I. Terms of Reference 278 II. Economic Data 279 III. Domestic Support 291 IV. Export Credit Guarantees 293
Download 3.13 Mb.
|
| 577 US 27 August 2003 Comments on Brazil’s Rebuttal Submission and Answers to Additional Question, paras. 20, 21, 27; US 11 August 2003 Answer to Question 60; The United States made similar statements during the consultations held between November 2002 and January 2003.
579 Exhibit Bra-368 (Second Statement of Christopher Campbell – Environmental Working Group, 1 December 2003). 581 Exhibit Bra-368 (Second Statement of Christopher Campbell – Environmental Working Group, 1 December 2003). 582 Brazil’s 20 January 2004 Answers to Additional Questions, paras. 43-55; Brazil’s 28 January Comments and Requests Regarding US Data, Section 9. 583 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 7. 584 Brazil’s 18 November 2003 Further Rebuttal Submission, Section 2.2. 585 See Brazil’s comment on US 22 December 2003 Answer to Question 192(b) above concerning the treatment of “other payments.” US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 2. This US statement eliminates any doubt that “other payments” are within the Panel’s terms of reference. 586 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 15 (note 24). 587 See Brazil’s 2 December 2003 Oral Statement, para. 66. See also Brazil’s comment on Question 136, below. 588 See Brazil’s comment on Question 136, below. 589 See Brazil’s 7 October 2003, Oral Statement, paras. 38-41; Brazil’s 18 November 2003 Further Rebuttal Submission, paras. 170-173; Brazil’s 2 December 2003 Oral Statement, para. 66. 590 See Brazil’s 27 October 2003 Answers to Questions, paras. 123-129. See also Brazil’s 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, paras. 133-139, concerning Brazil’s arguments regarding a “consistent trend.” 591 Brazil emphasizes that it does not agree with to applying any price-gap calculation method for the calculation of marketing loan payments for AMS purposes. See inter alia Brazil’s 27 August 2003 Comments on US Rebuttal Submission, paras. 10-16. 592 Brazil’s 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 10. 593 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 19. 594 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 19. 595 Emphasis added. 596 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 20. 597 Exhibit Bra-281 (Statement of Andrew Macdonald – 7 October 2003, para. 13). 598 Exhibit Bra-281 (Statement of Andrew Macdonald – 7 October 2003, para. 13). 599 The United States appears to suggest this relationship in paragraph 21 of its 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions. 600 See Brazil’s 2 December 2003 Oral Statement, Section 5.2 for further details on this point. 601 Brazil addresses this point in greater detail in its comment on Question 212 and 213 below. 602 Compare US figures at paragraph 22 of the US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions with Brazil’s figures as reported in Exhibit Bra-356 (January – March Quotes of the December Futures Contract, Expected and Actual AWP and Cash Price) and at paragraph 44 of Brazil’s 2 December 2003 Oral Statement. 603 Brazil’s 18 November 2003 Further Rebuttal Submission, paras. 29-30; Exhibit Bra-316 (Statement of Christopher Campbell, paras. 12-15); Brazil’s 22 December 2003 Answer to Question 204, paras. 25-26. 604 Brazil’s 18 November 2003 Further Rebuttal Submission, para. 8. 606 Brazil’s 18 November 2003 Further Rebuttal Submission, para. 8. 607 Exhibit Bra-317 (Environmental Working Group Database: Table of Results, Table 2). 608 See Electronic PFC and DCP Summary Files provided by the United States on 18 and 19 December 2003 respectively, data for upland cotton production on farms without upland cotton base. Brazil notes that this does not mean that these farms have no contract base acreage whatsoever. Instead, the United States has withheld that data (Brazil’s 28 January 2004 Comments and Requests Regarding US Data, Section 2). 609 Exhibit Bra-317 (Environmental Working Group Database: Table of Results, Table 5 (MY 2002)). 610 US 18 and 19 December 2003 Letters to the Panel and US 20 January 2004 Letter to the Panel. See also Brazil’s 28 January 2004 Comments and Requests Regarding US Data, Sections 2-3. 