List of abbreviations 444 table of cases



Download 0.89 Mb.
Page18/18
Date conversion14.06.2018
Size0.89 Mb.
1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18
See U.S. First Written Submission, paras. 279-282.


574 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, para. 108.

575 See e.g., U.S. Comments on Brazil's "Oral" Presentation, paras. 58-78.

576 Brazil First Written Submission, para. 152. The United States notes that, while Brazil asserts in its first written submission that it will isolate the effects of the marketing loan and counter-cyclical payment programs, it does not do in its assessment of "temporal coincidence."

577 U.S. First Written Submission, paras. 243-252.

578 U.S. First Written Submission, para. 251.

579 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Panel Questions, paras. 112-115.

580 Upland Cotton (Panel), para. 7.1351.

581 Brazil Appellee Submission, para. 686. Brazil argued that "ultimate production" is not an appropriate basis for assessing production decisions as "producers do not decide on production, but on plantings. Ultimate production is affected by weather and other factors affecting yields." Brazil Appellee Submission, para. 706, n. 995. As a result, Brazil asserted that the original panel's discussion of an "overall increase in production" was actually a discussion regarding planting, not actually production.


582 See U.S. First Written Submission, para. 280 and U.S. Answers to Second Set of Panel Questions, paras. 1-4.

583 As the United States explained in its rebuttal submission, Brazil's attempts to compare changes in U.S. planted acreage, changes in foreign harvested acreage, and changes in the futures prices is fundamentally flawed both because of its apples-to-oranges comparison and also because it seeks to explain changes in U.S. upland cotton acreage solely by reference to upland cotton futures, in disregard of the basic fact that acreage decisions are made in consideration of prices and other factors not only for cotton but for competing crops. U.S. Rebuttal Submission, paras. 305-306. In fact, what Brazil's flawed analysis shows – when conducted on the same harvested-acreage basis for both the United States and the rest of the world – is that neither U.S. nor foreign harvested acreage moves closely in line with futures prices of cotton alone. U.S. Rebuttal Submission, para. 305-307. Nonetheless, even if the comparison were valid (and it is not), it would show that, where changes in U.S. and foreign area diverge, U.S. harvested acreage tends to react more conservatively than foreign acreage to increasing prices (as in MY 2003 and 2006). U.S. Rebuttal Submission, paras. 305-307. This would undermine – rather than support – Brazil's assertions of alleged "subsidy-fueled overproduction."

584 See U.S. Comments on Brazil's "Oral" Presentation, para. 70.


585 Oral Statement of Brazil, para. 73.

586 See Brazil Oral Statement of Brazil, para. 73 (arguing that "[i]f marketing loan and CCP subsidies did not exist, and if U.S. cotton farmers would have to react to market price signals, far more than 14 percent of cotton acreage predicted by the NCC [for MY 2007] would switch to substitute crops."); see also U.S. Comments on Brazil's "Oral" Presentation, paras. 1-4 (rebutting Brazil's argument).

587 See U.S. Comments on Brazil's "Oral" Presentation, para. 70. For example, the data show a perfect correlation between a shift away from soybean acreage in MY 2005 due to concerns about an outbreak of Asian soybean rust in the Delta and Southeast regions of the United States and an increase in the competing crop – cotton – in the exact same areas.

588 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, para. 113.

589 Interpreting "suppression" in accordance with its ordinary meaning of "[p]revent or inhibit (an action or phenomenon)," the panel in the original proceeding defined "price suppression" as "the situation where 'prices' – in terms of the 'amount of money set for sale of upland cotton' or the 'value or worth' of upland cotton – either are prevented or inhibited from rising (i.e. they do not increase when they otherwise would have) or they do actually increase, but the increase is less than it otherwise would have been." Upland Cotton (Panel), paras. 7.1276-7.1277. The Appellate Body agreed that this was an appropriate interpretation of "price suppression." Upland Cotton (AB), para. 424.


590 Compiled Statistics – Prices (Exhibit US-25).

591 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, paras. 117 and 118.

592 U.S. Further Submission in the original panel proceeding, paras. 46-54 (September 30, 2003). U.S. Further Rebuttal Submission in the original panel proceeding, para. 123-133 ( November 18, 2003).

593 U.S. First Written Submission, December 15, 2006, para. 302.

594 U.S. First Written Submission, December 15, 2006, para. 300.

595 For the most recent review, see U.S. Comments on Brazil's "Oral" Presentation, paras. 62-65.

596 Any such analysis would also have to look at the other factors besides expected operating costs affect the planting decision – MY 2005 being a good example of other confounding factors. In that year, a major unanticipated factor was the emergence of soybean rust in key cotton producing states, which encouraged producers to switch from soybeans to cotton. U.S. Comments on Brazil's "Oral" Presentation, para. 70.

