List of abbreviations 444 table of cases



Download 0.89 Mb.
Page15/18
Date conversion14.06.2018
Size0.89 Mb.
1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18
.


260 Panel Report, U.S. – Upland Cotton, paras. 7.1353-7.1354.

261 U.S. 2 April answer to question 54, para. 119.

262 U.S. 2 April answer to question 54 and 59, paras. 119, 147-151.

263 U.S. 2 April answer to question 54 and 59, paras. 119, 152-154.

264 See Commodity Costs and Returns: Methods, Economic Research Service, USDA, accessed April 2007 available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/CostsAndReturns/methods.htm (emphasis added).

265 Appellate Body Report, EC Sugar, para. 266 (emphasis added).

266 Exhibit Bra-477 (Upland Cotton Costs and Returns).

267 See Definition of Residual Returns to Management and Risk, Economic Research Service, USDA, accessed April 2007 available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/CostsAndReturns/Glossary/def_resr.htm).

268 Annual market returns minus total costs were reduced by the product of 5 percent and total costs, see Exhibit Bra-477 (Upland Cotton Costs and Returns).


269 Market returns minus total costs was reduced by the product of 5 percent and total costs, see Exhibit Bra-648 (Actual Costs and Returns Analysis).

270 See Commodity Costs and Returns: Methods, Economic Research Service, USDA, accessed April 2007, available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/CostsAndReturns/methods.htm.

271 The data are collected in Agricultural Resource Management Surveys, see Commodity Costs and Returns: Methods, Economic Research Service, USDA, accessed April 2007 available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/CostsAndReturns/methods.htm.

272 See Commodity Costs and Returns: Methods, Economic Research Service, USDA, accessed April 2007, available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/CostsAndReturns/methods.htm.

273 U.S. 2 April answer to question 59, paras. 148-150.

274 See Commodity Costs and Returns: Methods, Economic Research Service, USDA, accessed April 2007, available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/CostsAndReturns/methods.htm.

275 Exhibit Bra-475 (U.S. Cotton Producers Costs and Returns Per Planted Acre, Excluding Government Payments, Economic Research Service, USDA, accessed October 2006 at http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/costsandreturns/testpick.htm). In any event, it is appropriate to allocate costs to different crops based on their contribution to a farm's operating margin. It is the most reliable method of allocating costs that must be accounted for.


276 See Commodity Costs and Returns: Methods, Economic Research Service, USDA, accessed April 2007, available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/CostsAndReturns/methods.htm.

277 See Commodity Costs and Returns: Methods, Economic Research Service, USDA, accessed April 2007, available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/CostsAndReturns/methods.htm.

278 U.S. 2 April response to question 59, para. 143.

279 U.S. 2 April response to question 53(c), para. 102.

280 Exhibit Bra-577 (Schnepf, Randy, Potential Challenges to U.S. Farm Subsidies in the WTO, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, 25 October 2006, p. 23).

281 The periods vary across commodities based on the consistency of program operations and the availability of data. Corn and sorghum are for the period 1996-2004, soybeans and cotton are for the period 1997-2004, wheat is for the period 1998-2004, rice is for the period 2000-2004, and peanuts are for the period 2002-2004. See Exhibit Bra-577 (Schnepf, Randy, Potential Challenges to U.S. Farm Subsidies in the WTO, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, 25 October 2006, p. 25).

282 Exhibit Bra-577 (Schnepf, Randy, Potential Challenges to U.S. Farm Subsidies in the WTO, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, 25 October 2006, p. 23).


283 Exhibit Bra-577 (Schnepf, Randy, Potential Challenges to U.S. Farm Subsidies in the WTO, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, 25 October 2006, p. 23). Brazil notes that consistent with the analysis conducted by CRS, both sorghum and wheat acreage has declined. Sorghum planted acreage declined by about 50 percent from MY 1996 to MY 2005. See USDA's Feedgrains database, available at www.ers.usda.gov/data/feedgrains.

284 For detailed income data for 2003-2007, see www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/farmincome/data/nf_t2.htm, accessed April 2007.

285 See ERS Agricultural Income and Finance Outlook of November 2006, p. 4-5 accessible at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/AIS/AIS-11-30-2006.pdf, accessed April 2007.

286 Exhibit Bra-690 (Crop Losses and Profits 2002-2005).

287 See Exhibit Bra-690 (Crop Losses and Profits 2002-2005).

288 See ERS Data on Direct Government Payments 2002-2007 at www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FarmIncome/Data/Government%20payments0207.xls, accessed April 2007.