611 See Brazil’s 28 January 2004 Comments and Requests Regarding US Data which details the information that could have been adduced with the information withheld by the United States. 612 See Electronic PFC and DCP Summary Files provided by the United States on 18 and 19 December 2003 respectively. The upland cotton contract acreage on farms not producing upland cotton represents between 15 and 25 per cent of total upland cotton contract acreage. Brazil has used contract acreage as a proxy for payments, which is a conservative proxy, as presumably the less productive farms (i.e. those with lower yields and thus fewer payment units per payments acre and fewer payments per acre) stopped producing upland cotton. 613 Brazil’s 27 October 2003 Answer to Questions, paras 7-8. 614 Exhibit Bra-317 (Environmental Working Group Database: Table of Results, Table 3). 615 Exhibit Bra-317 (Environmental Working Group Database: Table of Results, Table 3). 616 Without the farm-specific data the United States has refused to produce, it is impossible to know for certain what non-upland cotton contract payments received by current upland cotton producers are properly allocated to upland cotton production. 617 Even for those farms that mainly plant on upland cotton base, additional non-upland cotton contract payments would need to be allocated. See Electronic PFC and DCP Summary Files provided by the United States on 18 and 19 December 2003 respectively. See also Brazil’s 20 January 2004 Answers to Additional Questions, paras. 43-55 and Brazil’s 28 January 2004 Comments and Requests Regarding US Data, Section 9. 618 See Brazil’s 28 January 2004 Comments and Requests Regarding US Data, Section 9. 619 Exhibit Bra-317 (EWG Database: Table of Results, Table 5, MY 2002, top line, far right side under “percentage of total contract payments”, 85.07 per cent). 620 Brazil’s 27 October 2003 Answer to Question 125(a), paras. 7-10. 621 Exhibit Bra-401 (Second Declaration of Andrew Macdonald, 27 January 2004, p. 2). 622 Exhibit Bra-401 (Second Declaration of Andrew Macdonald, 27 January 2004, p. 2). 623 Exhibit Bra-401 (Second Declaration of Andrew Macdonald, 27 January 2004). 624 See following webpages which discuss, in a variety of contexts, the significant distortions that can occur with statistics by using simple averages as opposed to weighted averages: http://www.statcan.ca/english/edu/power/ch13/estimation/estimation.htm; http://www.grantedc.com/publications/Grant%20Co%20Washington%20W&FB%20Report%202003.pdf 625 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 31. 626 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 31. 627 Brazil’s 24 June 2003 First Submission, paras. 80-83. 628 See Brazil’s 27 August 2003 Comments on US Rebuttal Submission, paras. 10-16. 629 See, e.g., Exhibit Bra-191 (G/AG/AGST/USA, p. 20); Exhibit Bra-47 (G/AG/N/USA/43, p. 20); Exhibit Bra-150 (G/AG/N/USA/10, p. 18). 630 G/AG/AGST/USA, p. 20. 631 G/AG/AGST/USA, p. 21-22. 632 Brazil’s 27 August 2003 Comments on US 22 August 2003 Rebuttal Submission, paras. 10-16. 633 US 22 December 2003 Answer to Question 208, para. 37. 634 See, e.g., Exhibit Bra-191 (G/AG/AGST/USA, p. 20); Exhibit Bra-47 (G/AG/N/USA/43, p. 20); Exhibit Bra-150 (G/AG/N/USA/10, p. 18). 635 Brazil’s 9 September 2003 Further Submission, Table 1. 636 US 22 December 2003 Answer to Question 208, paras 33-35. 637 Compare US figure at paragraph 33 of its 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions (16,142,333 bales) with the actual production in MY 1992 of 15,710,000 bales, as reported in Exhibit Bra-4 (“Fact Sheet: Upland Cotton”, USDA, January 2003, p. 4). 638 11,164,726 planted eligible acres times 0.837 (share of planted acres that was harvested (Exhibit Bra-4 (“Fact Sheet: Upland Cotton,” USDA, January 2003, p. 4 (Abandonment Rate))) times 694 pounds per harvested acre (Exhibit Bra-4 (“Fact Sheet: Upland Cotton,” USDA, January 2003, p. 4 (Yield))). 639 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 33. 640 Brazil’s 27 October 2003 Answers to Questions, paras. 27-28; Brazil’s 18 November 2003 Further Rebuttal Submission, para. 87; Brazil’s 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, paras. 30-32. 641 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 39. 642 MY 1997, 1999, 2000. 643 MY 1996, 1998, 2001. 