Mexico tax measures on soft drinks and other beverages


Mexico's Request to Complete the Analysis



Download 250.01 Kb.
Page16/18
Date23.02.2021
Size250.01 Kb.
1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18

Mexico's Request to Complete the Analysis


      1. Mexico requests the Appellate Body to complete the analysis by examining whether Mexico's measures are "necessary", within the meaning of Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994, and meet the requirements of the chapeau of that Article.63 Mexico's request is premised on the Appellate Body reversing the Panel's conclusion that the measures are not designed "to secure compliance with laws or regulations" within the meaning of Article XX(d). We have upheld the Panel's conclusion that Mexico's measures do not constitute measures "to secure compliance with laws or regulations" within the meaning of Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994. Therefore, the premise on which Mexico's request is predicated is not fulfilled and, consequently, it is not necessary for us to complete the analysis as requested by Mexico.64
  • Mexico's Claim under Article 11 of the DSU 65


        1. Mexico argues, "separately and in addition"66 to the previous errors, that the Panel failed to make "an objective assessment of the facts", as required by Article 11 of the DSU, in finding that "Mexico has not established that its measures contribute to securing compliance in the circumstances of this case."67 Mexico argues that "[t]he evidence on the record demonstrates that the effects of the measures at issue have contributed to securing compliance in the circumstances of this case, by changing the dynamic of the NAFTA dispute and forcing the United States to pay attention to Mexico's grievances."68 The United States submits that, contrary to Mexico's contention, the Panel did not "ignore" arguments or evidence submitted by Mexico.69 The United States further explains that, in any event, Mexico's claim under Article 11 of the DSU "appears to be no more than a reiteration of its legal arguments that its ... measures are designed to 'secure compliance'".70

        2. In Section B.1 above, we held that Mexico's measures do not constitute measures "to secure compliance with laws or regulations", within the meaning of Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994. Therefore, Mexico's claim under Article 11 of the DSU is predicated on an interpretation of Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994 that we have found to be incorrect. Since Mexico's measures cannot be justified under Article XX(d) as a matter of law, we reject Mexico's claim under Article 11 of the DSU.



  • Share with your friends:
  • 1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18




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

        Main page