Articles 3.1(A) And 3.2 Of The Scm Agreement

Posted on

The Appellate Body also found that by acting inconsistently with Articles 10.1 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the Subsidy Agreement, the United States failed to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB and, in particular, failed to bring its measures into conformity with the Agreement on Agriculture and „immediately withdrew the subsidy“. 5.60 In Canada`s view, the relevant ordinary meaning of „bound“ is „limitation or limitation to or to an act, etc.; Limit or restrict behaviour, location, conditions, etc.“ 120 Thus, it must be demonstrated to Canada that export or export earnings must be a precondition for the granting of a subsidy in order for it to be prohibited under Article 3(1)(a). The fact that exports are taking place or that increased exports have been planned (without the subsidy having been conditional on export) does not make a subsidy prohibited. . . .