644 MY 2002, 2003. 645 Brazil’s 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 31-36. 646 Brazil’s 18 November 2003 Further Rebuttal Submission, Section 3.4 (containing further references). 647 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 40. 648 Brazil’s 27 October 2003 Answers to Questions, paras. 27-28; Brazil’s 18 November 2003 Further Rebuttal Submission, para. 87; Brazil’s 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, paras. 30-32. 649 Brazil’s 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 32. 650 Brazil’s 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 33. 651 Brazil’s 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 34. 652 Brazil’s 18 November 2003 Further Rebuttal Submission, Section 3.1. 653 See e.g. US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 43. 654 See e.g. Appellate Body Report, Japan – Apples, WT/DS245/AB/R, para. 157 (“It is important to distinguish, on the one hand, the principle that the complainant must establish a prima facie case of inconsistency with a provision of a covered agreement from, on the other hand, the principle that the party that asserts a fact is responsible for providing proof thereof.”). 655 htt://risk.cotton.org/CotBudgets/cotbudget.htm, visited 20 January 2004. 656 See www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/FarmIncome/Glossary/compare.htm visited 28 January 2004. A link to this ERS page is provided on the NCC Webpage. 657 US 22 December 2003 Answer to Question 211(a), para. 45. 658 US 22 December 2003 Answer to Question 211(a), para. 45. 659 See http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/tb1906/tb1906b.pdf visited 28 January 2004; US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 44 (note 44). 660 http://www.pestlaw.com/x/guide/1999/USDA-19990625A.html visited 28 January 2004. 661 Brazil’s 27 October 2003 Answers to Questions, p. 56 (setting out USDA data). 662 Exhibit Bra-404 (Monsanto Imagine, “Benefits – BT Cotton” downloaded from www.monsanto.co/monsanto/layout/our_pledge/bnefits/bt_cotton.asp visited 28 January 2004). The document concludes that the average US cotton farmer using BT –cotton has “average net incomes . . . increased by $50 per hectare in the United States” The Monsanto assertion of $50 per hectare translates into $20.2 per acre because one hectare constitutes 2.47 acres. 663 http://www.whybiotech.com/index.asp?id= visited 28 January 2004. 664 This was done by subtracting the amount of increased seed costs in Exhibit Bra-323 (Costs and Returns of US Upland Cotton Farmers, MY 1997-2002) from MY 1997 – this was 0 in 1998, $1 in 1999, $13 in 2000, $20 in 2001, and $30 in 2002. 665 Brazil’s 18 November 2003 Further Rebuttal Submission, paras. 59-62. 666 This figure has been calculated by applying the $12 per acre time five years (which is conservative, because in earlier years less Bt-cotton was planted) and also deducting the yearly increases in seed costs (compared to the 1997 basis), since the $12 represented a net cost saving, i.e., net of cost increases to due higher seed costs. 667 US 18 November 2003 Further Rebuttal Submission, Section IV.F.3(1) – (4). 668 Appellee Submission of the United States, Canada – Dairy (21.5)(II), para. 40 (see http://www.ustr.gov/enforcement/briefs.shtml). 669 Appellee Submission of the United States, Canada – Dairy (21.5)(II), para. 42 (see http://www.ustr.gov/enforcement/briefs.shtml). 670 US 22 December 2003 Answer to Question 211, para. 42. 671 Brazil’s 22 August 2003 Rebuttal Submission, paras. 30-41; Brazil’s 18 November 2003 Further Rebuttal Submission, paras. 59-72; Brazil’s 2 December 2003 Oral Statement, paras. 25-33. 672 Compare the prices set out in Brazil’s 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions 233 and 235, and in Exhibits Bra-383 – Bra-388, with US total cost of production data in Exhibit Bra-323 (Costs and Returns of US upland cotton Farmers MY 1997-2002). 673 US 9 October 2003 Closing Statement, para. 12 (The full context of the quote is as follows: “Total costs are relevant over the long-term, but Brazil uses this (inaccurate) number to compare to revenue in the short term – that is, the market price for one year.”). 674 See Exhibit Bra-283 (Statement of Christopher Ward – 7 October 2003, paras. 7-10). 