Does drill music influence crime and should it be banned?
Sample Solution
In this case, India requested consultations with the EC in respect of a Council Regulation on imports of cotton-type bed-linen from India. India asserted that the EC initiated anti-dumping proceedings against imports of cotton-type bed-linen from India by publishing a notice of initiation. Provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed by EC Council. This was followed by the imposition of definitive duties. India contended that the determination of standing, the initiation, the determination of dumping and injury as well as the explanations of the EC authoritiesâ findings are inconsistent with the WTO law and such other contentions. The Dispute Settlement Body established a panel and concluded that the EC did not act inconsistently with some of its obligations under the anti-dumping agreement. The role of the Dispute Settlement Body in this case was crucial in establishing that the WTO could uphold the rights of poorer nations in the context of trade defense. In this case, the Dispute Settlement Body considered the legal interpretation of certain key principles under the anti-dumping agreement, including the calculation of the âconstructed valueâ based on data from âother producers or exportersâ, and the consideration of sales at a loss when calculating administrative, selling and general costs under the anti-dumping agreement. It is said that the most significant contribution of the proceeding concerned the prohibition of zeroing, more specifically ruling illegal the pernicious practice of resetting negative dumping margins as zeroes under the anti-dumping agreement. d) India â Agricultural Products case The United States requested consultations with India with respect to the prohibitions imposed by India on the importation of various agricultural products from the United States purportedly because of concerns related to Avian Influenza. The United States claims that the measures appear to be inconsistent with the Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures (SPS) and also Articles I and XI of the GATT 1994. The United States also claims that the measures appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to the Unite>
In this case, India requested consultations with the EC in respect of a Council Regulation on imports of cotton-type bed-linen from India. India asserted that the EC initiated anti-dumping proceedings against imports of cotton-type bed-linen from India by publishing a notice of initiation. Provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed by EC Council. This was followed by the imposition of definitive duties. India contended that the determination of standing, the initiation, the determination of dumping and injury as well as the explanations of the EC authoritiesâ findings are inconsistent with the WTO law and such other contentions. The Dispute Settlement Body established a panel and concluded that the EC did not act inconsistently with some of its obligations under the anti-dumping agreement. The role of the Dispute Settlement Body in this case was crucial in establishing that the WTO could uphold the rights of poorer nations in the context of trade defense. In this case, the Dispute Settlement Body considered the legal interpretation of certain key principles under the anti-dumping agreement, including the calculation of the âconstructed valueâ based on data from âother producers or exportersâ, and the consideration of sales at a loss when calculating administrative, selling and general costs under the anti-dumping agreement. It is said that the most significant contribution of the proceeding concerned the prohibition of zeroing, more specifically ruling illegal the pernicious practice of resetting negative dumping margins as zeroes under the anti-dumping agreement. d) India â Agricultural Products case The United States requested consultations with India with respect to the prohibitions imposed by India on the importation of various agricultural products from the United States purportedly because of concerns related to Avian Influenza. The United States claims that the measures appear to be inconsistent with the Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures (SPS) and also Articles I and XI of the GATT 1994. The United States also claims that the measures appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to the Unite>
