Dispute settlement reports 2019. Volume II, Pages 343-1098 / World Trade Organization.

Format:

Book

Contributor:

World Trade Organization, copyright holder.

Language:

English

Subjects (All):

Foreign trade regulation--Cases.

Foreign trade regulation.

Tariff--Law and legislation--Cases.

Tariff.

Competition, Unfair--Cases.

Competition, Unfair.

Dispute resolution (Law)--Cases.

Dispute resolution (Law).

Physical Description:

1 online resource (pages 343-1098) : digital, PDF file(s).

Edition:

1st ed.

Place of Publication:

Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2021.

Summary:

These are the WTO's authorized and paginated reports in English. They are an essential addition to the library of all practising trade lawyers and a useful tool for students and academics worldwide working in the field of international economic or trade law. DSR 2019: Volume II contains the panel report on 'Brazil - Certain Measures Concerning Taxation and Charges' (WT/DS472, WT/DS497).

Contents:

Cover

Title page

Half-title

Copyright information

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BRAZIL - CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNINGTAXATION AND CHARGES

Reports of the Panel

LIST OF ANNEXES

CASES CITED IN THESE REPORTS

TABLE OF EXHIBITS CITED IN THESE REPORTS

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THESE REPORTS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Complaints by the European Union and Japan

1.2 Panel Establishment and Composition

1.3 Panel Proceedings

1.3.1 General

1.3.2 Working procedures on Business Confidential Information (BCI)

2. FACTUAL ASPECTS

2.1 General Description of Relevant Aspects of the Brazilian Tax System

2.2 The Measures at Issue

2.2.1 The Informatics programme

2.2.1.1 Introduction

2.2.1.2 Tax treatment

2.2.1.3 Product coverage

2.2.1.4 Eligible companies

2.2.1.5 Requirements for obtaining the tax treatment

2.2.1.6 Related memorandum

2.2.2 The PADIS programme

2.2.2.1 Introduction

2.2.2.2 Tax treatment

2.2.2.3 Product coverage

2.2.2.4 Eligible companies

2.2.2.5 Requirements for eligibility

2.2.2.6 Related memorandum

2.2.3 The PATVD programme

2.2.3.1 Introduction

2.2.3.2 Tax treatment

2.2.3.3 Product coverage

2.2.3.4 Eligible companies

2.2.3.5 Requirements for eligibility

2.2.3.6 Related memorandum

2.2.4 The Digital Inclusion programme

2.2.4.1 Introduction

2.2.4.2 Tax treatment

2.2.4.3 Product coverage

2.2.4.4 Eligible companies

2.2.4.5 Related memoranda

2.2.5 The INOVAR-AUTO programme

2.2.5.1 Introduction

2.2.5.2 Tax treatment

2.2.5.3 Product coverage

2.2.5.4 Beneficiaries

2.2.5.5 Requirements for eligibility

2.2.5.6 Monitoring system

2.2.5.7 Related memorandum

2.2.6 The PEC programme

2.2.6.1 Introduction

2.2.6.2 Tax treatment

2.2.6.3 Product coverage

2.2.6.4 Eligible companies.

2.2.6.5 Requirements for eligibility

2.2.6.6 Related memorandum

2.2.7 The RECAP programme

2.2.7.1 Introduction

2.2.7.2 Tax treatment

2.2.7.3 Product coverage

2.2.7.4 Eligible companies

2.2.7.5 Requirements for eligibility

2.2.7.6 Related memorandum

3. PARTIES' REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

5. ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES

6. INTERIM REVIEW

6.1 General Issues and Editorial Matters

6.2 Provisions Pertaining to Developing Countries

6.3 The Scope of the Parties' Requests for Review of the Interim Reports

6.4 The "in-house" Argument

6.5 Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement

6.6 Confidentiality of the Interim Reports

7. FINDINGS

7.1 Overview of the Measures and Claims, and the Panel's Order of Analysis

7.1.1 The measures at issue

7.1.1.1 The Panel's terms of reference

7.1.1.2 The categories of products concerned by the various taxes at issue

7.1.2 Overview of the relationship between the complaining parties' multiple claims

7.1.2.1 Differences in scope between Articles III:2, III:4 and III:5 of the GATT 1994

7.1.2.2 Differences in scope between Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement, and Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement

7.1.3 Order of analysis of the complaining parties' multiple claims

7.2 Brazil's General Defences

7.2.1 Whether the challenged programmes are outside the scope of Article III of the GATT 1994, Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement, and Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement, because they regulate production and not products

7.2.2 Whether Article III:8(b) of the GATT 1994 exempts certain of the challenged measures from the disciplines of Article III of the GATT 1994 and related provisions

7.3 The ICT Programmes

7.3.1 Claims under Article III:2 of the GATT 1994

7.3.1.1 Introduction.

7.3.1.2 Whether the products that are the subject of the challenged measures are "domestic products" in the sense of Article III of the GATT 1994, Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement, and Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement

7.3.1.3 Whether the imported and domestic products are "like products" within the meaning of Article III:2, first sentence