675 See in particular the graph at paragraph 47 of the US 22 December 2003 Answer to Question 211(b). 676 US 18 November 2003 Further Rebuttal Submission, para. 122. 677 Exhibit US-84 (Production Costs Critical To Farming Decisions, William D. McBride, ERS, p. 40 (quoted in US 18 November 2003 Further Rebuttal Submission, para. 118). 678 Exhibit Bra-283 (Statement of Christopher Ward – 7 October 2003, para. 10). 679 This was not, therefore, a “randomly selected period,” as the United States alleges in paragraph 41 of its 22 December 2003 Answer to Question 211(a). 680 See Brazil’s 18 November 2003 Further Rebuttal Submission, paras. 64-69 (setting forth composition of fixed costs. This evidence has never been rebutted by the United States). 681 See Brazil’s 18 November 2003 Further Rebuttal Submission, paras. 64-69 (setting forth composition of fixed costs. This evidence has never been rebutted by the United States). 682 Exhibit Bra-405 (Sample Cost to Produce Cotton – Transgenic Herbicide-Resistant Alacla Variety, San Joaquin Valley, University of California Cooperative Extension, 2003). A large number of cost of production studies by the University of California Cooperative Extension for cotton, as well as for many other crops, can be found at www.ucanr.org/CES.CEA.shtml. 683 Exhibit Bra-406 (Cotton Cost-Return Budget in Southwest Kansas, Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extensive Service, October 2003). 684 Exhibit Bra-407 (Documents on Cost of Production Insurance Plan for Cotton)(“Review of the FCIC Cost of Production Insurance Plan for Cotton,” Sparks Companies, Inc., 15 September 2003, p. 11, 12 and 16. (COP insurance policy is based on the farmer’s total cost.”)); “Underwriting Review of FCIC Cost of Production Insurance Plan for Cotton,” Jeffrey T. LaFrance, Ph.D, 13 September 2003, p. 5 (“… the basis for the guarantee is not a farmer-chosen percentage of expected or predicted revenue; rather it is a percentage of an estimate of the total cost of production.); “Review of Poposed ‘Cost of Production Insurance Plan for Cotton,’ Jerry R. Skees, Dr. Barry J. Barnett, Dr. J. Roy Black, and James Long, 15 September 2003, p.32 (“Purchasers will be required to provide estimates of variable expenses per acre, fixed expenses per acre, and land expenses per acre in addition to the acreage and historical yield information required for existing cotton insurance products.”) emphasis added 685 Exhibit US-84 (Production Costs Critical To Farming Decisions, William D. McBride, ERS, p. 40). This study includes a graph regarding wheat farmers on page 41 which illustrates that low-cost producers can survive much lower prices while higher-cost wheat farmers require much higher prices even to meet their operating costs. The same dynamic exists for US cotton farmers. 686 Exhibit US-84 (Production Costs Critical To Farming Decisions, William D. McBride, ERS, p. 41). 687 Exhibit Bra-16 (“Characteristics and Production Costs of US Cotton Farms”, USDA, October 2001). 688 Brazil’s 9 September 2003 Further Submission, Annex I, Table 5a. 689 Exhibit Bra-222 (“Analysis of the US Commodity Loan Program with Marketing Loan Provisions,” USDA, AER 801, cover page). 690 Exhibit Bra-222 (“Analysis of the US Commodity Loan Programme with Marketing Loan Provisions”, USDA, AER 801). 691 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 48. 692 Brazil’s 7 October 2003 Oral Statement, paras. 31-34. 693 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 48. 694 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 49. Brazil notes that the United States understands “actual conditions” to refer to actual price expectations held by US upland cotton producers. These are, however, as Brazil and the United States agree, “fundamentally unobservable”. 695 Brazil also notes that the 2000 USDA baseline contained actual data for MY 1998, i.e., the Westcott/Price study used USDA’s FAPSIM model for retrospective analysis. 696 See Brazil’s 7 October 2003 Oral Statement, paras. 31-34. 697 See Annex I of Brazil’s 9 September 2003 Further Submission, para. 4, Table I.5e (regarding the data used, baseline and resulting effects of the marketing loan programme). 698 See inter alia Brazil’s 7 October 2003 Oral Statement, paras. 9, 34. 699 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, paras. 