Panel’s Holding Sample Clauses

Panel’s Holding. 52. The Panel therefore holds that to meet its burden to show a facility is a Covered Facility, the United States must show that the product or service referred to in Article 31.A-15 (i) and (ii) originates from the specific facility in question. Here, the United States would have to show that the San Xxxxxx mine exported its production to the United States. The Panel finds, however, that the United States did not meet its burden to show that the San Xxxxxx mine is a Covered Facility under 31.A-15.(i), because it showed no evidence that the San Xxxxxx mine individually “produces a good or supplies a service traded between the Parties.” That is, it only showed that IMMSA’s mines as a group export to the United States. 53. Article 31.A-15(ii) presents a more complicated situation. Here, too, the United States made no showing that the San Xxxxxx mine specifically produces for the Mexican market, only that IMMSA as a group produces for the Mexican market. However, the evidentiary record includes information that does make this showing.71 In seeking to refute the United States claim that the San Xxxxxx mine is a Covered Facility under Article 31-A.15(ii), XXXXX stated, albeit without evidence, that its production from the San Xxxxxx mine was in fact captured internally for IMMSA’s own consumption, presumably in Mexico.72 Given that the nature of the verification 71 As indicated by IMMSA, all the production from the San Xxxxxx mine is captively consumed by other IMMSA- affiliated facilities located in Mexico, which shows that the San Xxxxxx mine does indeed sell in Mexico and prima facie competes with other suppliers in the Mexican market. See NGE submission by IMMSA, para. 102. Furthermore, regarding why production by affiliated companies within a group for internal consumption still competes with domestic and imported goods, see WTO Appellate Body Report, US - Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan, para. 105. This document found that combed cotton yarn produced by vertically integrated fabric producers for their own use was “directly competitive” with combed cotton yarn imported from Pakistan. 72 See Mexico’s opening statement at the hearing, para.56. proceeding is such that the Panel is charged with investigating and gathering facts, the Panel considers this acknowledgment to be sufficient to meet the United States burden. In this sense, albeit submitted after the initial Request for a Panel, IMMSA has provided during the verifica...

Panel’s Holding. 100. The Panel finds that while there is some confusion in the arguments of the Parties, in fact it would appear that they agree on a fundamental premise, namely: that footnote 2 of Article 31- A.2 of the USMCA refers to Denials of Rights that occur under the 2019 LFT or other currently in effect laws that comply with Annex 23-A. It does not apply to prior versions of the 2019 LFT or other laws not currently in force. The Panel agrees with this interpretation of the Mechanism. The Parties also agree that acts that occur prior to the entry into force of the Agreement do not fall within the scope of the Mechanism.