597 See U.S. Answers to Second Set of Panel Questions, paras. 96-100, 113-116, 133-154.

598 See e.g., U.S. Comments on Brazil's "Oral" Presentation, paras. 66-67.

599 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, para. , para. 121.


600 See e.g., U.S. Answers to Second Set of Panel Questions, paras. 133-154.

601 Upland Cotton (Panel), para. 7.1353.

602 U.S. Comments on Brazil's "Oral" Presentation, paras. 76-77.

603 Brazil's First Written Submission, para. 286. See also Exhibit Bra-479, page 6.

604 See e.g., U.S. Comments on Brazil's "Oral" Presentation, para. 86.

605 Korea – Ships (Panel), para. 7.612.

606 U.S. – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (22.6), para 3.101.

607 Brazil's assertions about the FAPRI parameters are patently untrue. FAPRI has used their modeling system to analyze the removal of domestic subsidies under trade liberalization scenarios and the reduction of farm subsidies under various farm bill scenarios, including the "permanent" removal of payments. Indeed, in attempting to argue that elimination of the Step 2 program has had no effects on exports or prices, Brazil itself submitted and repeatedly cites to a FAPRI assessment of the effects of eliminating that program. See Brazil First Written Submission, para. 203 (addressing FAPRI, "Impacts of Commodity and Conservation Reserve Program Provisions in House and Senate Reconciliation Bills," FAPRI-UMC Report #15-05, December 2005(Exhibit Bra-484).)


608 See e.g., U.S. First Written Submission, paras. 319-328 and Annex I; U.S. Rebuttal Submission, paras. 349-386 and Annex I; U.S. Oral Statement, paras. 76-81 and Statement of Dr. Joseph W. Glauber; U.S. Comments on Answers to Parts D-E of First Set of Panel Questions, paras. 30-42; and U.S. Comments on Brazil's "Oral" Presentation, paras. 79-91.

609 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, para. 91.

610 See U.S. First Written Submission, paras. 149-195; U.S. Rebuttal Submission, paras. 175-214; U.S. Oral Statement, paras. 54-59.

611 Upland Cotton (AB), para. 437. As the United States has noted in its prior submissions, Brazil has not made any meaningful attempt to "ensure that the effects of other factors on prices are not improperly attributed to the challenged subsidies." Upland Cotton (AB), para. 437. Brazil's "analysis" consists of unsupported assertions that nothing "attenuates" the link that it asserts between the marketing loan and counter-cyclical payments and allegedly significantly suppressed world market prices. This is entirely insufficient to meet Brazil's burden, especially in light of substantial evidence submitted by the United States (and even, unwittingly, by Brazil itself) showing the key importance of other factors (such as China's trade in upland cotton) affecting world market prices. See e.g., U.S. First Written Submission, paras. 308-318; U.S. Rebuttal Submission, paras. 387-396.

612 See e.g., U.S. First Written Submission, paras. 323-343; U.S. Rebuttal Submission, paras. 399-404; U.S. Answers to Second Set of Panel Questions, paras. 171-172.


613 U.S. Answers to Second Set of Panel Questions, paras. 171-172.

614 The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary at 1350, Volume 1, (2002 Edition) (Exhibit US-148).

615 Or, at most two, if one considers world production plus beginning stocks.

616 See e.g., U.S. First Written Submission, paras. 323-343; U.S. Rebuttal Submission, paras. 399-404; U.S. Answers to Second Set of Panel Questions, paras. 171-172.

617 See e.g., U.S. Rebuttal Submission, paras. 405-425; U.S. Answers to Second Set of Panel Questions, paras. 173-199.

618 See e.g., U.S. Rebuttal Submission, paras. 405-425; U.S. Answers to Second Set of Panel Questions, paras. 173-199.

619 See e.g., U.S. Rebuttal Submission, paras. 405-425; U.S. Answers to Second Set of Panel Questions, paras. 173-199.

620 See United States – Gasoline (AB), p. 17 (noting that "[this] general rule of interpretation [codified in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties] has attained the status of a rule of customary or general international law. As such, it forms part of the 'customary rules of interpretation of public international law' which the Appellate Body has been directed, by Article 3(2) of the DSU, to apply in seeking to clarify the provisions of the General Agreement and the other 'covered agreements' of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. . . .)


621 See U.S. Rebuttal Submission, para. 409.

622 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Panel Questions, para. 172.

