The Panel in Mexico Sample Clauses

The Panel in Mexico. Steel Pipes and Tubes looked at the relationship between Article 5.3 and Article 5.8. See paragraph 57 below.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
The Panel in Mexico. Steel Pipes and Tubes considered Guatemala's complaint regarding the sufficiency of evidence of alleged dumping pertaining to normal value. Guatemala did not raise any complaint concerning the evidence on export prices. Guatemala argued that because of the deficiencies in the normal value evidence, that evidence could not be compared on a "fair" basis with the export price evidence.32 In considering the evidence relating to normal value the Panel, in looking at the evidence on normal value as a whole, identified a number of inter-related concerns in respect of "the sufficiency of the nexus with producer/exporter pricing in the Guatemalan home market for the product under investigation;the isolated nature of the information in terms of temporal coverage, volume, and product coverage; and, as a result, the comparability of this evidence with that on export pricing."33 One of the main concerns was that none of the normal value evidence pertained to Tubac, "the only identified exporter, which accounted for almost all production and exports of the investigated product."34 The Panel went on to say: "We do not here mean to imply that, at the stage of initiation, an investigating authority must have pricing documentation from every domestic producer or exporter, or even any domestic producer or exporter … Nevertheless, dumping is a company- specific practice, and this is reflected in the Agreement's provisions concerning the determination of dumping in respect of particular producers or exporters … Where, as is the case here, it is obvious on its face that the normal value evidence before the authority at the time of initiation does not pertain to a producer or exporter and indeed pertains to a different level of trade, and may not even reflect products produced in the exporting country, the authority should make its best endeavours to verify that that evidence reflects the prevailing home market pricing at the level of producers and/or exporters."35
Sample 1
The Panel in Mexico. Steel Pipes and Xxxxx noted that while the Anti-Dumping Agreement did not set forth any express requirements regarding the choice of the period of investigation for the purpose of conducting an injury analysis, it considered that the Article 3.1 requirement to base a determination of injury on "positive evidence" and pursuant to an "objective examination" nevertheless imposed certain limitations on the discretion of an investigating authority. In this case the investigating authority had relied on temporal subsets within a period without providing sufficient explanation as to the reason why – something the Panel referred to as a "truncated temporal approach."48 The Panel also focussed on the "non-comprehensiveness and unreliability of the factual basis"49 used by the investigating authority. Finally, the Panel noted that simply because none of the interested parties questioned the selection of the period of investigation did not excuse the investigating authority from meeting its obligations under Article 3.1.50 The Panel 44 Appellate Body Report, Thailand – H-Beams, para. 114. 45 Appellate Body Report, Thailand – H-Beams, para. 118. 46 Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 167. 47 Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 171. 48 Panel Report, Mexico – Steel Pipes and Tubes, para. 7.252. 49 Panel Report, Mexico – Steel Pipes and Tubes, para. 7.260. 50 Panel Report, Mexico – Steel Pipes and Tubes, para. 7.259. thus concluded that the investigating authority was not able to "make an objective examination of positive evidence in reaching its affirmative injury determination."51 37. See also the material on "objective examination" below.
Sample 1