7.3.1.4 Whether imported products are "taxed in excess of" like domestic products, within the meaning of Article III:2, first sentence

7.3.1.5 Conclusion

7.3.1.6 Judicial economy with respect to Japan's claim under Article III:2, second sentence

7.3.2 Claims under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994

7.3.2.1 Claims with respect to the conditions for accreditation, certain calculations related to required R&amp

D expenditures, and administrative burden under the ICT programmes

7.3.2.2 Claims with respect to the alleged imposition, under the terms of the PPBs, or similar requirements, of an obligation to use domestic inputs in the production of the incentivized products under the ICT programmes

7.3.2.3 Conclusion

7.3.3 Claims under Article III:5 of the GATT 1994

7.3.3.1 Introduction

7.3.3.2 The legal standard

7.3.3.3 Analysis by the Panel

7.3.3.4 Conclusion

7.3.4 Claims under Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement

7.3.4.1 Introduction

7.3.4.2 Whether the ICT programmes are trade-related investment measures within the meaning of the TRIMs Agreement

7.3.4.3 Whether the ICT programmes are TRIMs that are inconsistent with Article III of the GATT 1994, and therefore inconsistent Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement

7.3.4.4 Conclusion

7.3.5 Claims under Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement

7.3.5.1 Introduction.

7.3.5.2 Whether the tax exemptions, reductions and suspensions granted under the ICT programmes are contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods within the meaning of Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement and thus prohibited

7.3.5.3 Whether the tax exemptions, reductions and suspensions granted under the ICT programmes constitute subsidies within the meaning of the SCM Agreement

7.3.5.4 Whether the subsidies granted under the ICT programmes are specific within the meaning of Article 2 of the SCM Agreement

7.3.5.5 Conclusion

7.3.6 Brazil's invocation of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 to justify certain inconsistencies in respect of the PATVD programme

7.3.6.1 Introduction

7.3.6.2 Description of the legal test

7.3.6.3 Whether the discriminatory aspects of the PATVD programme are provisionally justified under Article XX(a)

7.3.6.4 Whether the discriminatory aspects of the PATVD programme satisfy the requirements ofthe chapeau of Article XX

7.3.6.5 Conclusion

7.4 The INOVAR-AUTO Programme

7.4.1 Claims under Article III:2 of the GATT 1994

7.4.1.1 Introduction

7.4.1.2 Reduced IPI tax rates

7.4.1.3 Presumed IPI tax credits

7.4.1.4 Article III:2, second sentence, of the GATT 1994

7.4.2 Claims under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994

7.4.2.1 Introduction

7.4.2.2 Whether the measures at issue are laws, regulations, or requirements affecting the internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use of domestic and imported products

7.4.2.3 Whether the relevant imported and domestic products are "like products

7.4.2.4 Whether imported products are accorded "treatment less favourable" than that accorded to like domestic products

7.4.2.5 Conclusion

7.4.3 Claims under Article III:5 of the GATT 1994

7.4.3.1 Introduction

7.4.3.2 The legal standard.

7.4.3.3 Analysis by the Panel

7.4.3.4 Conclusion

7.4.4 Claims under Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement

7.4.4.1 Introduction

7.4.4.2 Whether the INOVAR-AUTO programme is a trade-related investment measure within the meaning of the TRIMs Agreement

7.4.4.3 Whether the INOVAR-AUTO programme is a TRIM that is inconsistent with Article III of the GATT 1994, and therefore inconsistent Article2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement

7.4.4.4 Conclusion

7.4.5 Claims under Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement

7.4.5.1 Introduction

7.4.5.2 Whether the reductions through presumed taxcredits granted under the INOVAR-AUTO programme are contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods within the meaning of Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement, and thus prohibited

7.4.5.3 Whether the reductions through presumed tax credits granted under the INOVAR-AUTO programme constitute subsidies within the meaning of the SCM Agreement

7.4.5.4 Whether the subsidies granted under the INOVAR-AUTO programme are specific within the meaning of Article 2 of the SCM Agreement

7.4.5.5 Conclusion

7.4.6 Brazil's invocation of Article XX of the GATT 1994 to justify certain inconsistencies in respect of the INOVARAUTOprogramme

7.4.6.1 Introduction

7.4.6.2 Whether the discriminatory aspects of the INOVAR-AUTO programme are justified under Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994

7.4.6.3 Whether the discriminatory aspects of the INOVAR-AUTO programme are justified under Article XX(g)

7.4.7 Claims under Article I:1 of the GATT 1994

7.4.7.1 Introduction

7.4.7.2 Whether the tax reductions under Articles 21 and 22(I) of Decree 7,819/2012 fall within the scope of Article I:1 of the GATT 1994

7.4.7.3 Whether the relevant products at issue are "like" products

7.4.7.4 Whether the tax reductions at issue confer an "advantage.

7.4.7.5 Whether that advantage is not accorded "immediately" and "unconditionally" to other WTO Members.

Notes:

Title from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 09 Apr 2021).

ISBN:

1-108-99804-6

1-108-99100-9

OCLC:

1293259030