289 U.S. 2 April response to question 53, para. 101.

290 See Exhibit Bra-690 (Crop Losses and Profits 2002-2005).


291 See Exhibit Bra-690 (Crop Losses and Profits 2002-2005).

292 See ERS Data on Direct Government Payments 2002-2007 at www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FarmIncome/Data/Government%20payments0207.xls, accessed April 2007.

293 See Brazil's First Written Submission, Section 7.11; Brazil's Rebuttal Submission, Section 2.3.6; Brazil's Opening Statement, Section 2.4; and Brazil's Comments on U.S. Oral Statements, Section 4.

294 Panel Report, U
.S. Upland Cotton, para. 7.1353.

295 See
, e.g., Brazil's Comments on U.S. Oral Statements, paras. 35-56.

296 U.S. 2 April response to question 75, para. 175.

297 U.S. 2 April response to question 75, para. 175.

298 Brazil's Rebuttal Submission, paras 348-349; Brazil's First Written Submission, paras. 214-226; 230-236.

299 U.S. 2 April response to question 75, para. 175.


300 Brazil's Rebuttal Submission, paras 348-349; Brazil's First Written Submission, paras. 214-226; 230-236.

301 U.S. Rebuttal Submission, paras. 20-28.

302 See U.S. 2 April response to questions 47 and 48, paras. 53-57; U.S. 27 February response to question 17(b), para. 32.

303 See e
.g., U.S. Rebuttal Submission, paras. 20-28.

304 See Brazil's comments on the U.S. 2 April answer to question 45, above.

305 Brazil's 27 February response to questions 11 and 12, para. 83-116; Brazil's comments on U.S. 27 February response to question 17, paras. 27-31.

306 See U.S. Rebuttal Submission, para. 410 ("There is no reason why the elaboration of the term "threat" in Article 15.7 of he SCM
Agreement and Article 4.1(b) should not be used as contextual guidance in interpreting the same term in footnote 13 of the SCM Agreement."). The "elaboration" advanced by the United States is the "imminent and clearly foreseen" standard.

307 U.S. 2 April response to question 79, para. 184.

308 Brazil's 2 April response to question 86, paras. 172-177.


309 See Article 15.7 ("No one of these factors by itself can necessarily give decisive guidance but the totality of the factors considered must lead to the conclusion that further
subsidized exports are imminent and that, unless protective action is taken, material injury would occur. ").

310 U.S. 2 April response to question 79, para. 181.

311 U.S. 2 April response to question 80, para. 192.

312 By contrast, a domestic industry could petition investigating authorities only months before major shipments of subsidized goods were scheduled to be shipped and obtain relief under procedures sanctioned by Articles 15.7 and 17 of the SCM
Agreement.

313 U.S. 2 April response to question 81, para 192 (claiming that both Article 15.7 and Part III function to establish a balance between the right to subsidized and the right to discipline subsidies).

314 U.S. 2 April response to question 81, para. 195.

315 U.S. Rebuttal Submission, para. 415.

316 For counter-cyclical payment provisions, see Section 1108 of the 2002 FSRI Act ("This subtitle shall be effective beginning with the 2002 crop year of each covered commodity through the 2007 crop year."). Exhibit Bra-29 (2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act). For marketing loan provisions, see Section 1207(a)(1) of the 2002 FSRI Act ("During the period beginning on the date of the enactement of this Act through July 31, 2008, the Secretary shall issue marketing certificates or cash payments …"). Exhibit Bra 29 (2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act).


317 U.S. 2 April response to question 81, para. 197.

318 See, e.g., CRS Report for Congress, "Farm Bill Proposals and Legislative Action in the 110th Congress," available at http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL33934.pdf, accessed April 2007.

319 USDA's Farm Bill proposal is available at http://www.usda.gov/documents/07finalfbp.pdf, accessed April 2007.

320 Oral Statement of Australia, para. 13.

321 U.S. 2 April response to question 81, para. 196.

322 See Appellate Body Report, U.S. Softwood Lumber IV (21.5), para 77.

323 U.S. 2 April response to question 82, para. 202.

324 U.S. 2 April response to question 82, para. 202.

325 U.S. 2 April response to question 82, para. 202.

326 See Brazil's 2 April response to question 89, para. 189 ( "deterministic projections, by their nature, tend to underestimate outlays").


