Hasil (
Bahasa Indonesia) 1:
[Salinan]Disalin!
The panel report on EG – Countervailing Duty on DRAMS Chips follows the same test but anchors it onto the specific language of Art 14 SCM. It is reminded that this provision is entitled "Calculation of the amount of a subsidy in terms of the benefit to the recipient. Although this provision deals with the calculation of the subsidy, the panel found that its continuing use of the marketplace as the appropriate benchmark to determine whether a benefit has indeed been bestowed, is evidence enough of the legislative will to privilege the private investor-test when it comes to deciding whether a benefit has been bestowed or not. In the words of the panel, Art 14 SCM is a "highly relevant context" for interpreting the term 'benefit'.Of particular importance in case law are the disputes concerning non-recurring subsidies. On a number of cases, WTO adjudicating bodies had to confront the following issue: a previously subsidized operation is being auctioned off at arm's length. A market price is being paid, and the new owner is still being countervailed when exporting to various markets. Case law has provided us with contradictory responses on this score. Eventually, a nuanced approach seems to emerge which however, has no sound underpinnings in economic theory.
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..