FTA Australia Leather Case 분석(호주자동차가죽 보조금 분쟁)

소개

MBA 과정 공부하고 있는 학생입니다. 개인 최종 레포트로 작성한거구요 좋은 성적을 받았습니다.
FTA 호주자동차 가죽 시트관련 분쟁으로 Background, US Arguments,Australia Arguments,
Panel Decision Making으로 구성된 자료입니다.
모든 자료는 영문입니다.

목차

Understanding Background
- ICS & EFS
- The SCM Agreement
- Factual Aspects
- The Grant Contract
- The Loan Contract

US Arguments
- The U.S Main Argument
- The SCM Agreement
- The U.S Request

Australia Arguments
- Arguments Summary
- Issues Summary

Panel Decision Making(1)
Panel Decision Making(2)

본문내용

Background :
Howe – the beneficiary of the subsidy
The manufacturer of Automotive leather, Exporting 90% of its sales
A wholly-owned subsidiary of Australian Leather Upholstery Pty. Ltd
* owned by Australian Leather Holdings, Limited(“ALH”)

the automotive leather industry in Australia
Domestic market is too small to absorb Howe’s production
Other leather manufacturers except Howe supply only domestic market

US Argueents :
Both contracts are subsidies contingent in fact upon export performance.
Howe was exporting 90%of its sales.

The replacement to compensate Howe for its exclusion from “in law” export subsidies
(ICS and EFS) for export promotion

Panel Decision Making:
ASCM Art 4.7 (withdrawal of the subsidy):
Having concluded that the phrase “withdraw the subsidy” under Art 4.7 encompasses “repayment”, the Panel found that repayment in full of the prohibited subsidy was necessary in this case, as it considered that in the case of a one-time subsidy, there were no other ways than repayment in full in which withdrawal of the subsidy could be achieved. The Panel found that Australia failed to comply with the DSB’s recommendation to withdraw the subsidy within 90days, as the provision by the Australia government of a loan of $A 13.65 million to ALH nullified the repayment by Howe of $A 8.065 million.

참고자료

· Kyle Bagwell & Robert Staiger, `Subsidy Agreements` (NBER Working Paper 10292, 2004).
· Alan Sykes, `the Economics of WTO Rules on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures` (May 2003).