327 Exhibit Bra-569 (Statement of Professor Sumner Concerning Various U.S. Argument, para. 55).

328 Appellate Body Report, U.S.-Upland Cotton¸ para. 445 (addressing similar arguments raised by the United States in paras 226-235 of its First Written Submission).

329 For a detailed explanation of the difference between deterministic and stochastic estimates, see Brazil's Opening Statement, para. 82 and Brazil's 2 April answer to question 89, paras. 189-190.

330 Brazil's 2 April response to question 89, Table 4 at para. 189.

331 See U.S. 2 April response to question 82, para. 203.

332 Exhibit Bra-635 (2002-2007 USDA Agricultural Baseline Projections).

333 $798 million / (20.7 million bales * 480 pounds per bale) = $0.0803 per pound.

334 See U.S. 2 April response to question 82, para. 203.

335 Exhibit Bra-460 (Explanatory Notes for Stochastic Budget Outlay Estimates, Farm Service Agency, accessed October 2006 at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/msrexplain.doc).

336 Exhibit Bra-479 (2006 Baseline Update for U.S. Agricultural Markets,

FAPRI-UMC Report 12-06, July 2006, p. 6, accessed October 2006 at http://www.fapri.missouri.edu/outreach/publications/2006/FAPRI_UMC_Report_12_06.pdf).


337 Exhibit Bra-639 (Commodity Estimates Book for FY 2008 President's Budget)

338 Unfortunately, relevant portions of the latest 2007 FAPRI Agricultural Outlook" has not yet been released, but the FAPRI "World Agricultural Briefing Book" has been released, see http://www.fapri.iastate.edu/brfbk07/.

339 FAPRI World Agricultural Outlook Briefing Book, World Cotton, available at http://www.fapri.iastate.edu/brfbk07/CottonTables2007.pdf.

340 Exhibit Bra-479 (2006 Baseline Update for U.S. Agricultural Markets,
FAPRI-UMC Report 12-06, July 2006, p. 6, accessed October 2006 at http://www.fapri.missouri.edu/outreach/publications/2006/FAPRI_UMC_Report_12_06.pdf).

341 See http://www2.barchart.com/dfutpage.asp?sym=CT&code=BSTK.

342 This figures includes complete data through the end of March (See Exhibit Bra-691 (Average January to March Price of the December 2007 futures contract)). Despite being asked to provide complete data by the Panel, the United States only provides data through 9 March in Exhibit US-147.


343 Brazil's Rebuttal Submission, para. 105.

344 See Exhibit Bra-621 (Upland Cotton Expected Marketing Loan Program Payments Based on Futures Prices).

345 USDA's 2007 baseline projects 20.7 million bales of production in MY 2007. See Exhibit Bra-635 (2002-2007 USDA Agricultural Baseline Projections).

346 Marketing loan payments (12.3 cents per pound) * expected yield per planted acre (806 pounds per acre) / Total costs per acre (593.5 dollars per acre) = 16.7 percent. See Exhibit Bra-634 (Analysis of Planting Decisions Based on Expected Returns).

347 The average January to March closing price of the December contract was 58.07 cents per pound in MY 2001, 59.12 cents per pound in MY 2003 and 59.28 cents per pound in MY 2006. See Exhibit Bra-621 (Upland Cotton Expected Marketing Loan Payments Based on Futures Prices.

348 See Brazil's First Written Submission, Table 6 at para. 111. For MY 2006, see Brazil's 2 April response to question 89, Table 4 at para. 189.

349 See Brazil's First Written Submission, Table 6 at para. 111, as amended by updated marketing loan subsidy amounts (see Brazil's 16 March Comments on U.S. Answer to Question 4, para. 14) and an updated counter-cyclical subsidy amount in MY 2005 (see Brazil's Oral Statement, para. 40). See also Exhibit Bra-621 (Upland Cotton Expected Marketing Loan Payments Based on Futures Prices.


350 See http://www.agweb.com/, accessed April 2007.

351 See http://www.fas.usda.gov/excredits/Monthly/ecg.html. This is unfortunately not so for some other commodities, which are grouped into categories (e.g., feed grains) that do not match the commodity categories included in the U.S. Schedule of reduction commitments, making an assessment of circumvention under Article 10.1 of the SCM Agreement impossible in some instances. It is for this reason that Brazil asked the Panel to pose question 7 of the list of questions to the United States. Question 7 asks the United States for a correspondence table tying the categories of commodities included in FAS' monthly summaries to the categories of commodities included in the U.S. Schedule.