The Panel in Mexico. Corn Syrup noted that "a notice of preliminary or final determination must set forth explanations for all material elements of the determination. A notice of initiation, on the other hand, pursuant to Article 12.1, must set forth specific information regarding certain factors, but need not contain explanations of, or reasons for, the resolution of all questions of fact underlying the determination that there is sufficient evidence to justify initiation."7
Sample 1
The Panel in Mexico. Steel Pipes and Tubes considered Guatemala's complaint regarding the sufficiency of evidence of alleged dumping pertaining to normal value. Guatemala did not raise any complaint concerning the evidence on export prices. Guatemala argued that because of the deficiencies in the normal value evidence, that evidence could not be compared on a "fair" basis with the export price evidence.26 In considering the evidence relating to normal value the Panel, in looking at the evidence on normal value as a whole, identified a number of inter-related concerns in respect of "the sufficiency of the nexus with producer/exporter pricing in the Guatemalan home market for the product under investigation;the isolated nature of the information in terms of temporal coverage, volume, and product coverage; and, as a result, the comparability of this evidence with that on export pricing."27 One of the main concerns was that none of the normal value evidence pertained to Tubac, "the only identified exporter, which accounted for almost all production and exports of the investigated product."28 The Panel went on to say: 21 Panel Report, Argentina – Poultry Anti-Dumping Duties, para. 7.67. 22 Panel Report, Argentina – Poultry Anti-Dumping Duties, para. 7.78. 23 Panel Report, Argentina – Poultry Anti-Dumping Duties, para. 7.80. 24 Panel Report, Argentina – Poultry Anti-Dumping Duties, para. 7.84 (also stating that Article 5.3, read in light of Article 2.4, cannot be interpreted to require that data on normal value and export price cover identical periods of time).
Sample 1
The Panel in Mexico. Steel Pipes and Tubes found that the investigating authority in Mexico had failed to properly determine that there was sufficient evidence of injury to justify the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation: "We disagree with Mexico's argument that requiring, at the initiation stage, some corroboration of the import volume at the tariff line level that related to the product under investigation is tantamount to imposing a requirement that initiation evidence 32 Panel Report, Mexico – Steel Pipes and Tubes, para. 7.43. 33 Panel Report, Guatemala – Cement II, para. 8.45. 34 Panel Report, Guatemala – Cement II, para. 8.52. (same conclusion reached in Panel Report, Guatemala – Cement I, paras. 7.75-7.77 on which specific elements of dumping need to be supported by sufficient evidence under Article 5.3; Panel Report reversed in total by Appellate Body on procedural grounds as dispute not properly before the Panel; Panel Report adopted as reversed, WT/DSB/M/51, section 9(a)).
Sample 1
The Panel in Mexico. Steel Pipes and Xxxxx noted that while the Anti-Dumping Agreement did not set forth any express requirements regarding the choice of the period of investigation for the purpose of conducting an injury analysis, it considered that the Article 3.1 requirement to base a determination of injury on "positive evidence" and pursuant to an "objective examination" nevertheless imposed certain limitations on the discretion of an investigating authority. In this case the investigating authority had relied on temporal subsets within a period without providing sufficient explanation as to the reason why – something the Panel referred to as a "truncated temporal approach."49 The Panel also focussed on the "non-comprehensiveness and unreliability of the factual basis"50 used by the investigating authority. Finally, the Panel noted that simply because none of the interested parties questioned the selection of the period of investigation did not excuse the investigating authority from meeting its obligations under Article 3.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to The Panel in Mexico

