras. 7.65 and 8.1(b).) These findings are in error, and are based on erroneous findings on issues of law and related legal interpretations, including, for example,
2. The United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panelís legal conclusion that the lack of a "pass-through" analysis with respect to transactions for log and lumber inputs between producers of the subject merchandise was inconsistent with Article 10 of the SCM Agreement and Article VI:3 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"), and that therefore the U.S. imposition of countervailing duties was inconsistent with Articles 10 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement and Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994 (paras. 7.99 and 8.1(c)). These findings are in error, and are based on erroneous findings on issues of law and related legal interpretations, including, for example,
199 See e.g., paras. 7.58 and 7.60.
200 See e.g., para. 7.64.
201 See e.g., paras. 7.97 and 7.98.
202 See e.g., para. 7.99.