50-51. 700 See Brazil’s 20 January 2004 Comments on US Model Critique, para. 56 (for further references). 701 US7 October 2003 Oral Statement, para. 34. 702 Brazil offers additional rebuttal arguments in its comment on the US 22 December 2003 Answer to Question 213, below. 703 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 51. See also US 18 November 2003 Further Rebuttal Submission, Section IV.G (for earlier US arguments using this fatally flawed approach). 704 See Brazil’s 2 December 2003 Oral Statement, Section 5.2 and Exhibits Bra-370 – Bra-371. See also Brazil’s 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 155; Brazil’s 20 January 2004 Answers to Additional Questions, para. 21. 705 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 75. Also Exhibit US-126 calculates the marketing loan benefit correctly as the difference between the loan rate and the adjusted world price, rather than – as implied by the United States in its other arguments – as the difference between the loan rate and the cash price. 706 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 51. Brazil is puzzled to learn that the United States continues to ignore these basic facts about the operation of the marketing loan program for upland cotton and continues to rely on this seriously flawed argument. Brazil recalls again that the United States is fully aware of its error, as demonstrated by its statements in paragraph 75 of its 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions and by Exhibit US-126, both of which rely on the adjusted world price as the basis for calculating marketing loan benefits. 707 Exhibit Bra-356 (January – March Quotes of the December Futures Contract, Expected and Actual AWP and Cash Price). 708 Exhibit Bra-370 (The Difference Between the Adjusted World Price and the December Futures Contract), presented by Professor Sumner on 3 December 2003. 709 Concerning the problems inherent in the choice of the exact spread, see Exhibit Bra-345 (Response to Further US Criticism of the Annex I Model of the Effect of US Cotton Subsidies – Daniel Sumner, 2 December 2003, para. 13). 710 Bra-345 (Response to Further US Criticism of the Annex I Model of the Effect of US Cotton Subsidies – Daniel Sumner, 2 December 2003, paras. 11-12). 711 Bra-345 (Response to Further US Criticism of the Annex I Model of the Effect of US Cotton Subsidies – Daniel Sumner, 2 December 2003, para. 12). 712 See Brazil’s 2 December 2003 Oral Statement, paras. 43-47, and Professor Sumner’s oral explanation on 3 December 2003. 713 See Exhibit Bra-371 (Simple Example of the Calculation of Expected Marketing Loan Benefit). 714 Professor Sumner’s oral explanations on 3 December 2003; Brazil’s 2 December 2003 Oral Statement, para. 48; Brazil’s 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 155. 715 In passing, Brazil notes that the use of 14 cents as marketing loan facilitated revenue was taken from the assumptions in USDA’s own FAPSIM policy simulation model (Exhibit Bra-222 (“Analysis of the US Commodity Loan Program with Marketing Loan Provisions,” USDA, AER 801, p. 11)). In addition, Westcott and Price demonstrate that the additional marketing loan facilitated revenue for MY 1999 is 12.7 cents – very close to the authors’ assumption (Exhibit Bra-222 (“Analysis of the US Commodity Loan Programme with Marketing Loan Provisions,” USDA, AER 801, p. 8)). Finally, Exhibit US-126 does not contradict the appropriateness of using 14 cents, as Exhibit US-126 does not provide the entire marketing loan facilitated revenue received by farmers (see Brazil’s arguments in the main body of its comment). 716 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, paras. 50-52. Brazil notes that this additional revenue in rare circumstances can also turn out to be negative. 717 See Brazil’s 27 October 2003 Answers to Questions, chart at paragraph 172 and Exhibit Bra-311 (Side by Side Chart of the Weekly US Adjusted World Price, the A-Index, the nearby New York Futures Price, the Average US Spot Market Price and Prices Received by US Producers from 1996 to the present). 718 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, paras. 50-52. Brazil notes that this additional revenue may also turn out to be negative, as shown by Exhibit US-126. 