352 U.S. Rebuttal Submission, para. 10.

353 See Brazil's 26 February answers to questions, para. 29.

354 U.S. 2 April answer to question 95, para. 211.

355 Appellate Body Report, U.S. Softwood Lumber IV, para. 92.

356 Appellate Body Report, U.S. Softwood Lumber IV, para. 92.

357 U.S. 16 March comments, para. 70. Panel Report, U.S. Upland Cotton, para. 7.1177. See also Id., para. 7.1167.


358 Panel Report, U.S. Upland Cotton, para. 1177. See also Id., para. 1167.

359 Appellate Body Report, U.S. Softwood Lumber IV, para. 92.

360 U.S. 6 March Response to Question 41, para. 80.

361 U.S. Rebuttal Submission, para. 137.

362 Panel Report, EC CVDs on DRAMs, para. 7.189; Panel Report, Canada Aircraft Credits and Guarantees, para. 7.345.

363 Brazil's 2 April answer to question 100, paras. 232-262.

364 Brazil's 2 April answer to question 100, paras. 245-253.

365 U.S. 2 April answer to question 95, para. 211.

366 See U.S. 2 April answer to question 96, paras. 218, 221, 222.

367 Exhibit US-152 (Dennis Glennon and Peter Nigro, "Measuring the Default Risk of Small Business Loans: A Survival Analysis Approach," Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, Vol. 37, No. 5 (October 2005), p. 935, 945).


368 Brazil's 2 April answer to question 96, para. 223. See also Exhibit Bra-686 (Statement of Professor Sundaram).

369 See http://www.riskglossary.com/link/mortgage_backed_security.htm ("Prepayments introduce uncertainty into the cash flows of a mortgage pass-through. The rate at which fixed-rate mortgagors prepay is influenced by many factors. A significant factor is the level of interest rates. Mortgagors tend to prepay mortgages so they can refinance when mortgage rates drop. By acting in their own best interest, mortgagors act to the detriment of the investors holding the mortgage pass-through. They tend to return principal to investors when reinvestment rates are unattractive, and they tend to not do so when reinvestment rates are attractive"). See also http://personal.fidelity.com/products/fixedincome/pombs.shtml. In any event, the vast majority of MBS in the United States have no default risk, since they are guaranteed by federally-sponsored institutions such as Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and Ginnie Mae. See http://www.sec.gov/answers/mortgagesecurities.htm. See also http://www.riskglossary.com/link/mortgage_backed_security.htm.

370  See http://www.riskglossary.com/link/mortgage_backed_security.htm. See also http://personal.fidelity.com/products/fixedincome/pombs.shtml.

371 U.S. 2 April answer to question 96, para. 219, quoting Exhibit US-150.

372 Exhibit US-150, p. 21 (note 4) (emphasis added).

373 U.S. 2 April answer to question 97, paras. 224-225.


374 Panel Report, U.S.Export Restraints, para. 8.78.

375 Brazil's First Written Submission, paras. 381-406 and Annex IV (Methodology for Comparison of GSM 102 Fees with Fees for ExIm Bank Products).

376 Brazil's First Written Submission, paras. 377-378. See also Id., Annex III (Statement of Professor Rangarajan Sundaram), paras. 8-9.

377 Panel Report, Canada – Aircraft Credits and Guarantees, Annex C-2 (para. 7) ("If the commercial market does not offer a particular borrower the exact terms offered by a government, then the government is providing a benefit to the recipient whenever those terms are more favorable than the terms that are available at market. A government entity 'operating on commercial principles' is still a government entity. It is not the commercial market.").

378 U.S. 2 April answer to question 98, para. 227.

379 Brazil's First Written Submission, paras. 389-393.

380 See Exhibit Bra-532 (ExIm Bank, "Standard Repayment Terms," Chart II, accessed October 2006 at www.exim.gov/tools/exposure/ebd-m-26.html). See also Exhibit Bra-533 (ExIm Bank export credit insurance product description, accessed October 2006 at http://www.exim.gov/products/insurance/index.cfm).


381 See Exhibit Bra-528 ("GSM Programs Benefit U.S. Agriculture and the Rural Economy", Testimony of Otis Molz, Chairman of the Board of CoBank, to the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, 18 July 2000, accessed November 2006 at http://agriculture.senate.gov/Hearings/Hearings_2000/Untitled/00718mol.htm).

382 Brazil's First Written Submission, para. 443.

383 U.S. 2 April answer to question 98, para. 227.
1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page