Therefore, given that there is “disagreement between the United States and Australia within the meaning of Article 21.5 of the DSU on the existence or coherence of an agreement covered by measures to comply with the recommendations and decisions of the point of disagreement,” the United States calls for its use of Article 21.5 in this matter and, if possible, refer the dispute to the original proceeding, in accordance with Article 21.5. If, within six months of the adoption of the panel`s report or the appeal body`s report, the member has not taken appropriate steps to eliminate the adverse effects of the subsidy or withdraw the subsidy, the DSB gives the requesting member permission to take action based on the degree and nature of the adverse effects found, unless the DSB decides by mutual agreement to reject the application. 1. Any agreement, whether by formal agreement or correspondence with Howe or its related companies, that Howe has agreed to repay or repay AUD 8.065 million of the AUD 30 million made available in 1997 and/or 1998. 5.26 According to Canada, the usual rules of interpretation of international law require that interpretation reflect the usual meaning of the words used in the context and with respect to the purpose and purpose of the agreement in question (points 5.1 to 5.4). With respect to the interpretation and analysis of the relevant provisions of an international agreement, Canada also believes that the interpreter must ensure that the solution of any ambiguity does not disturb “the carefully drawn balance of members` rights and obligations.” However, if there is a significant disagreement over Australia`s assertion that the partial repayment of AUD 8.065 million should be considered a total withdrawal from the likely portion of the subsidy. Only 18 to 30 months ago, Howe received the full capital injection of AUD 30 million. The benefits to Howe – and the resulting trade distortion – will be considerable for many years to come. 35.
Unlike this appropriate allocation, Australia has entered into an agreement with Howe that requires howe to repay only AUD 8.065 million. Once the agreement of the companies concerned has been obtained, the investigating authorities should inform the authorities of the exporting member of the names and addresses of the companies to be visited and the dates agreed upon. 2) Any correspondence between the Government of Australia and Howe, or their related companies, relating to the agreement to reimburse or reimburse the 8.065 million AUDs covered in Application 1. Upstairs. 15. There is no disagreement between the parties that the provisions of Article 4.7 of the SCM Convention and the recommendations contained in the panel`s report call on Australia to withdraw only the likely portion of the illegal subsidy. And indeed, this position is supported by the SCM agreement and the DSU. Section 4.7 of the SCM Convention states that “if the measure in question is found to be a prohibited subsidy, the group recommends that the granting member withdraw the subsidy immediately.” However, Article 19 of the DSU states that “when a panel or appellate body concludes that a measure is inconsistent with a covered agreement, it recommends that the member concerned bring the measure into line with that agreement.” The use of the term “bringing the measure into compliance” shows that the recommendations in section 19 of the ESD contain only recommendations requiring potential corrective action from members, not retroactive measures.