719 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 52. 720 See inter alia US 11 July 2003 First Submission, para. 94; US 22 July 2003 Oral Statement, paras. 12-13. 721 These market conditions are in particular reflected in the spread between the adjusted world price and the cash price received by US upland cotton producers. 722 Brazil’s 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, paras. 37-42. 723 US 7 October 2003 Oral Statement, paras. 26-50; US 22 December 2003 Comments on Brazil’s Econometric Model. 724 See Exhibit Bra-345 (Response to Further US Criticism of the Annex I Model of the Effects of US Cotton Subsidies – Professor Daniel Sumner, 2 December 2003, paras. 6-14, with further references). 725 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 57 726 Exhibit Bra-281 (Statement by Andrew Macdonald – 7 October 2003, para. 13, even clearer paras. 17, 28, 31). 727 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 58. 728 See Brazil’s comment on Question 201, above. 729 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 56, see also para. 64. 730 Brazil’s 9 September 2003 Further Submission, Annex I, para. 18. 731 Westcott/Price have chosen this approach for the update of their study for purposes of the Payment Limitations Commission. 732 US 7 October 2003 Oral Statement, para. 34. 733 Exhibit Bra-345 (Response to Further US Criticism of the Annex I Model of the Effect of US Cotton Subsidies – Daniel Sumner, 2 December 2003, paras. 9-14). 734 Exhibit Bra-345 (Response to Further US Criticism of the Annex I Model of the Effect of US Cotton Subsidies – Daniel Sumner, 2 December 2003, paras. 9-14). 735 Exhibit Bra-345 (Response to Further US Criticism of the Annex I Model of the Effect of US Cotton Subsidies – Daniel Sumner, 2 December 2003, paras. 9-14). 736 Exhibit Bra-345 (Response to Further US Criticism of the Annex I Model of the Effect of US Cotton Subsidies – Daniel Sumner, 2 December 2003, para. 9). 737 Exhibit Bra-345 (Response to Further US Criticism of the Annex I Model of the Effect of US Cotton Subsidies – Daniel Sumner, 2 December 2003, paras. 11-13). 738 Exhibit Bra-345 (Response to Further US Criticism of the Annex I Model of the Effect of US Cotton Subsidies – Daniel Sumner, 2 December 2003, para. 14). 739 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 61. 740 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 63. 741 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 63. 742 Exhibit Bra-345 (Response to Further US Criticism of the Annex I Model of the Effect of US Cotton Subsidies – Daniel Sumner, 2 December 2003, para. 12). 743 Brazil’s 2 December 2003 Oral Statement, para. 44; Exhibit Bra-345 (Response to Further US Criticism of the Annex I Model of the Effect of US Cotton Subsidies – Daniel Sumner, 2 December 2003, para. 13). 744 See Brazil’s 20 January 2004 Comments on US Model Critique, paras. 64, 70. 745 See Brazil’s comment on Question 212, above. 746 Brazil’s 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, paras. 47-50. 747 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, paras. 67-68. 748 Exhibit Bra-26 (7 CFR 1413, Deficiency Payment Program, 1993 edition). 749 Exhibit Bra-26 (7 CFR 1413.7(c)). 750 Exhibit Bra-26 (7 CFR 1413.3, “Considered planted acreage”). 751 Brazil’s 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 47. 752 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 70. 753 EC 23 July 2003 Oral Statement, para. 29. 754 EC 11 August 2003 Answer to Third Party Question 11, para. 30. 755 EC 11 August 2003 Answer to Third Party Questions 6 and 9, paras. 17, 23-25. 756 Indeed, the United States has acknowledged that such effects can be presumed if the specific criteria in paragraph 6 of Annex 2 are not complied with. See US 11 August Answer to Question 31, para. 65 (“if a new measure does not conform to the basic and applicable policy-specific criteria in Annex 2, it will not have the benefit of the presumption that it meets the fundamental requirement of the first sentence.”). 757 Exhibit Bra-105 (“Statement of Professor Daniel Sumner at the First Meeting,” para. 24); Oral Statement of Brazil, paras. 65-66. 758 See Brazil’s 22 August 2003 Rebuttal Submission, paras. 8-9, note 15. 759 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 73. 