623 See e.g., U.S. Rebuttal Submission, paras. 405-425; U.S. Answers to Second Set of Panel Questions, paras. 173-199.

624 See e.g., U.S. Rebuttal Submission, paras. 405-425; U.S. Answers to Second Set of Panel Questions, paras. 173-199.

625 See e.g., U.S. Rebuttal Submission, paras. 405-425; U.S. Answers to Second Set of Panel Questions, paras. 173-199.

626 See Brazil First Written Submission, Table 17, n. 454.

627 Explanatory Notes for Stochastic Budget Outlays, (Exhibit BRA-460)

628 FAPRI 2006 U.S. Baseline Briefing Book, p. 1 (available at http://www.fapri.missouri.edu/outreach/publications/2006/FAPRI_UMC_Report_01_06.pdf).

629 Upland Cotton (Panel), para. 7.804.

630 U.S. Answers to Second Set of Panel Questions, paras. 206-211.

631 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, para. 203.


632 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, para. 225.

633 U.S. First Written Submission, paras. 123-124; U.S. Rebuttal Submission, para. 153; U.S. Answers to Second Set of Panel Questions, paras. 212-218.

634 Rebuttal Submission of Brazil, para. 429; see also, Oral Statement of Brazil, para. 219; Brazil's Comments on U.S. Answers, para. 140.

635 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, para. 225.

636 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, Exhibit Bra-686, para. 11.

637 Oral Statement of Brazil, para. 220.

638 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, Exhibit Bra-686, para. 30.

639 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, Exhibit Bra-686, para. 31.

640 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, Exhibit Bra-686, para. 31.

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

642 Brazil Answer to Question 100, para. 226. Brazil later asserts that it has discharged its burden by virtue its "ExIm Bank fee comparison." Id., para. 244. This comparison of fees is not an appropriate analysis. Moreover, the United States has demonstrated, however, the elements of the Ex-Im Bank products render them not comparable to the GSM-102 guarantee. U.S. Answer to Question 98 (2 April 2007).


643 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, para. 226 and fn. 297.

644 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, para. 246.

645 See, e.g., U.S. First Written Submission, paras. 111-131

646 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, para. 234.

647 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, para. 266.

648 See, e.g., U.S. First Written Submission, paras. 81-99.

649 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, paras. 273, 285.

650 See e.g., U.S. First Written Submission, paras. 73-104; U.S. Rebuttal Submission, paras. 84-100.

651 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, para. 272.

652 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, paras. 276-278.

653 U.S. Answers to Second Set of Panel Questions, paras. 246-248.

654 U.S. First Written Submission, para. 78.

655 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, para. 281.

656 U.S. First Written Submission, para. 78.


657 U.S. First Written Submission, para. 78, fn. 120; U.S. Rebuttal Submission, para.118; "Informal consultation questions to the United States," question 19 (Exhibit BRA-517).

658 U.S. First Written Submission, para. 78, fn. 120; U.S. Answers to Second Set of Panel Questions, para. 248, fn. 266 and 279-283.

659 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, para. 284.

660 U.S. Rebuttal Submission, paras. 108-126.

661 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, para. 292.

662 See, e.g., U.S. First Written Submission, paras. 73-80; U.S. Rebuttal Submission, paras. 101-107, 127 128.

663 See, e.g., U.S. First Written Submission, paras.81-99;U.S. Rebuttal Submission, paras. 84-100.

664 United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees (GAO 04 531) September 2004: Export Import Bank - OMB's Method for Estimating Bank's Loss Rates Involves Challenges and Lacks Transparency, p. 7 (Exhibit US-73) ("To estimate their subsidy costs, credit agencies estimate the future performance of direct and guaranteed loans. Agency management is responsible for accumulating relevant, sufficient, and reliable data on which to base these estimates. To estimate future loan performance, agencies generally have cash flow models, or computer-based spreadsheets, that include assumptions about defaults, prepayments, recoveries, and the timing of these events and are based on the nature of their own credit program. Agencies that provide credit to domestic borrowers generally develop these cash flow assumptions, which OMB reviews, based on their historical experience. For U.S. international credits, OMB provides the expected loss rates, which are composed of default and recovery assumptions, that agencies should use to estimate their subsidy costs.") (Emphasis added)


665 United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees (GAO 04 531) September 2004: Export Import Bank - OMB's Method for Estimating Bank's Loss Rates Involves Challenges and Lacks Transparency, p. 10 (Exhibit US-73).

666 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, para. 302.

667 The United States notes a typographical error in its response, however. In paragraph 261, the fourth sentence should read: "Therefore, it is inexplicable - and entirely disingenuous - that Brazil criticizes the United States for including recoveries received before 1992 (indeed as far back as 1980)." The United States inadvertently included "not" before "including" in its response.

668 Brazil Answers to Second Set of Questions, para. 314.

669 Brazil's Answers to Questions Posed by the Panel Following the First Substantive Meeting of the Panel, para. 164 (Question 77) (11 August 2003) (emphasis in original).




1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18


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

    Main page