Armin Hohenadler

The Panel concluded that Canada had not established that Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act was inconsistent with Articles VI:2, VI:3 and VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994; Articles 1, 9.3, 11.1 and 18.1 and 18.4 of the AD Agreement; Articles 10, 19.4, 21.1, 32.1 and 32.5 of the SCM Convention; and Article XVI(4) of the WTO Agreement. Based on its findings, the panel did not make any recommendations to the DSD. Section 129 of the URAA defines the nature and impact of the Ministry`s findings relating to the implementation of the findings of the WTO dispute settlement bodies and the Appellate Body. In particular, Section 129(b)(2) of the URAA provides that „notwithstanding a provision of the Tariff Act of 1930,“ the Department, upon written request of the USTR, adopts a decision that does not render its actions inconsistent with an adverse finding by a WTO panel or appellate body.