  • No General Solicitation or Advertising in Regard to this Transaction Neither the Company nor any of its affiliates nor any person acting on its or their behalf (a) has conducted or will conduct any general solicitation (as that term is used in Rule 502(c) of Regulation D) or general advertising with respect to any of the Shares, or (b) made any offers or sales of any security or solicited any offers to buy any security under any circumstances that would require registration of the Common Stock under the Securities Act.

  • Subpoenas Directed to BellSouth Where BellSouth provides resold services or local switching for <<customer_name>>, BellSouth shall respond to subpoenas and court ordered requests delivered directly to BellSouth for the purpose of providing call detail records when the targeted telephone numbers belong to <<customer_name>> end users. Billing for such requests will be generated by BellSouth and directed to the law enforcement agency initiating the request. BellSouth shall maintain such information for <<customer_name>> end users for the same length of time it maintains such information for its own end users.

  • Reporting of Abuse, Neglect, or Exploitation Consistent with provisions of 33 V.S.A. §4913(a) and §6903, Party and any of its agents or employees who, in the performance of services connected with this agreement, (a) is a caregiver or has any other contact with clients and (b) has reasonable cause to believe that a child or vulnerable adult has been abused or neglected as defined in Chapter 49 or abused, neglected, or exploited as defined in Chapter 69 of Title 33 V.S.A. shall: as to children, make a report containing the information required by 33 V.S.A. §4914 to the Commissioner of the Department for Children and Families within 24 hours; or, as to a vulnerable adult, make a report containing the information required by 33 V.S.A. §6904 to the Division of Licensing and Protection at the Department of Disabilities, Aging, and Independent Living within 48 hours. Party will ensure that its agents or employees receive training on the reporting of abuse or neglect to children and abuse, neglect or exploitation of vulnerable adults.

  • INTERNATIONAL BOYCOTT PROHIBITION In accordance with Section 220-f of the Labor Law and Section 139-h of the State Finance Law, if this contract exceeds $5,000, the Contractor agrees, as a material condition of the contract, that neither the Contractor nor any substantially owned or affiliated person, firm, partnership or corporation has participated, is participating, or shall participate in an international boycott in violation of the federal Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 USC App. Sections 2401 et seq.) or regulations thereunder. If such Contractor, or any of the aforesaid affiliates of Contractor, is convicted or is otherwise found to have violated said laws or regulations upon the final determination of the United States Commerce Department or any other appropriate agency of the United States subsequent to the contract's execution, such contract, amendment or modification thereto shall be rendered forfeit and void. The Contractor shall so notify the State Comptroller within five (5) business days of such conviction, determination or disposition of appeal (2NYCRR 105.4).

  • ETHICS IN PUBLIC CONTRACTING This Contract incorporates by reference Article 9 of the Arlington County Purchasing Resolution, as well as all state and federal laws related to ethics, conflicts of interest or bribery, including the State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act (Code of Virginia § 2.2-3100 et seq.), the Virginia Governmental Frauds Act (Code of Virginia § 18.2-498.1 et seq.) and Articles 2 and 3 of Chapter 10 of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia, as amended (§ 18.2-438 et seq.). The Contractor certifies that its proposal was made without collusion or fraud; that it has not offered or received any kickbacks or inducements from any other offeror, supplier, manufacturer or subcontractor; and that it has not conferred on any public employee having official responsibility for this procurement any payment, loan, subscription, advance, deposit of money, services or anything of more than nominal value, present or promised, unless consideration of substantially equal or greater value was exchanged.

  • Foreign-Owned Companies in Connection with Critical Infrastructure If Texas Government Code, Section 2274.0102(a)(1) (relating to prohibition on contracts with certain foreign-owned companies in connection with critical infrastructure) is applicable to this Contract, pursuant to Government Code Section 2274.0102, Contractor certifies that neither it nor its parent company, nor any affiliate of Contractor or its parent company, is: (1) majority owned or controlled by citizens or governmental entities of China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or any other country designated by the Governor under Government Code Section 2274.0103, or (2) headquartered in any of those countries.

  • Non-Medical, Personalized Services The Practice shall also provide Members with the following non-medical services:

  • Vlastnictví Zdravotnické zařízení si ponechá a bude uchovávat Zdravotní záznamy. Zdravotnické zařízení a Zkoušející převedou na Zadavatele veškerá svá práva, nároky a tituly, včetně práv duševního vlastnictví k Důvěrným informacím (ve smyslu níže uvedeném) a k jakýmkoli jiným Studijním datům a údajům.

  • Eligible Goods and Related Services 4.1 All the Goods and Related Services to be supplied under the Contract shall have their origin in any country that is eligible in accordance with ITT 3.9. 4.2 For purposes of this ITT, the term “goods” includes commodities, raw material, machinery, equipment, and industrial plants; and “related services” include services such as insurance, installation, training, and initial maintenance.

  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Any final judgment for a fixed or determined sum of money rendered by any U.S. federal or New York state court located in the State of New York having jurisdiction under its own laws in respect of any suit, action or proceeding against the Company based upon this Agreement, the Registration Statement, the Pricing Disclosure Package and the Prospectus would be declared enforceable against the Company by the courts of Bermuda, without reconsideration or reexamination of the merits.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!