Mexico definitive countervailing measures on olive oil from the european communities



Download 0.83 Mb.
Page7/49
Date23.02.2021
Size0.83 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   49

mexico


        1. Mexico requests the Panel to reject all of the claims and arguments raised by the European Communities in the proceeding. In particular, Mexico requests that the Panel find:

  1. with regard to initiation, that Mexico acted in a manner consistent with Articles 11.4 and 16.1 of the SCM Agreement because Economía properly determined, based on sufficient facts in the application, that Fortuny was the sole domestic producer and was representative of the Mexican domestic industry19;




  1. with regard to the duration of the investigation, that Mexico acted consistently with the provisions of Article 11.11 of the SCM Agreement because although the investigation lasted more than 18 months, there were "exceptional circumstances": the delays resulted from Economía's acceptance of requests for extensions by interested exporters, so the rights of interested parties were not adversely affected20;




  1. with regard to the non-confidential summaries of confidential information, that Mexico acted in a manner consistent with Article 12.4.1 of the SCM Agreement because there were sufficiently detailed public summaries of all confidential information, and because of Mexico's regime for access to the confidential information on the record21;




  1. with regard to the disclosure of the essential facts that served as a basis for the decision to apply definitive measures, that Mexico acted in a manner consistent with Article 12.8 of the SCM Agreement because interested parties may be informed of the essential facts in a number of ways. The essential facts were disclosed in the Preliminary Resolution, which described in detail the treatment of information, arguments and evidence furnished by the parties, and the reasons for information having been taken into account or rejected22;




  1. with regard to the invitation for consultations prior to initiation of the investigation, that Mexico acted consistently with Article 13.1 of the SCM Agreement because Economía invited the European Communities for consultations prior to the date of initiation23;




  1. with regard to the alleged failure to calculate the benefit conferred on the recipient pursuant to Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement and to apply the method used to each particular case in a transparent way which is adequately explained, in violation of Article 14 of the SCM Agreement, that: (a) there is no provision in the SCM Agreement to indicate that a "pass-through" analysis is required, (b) as Economía correctly found that the subsidy was contingent on the production of olive oil, there was no need to analyze the transfer of the subsidy from olive growers to the producers of the olive oil; and (c) the methodology to calculate the subsidy margin used by Economía was correct24;




  1. with regard to Economía's definition of the domestic industry, that Mexico acted consistently with Article 16 of the SCM Agreement and did not violate Article VI:6 of the GATT 1994, because the European Communities failed to present a prima facie case of violation; and that, in any case, Economía made an exhaustive examination of all matters that might have been relevant to the evaluation of injury to the domestic industry and all the evidence reviewed pointed to the conclusion that the domestic industry was composed of Fortuny25;




  1. with regard to Economía's determination of injury, that Economía undertook its analysis of injury consistently with Article 15.1 and 15.4 of the SCM Agreement, and did not violate Article VI:6 of the GATT 1994, because Economía complied with Article 15.1 and 15.2 of the SCM Agreement by undertaking an objective examination based on positive evidence of the effect of the subsidized imports on prices, and Economía did examine all of the relevant factors listed in Article 15.4 of the SCM Agreement in its examination of the impact of the subsidized imports on the domestic industry26;




  1. with regard to Economía's consideration of "other known factors", that the European Communities has failed to present a prima facie case and that, in any event, Economía properly considered, as required by Article 15.5 of the SCM Agreement, any known factors, other than the allegedly subsidized imports, which were causing injury to the domestic industry27; and




  1. with regard to the investigation on imports of an agricultural product outside the circumstances contemplated in Article 13(b)(i) of the Agreement on Agriculture, that the European Communities has not presented a prima facie case and, in any event, that Economía exercised due restraint in the initiation of the investigation; that the obligation to show "due restraint" did not apply to any action in the investigation other than the initiation, and that the obligations contained in Article 13(b)(i) only applied to the initiation and not to any other aspects of the investigation on olive oil given that the Article expired on 31 December 2003 and thus was not applicable after the initiation of the investigation.28






  1. Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   49




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page