760 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 73. 761 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 73. 762 Emphasis added. 763 US 22 December 2003, Answers to Questions, para. 74 (emphasis added). 764 Brazil’s 2 December 2003 Oral Statement, para. 36 and Exhibit Bra-211 (“The Current State of the Farm Economy and the Economic Impact of Federal Policy,” Hearings before the Committee on Agriculture, US House of Representatives, p. 43)(emphasis added). 765 Brazil’s 9 September 2003 Further Submission, Section 3.3.4.7.1; Brazil 7 October 2003 Oral Statement, paras. 31-33; Brazil’s 18 November 2003 Further Rebuttal Submission, Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.7.1; Brazil’s 2 December 2003 Oral Statement, Section 5.2. 766 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 75 (emphasis added). 767 Brazil’s 2 December 2003 Oral Statement, Section 5.2. Brazil notes that the United States, in Exhibit US-126, appears to acknowledge this fact, as it calculates the marketing loan benefit as the difference between the loan rate and the adjusted world price, rather than the cash price, as the United States implies in its other arguments. 768 Brazil’s 2 December 2003 Oral Statement, Section 5.2, in particular paras. 44-50 (including Exhibits Bra-356-359) and Professor Sumner’s oral explanations on 3 December 2003 (including Exhibit Bra-370-371). 769 Brazil’s 9 September 2003 Further Submission, Section 3.3.4.7.1; Brazil 7 October 2003 Oral Statement, paras. 31-33; Brazil’s 18 November 2003 Further Rebuttal Submission, Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.7.1; Brazil’s 2 December 2003 Oral Statement, Section 5.2. 770 See US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 79. 771 Appellate Body Report, EC – Sardines, WT/DS231/AB/R, para. 201-208; Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, WT/DS26/AB/R, para. 128. 772 See Brazil’s 22 July 2003 Oral Statement, paras. 100-115; Brazil’s 22 August 2003 Rebuttal Submission, paras. 99-100; Brazil’s 27 August 2003 Comments on US Rebuttal Submission, paras. 33-52; Brazil’s 18 November 2003 Further Rebuttal Submission, paras. 219-220; Brazil’s 2 December 2003 Oral Statement, paras. 73-76; Brazil’s 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, paras. 51-57. 773 See, e.g,. Brazil’s 2 December 2003 Oral Statement, para. 75. 774 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, paras. 80-82. 775 Brazil’s 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, paras. 51-57. 776 See Brazil’s 22 July 2003 Oral Statement, paras. 100-115; Brazil’s 22 August 2003 Rebuttal Submission, paras. 99-100; Brazil’s 27 August 2003 Comments on US Rebuttal Submission, paras. 33-52; Brazil’s 18 November 2003 Further Rebuttal Submission, paras. 219-220; Brazil’s 2 December 2003 Oral Statement, paras. 73-76; Brazil’s 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, paras. 51-57. 777 Brazil’s 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 56. 778 Appellate Body Report, US – FSC, WT/DS108/AB/R, para. 136-140. 779 Appellate Body Report, Canada – Dairy, WT/DS103/AB/R and WT/DS113/AB/R, paras. 87-90. 780 See, e.g., Exhibit Bra-99 (G/AG/N/USA/39, p. 2). 781 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, chart included in response to Question 221(a). 782 Exhibit Bra-133 (Guaranteed Loan Subsidy and Administrative Expenses of US Export Credit Guarantee Programmes GSM 102, GSM 103 and SCGP). 783 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 86. 784 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 93. 785 See Brazil’s 2 December 2003 Oral Statement, para. 81; Brazil’s 18 November 2003 Further Rebuttal Submission, para. 248; Brazil’s 27 August 2003 Comments on US Rebuttal Submission, para. 61. 786 Exhibit Bra-133 (Guaranteed Loan Subsidy and Administrative Expenses of US Export Credit Guarantee Programmes GSM 102, GSM 103 and SCGP). 787 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 93. 788 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 94. 789 US 22 December 2003 Answers to Questions, para. 94. Directory: english -> tratop e -> dispu e dispu e -> Annex g list of exhibits submitted by the parties dispu e -> World Trade Organization dispu e -> World Trade Organization Download 3.13 Mb. Share with your friends:
|