Eu Trade Agreement With Argentina

At the DSB meeting of 23 November 2016, the European Union informed the DSB that, in accordance with Article 21(3) of the DSU, it intended to implement the recommendations and decisions of the DSB in that dispute. On 9 December 2016, the European Union and Argentina informed the DSD that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time for the implementation of the DSD recommendations and decisions was 9 months and 15 days. Accordingly, the reasonable period of time expires on 10 August 2017. The day before, on 9 August 2017, the European Union and Argentina had informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time would expire on 28 September 2017. In the same communication, the parties also notified the DSB of the procedures agreed in accordance with Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU (Sequencing Agreement). With regard to Article 2.2.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the Appellate Body found that this provision regulates the determination by the investigating authorities of the costs of manufacturing the product concerned. The first sentence provides that “costs are generally calculated on the basis of the records of the exporter or producer under investigation”, where two conditions are met. The Appellate Body held that the second condition, “provided that such registrations . the costs related to the production and sale of the product concerned shall be considered reasonable and reasonable` if the records kept by the exporter or producer under investigation are reasonable and sufficient or reflect the costs incurred by the exporter or producer having a genuine connection with the production and sale of the product concerned. In the Appellate Body`s view, the interpretation of the proceeding was not contrary to its understanding of that provision.

The Appellate Body also agreed that the finding by the European Union authorities that domestic soybean prices in Argentina were “artificially low” due to Argentina`s system of export tax differentials did not in itself constitute a sufficient basis for concluding that producers` records do not adequately reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of biodiesel for soybeans. . . .

« »