Caribbean Trade Law and Development

Tag: Dispute settlement

  • WTO Panel Rules US Tax Incentive to Boeing a Prohibited Subsidy

    WTO Panel Rules US Tax Incentive to Boeing a Prohibited Subsidy

    Photo source: Pixabay

    Alicia Nicholls

    In the latest saga of the on-going battle between aircraft giants Airbus and Boeing, a World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute settlement body panel on November 28, 2016 has ruled that Washington State’s business and occupation (B&O) aerospace tax rate for the manufacturing or sale of commercial airplanes under Boeing’s 777X programme currently in development is a prohibited subsidy under the WTO’s Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement. The tax breaks to Boeing had been extended by Washington State in 2013 from 2024 to 2040.

    The Dispute

    The dispute DS487: United States — Conditional Tax Incentives for Large Civil Aircraft was brought by the European Union (EU) which claimed that seven tax incentives extended by Washington State to the civil aerospace industry, which would benefit Boeing’s 777x programme, constitute prohibited subsidies under Articles 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the WTO’s Subsidies & Countervailing Measures Agreement because they de jure require Boeing to use domestically assembled and not imported body and wings for its 777x jets.Such a measure would fall under a prohibited subsidy under Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement as it is a subsidy tied to the use of local content. The EU had claimed that Boeing would gain over $5.7 billion in benefits from the measures.

    Findings

    The Panel found that all seven of the measures at issue were subsidies under Article 1 of the SCM but found that only the B&O aerospace tax rate for the manufacturing or sale of commercial airplanes under the 777X programme was a prohibited subsidy under the SCM Agreement as it was contingent on the use of domestic over imported goods.

    The Panel recommended that the US withdraw this prohibited subsidy without delay and within 90 days.

    With respect to the six other challenged measures, the Panel held that the EU did not demonstrate that the aerospace tax measures are de jure contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods and were therefore not prohibited subsidies.

    Reactions

    Interestingly, both sides appear to have claimed victory which is perhaps not surprising as the WTO ruled only one out of the seven contested measures to be prohibited.

    The European Commission has hailed the ruling a “major win” in its press release following the ruling. In that release EU Trade Commissioner, Cecilia Malmstrom is quoted as stating:

    “Today’s WTO ruling is an important victory for the EU and its aircraft industry. The panel has found that the additional massive subsidies of USD 5.7 billion provided by Washington State to Boeing are strictly illegal. We expect the US to respect the rules, uphold fair competition, and withdraw these subsidies without any delay”.

    Boeing’s rival, the EU-based Airbus termed it a “knock-out blow”. In its own press release, Airbus claimed that “Boeing has caused at least $95 billion in commercial harm to Airbus, opening the door to trade sanctions against the US in an equivalent amount.”

    In its response to the ruling, Boeing stated that “the World Trade Organization (WTO) today rejected virtually all of the European Union’s challenges to the Washington state tax incentives”. Boeing’s General Counsel, J. Michael Luttig stated that “we fully expect Boeing to preserve every aspect of the Washington state incentives, including the 777X revenue tax rate.”

    What next?

    Either party can appeal the ruling and it is expected that this will occur. This dispute is just the latest in the 12-year old dispute between aerospace rivals Airbus and Boeing over the extent of “illegal” government support the manufacturers have received from EU member countries in the case of Airbus, and the US in the case of Boeing.

    The ruling comes on the heels of a report by a WTO compliance panel released September 2016 which held that the EU had not complied fully with a ruling against support provided to Airbus in the EC and certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft dispute. In 2017 the WTO is also expected to issue its ruling on another case regarding US support for Boeing.

    The full panel report may be viewed here.

    Alicia Nicholls, B.Sc., M.Sc., LL.B., is a trade and development consultant with a keen interest in sustainable development, international law and trade. You can also read more of her commentaries and follow her on Twitter @LicyLaw.

  • WTO Panel rules in US’ Favour in Solar Dispute against India

    Alicia Nicholls

    A World Trade Organisation (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body panel has issued its report in the dispute  India — Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules in which the United States challenged the domestic content requirements imposed by India relating to solar cells and solar modules under the latter’s Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission. The Panel found in favour of the US’ view, holding that India’s domestic content requirements were discriminatory and inconsistent with India’s obligations under Article III:4 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 and Article 2:1 of the Agreement on Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs).

    The dispute is  one in a growing body of WTO disputes in which one member’s government support programmes for the renewable energy sector (whether local or national) have been challenged by another member as being inconsistent with the former’s obligations under WTO rules. It is therefore not surprising that a long list of countries notified their interests as third parties to this dispute, namely: Brazil, Canada, China, Ecuador, the European Union, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia,Norway, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Chinese Taipei and Turkey.

    Background

    The Indian Government launched the National Solar Mission (NSM) in January 11, 2010 as one of the eight national missions under India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC). The NSM has the aim to promote the use of solar energy in India, foster energy security and make India a global leader in solar energy. According to the Indian Ministry of New and Renewable Energy’s website, the NSM’s ambition is “to deploy 20,000 MW of grid connected solar power by 2022” and to reduce the cost of solar power generation in India through four key aspects, including domestic production of critical raw materials, components and products.

    At the heart of the dispute, the Indian Government required solar developers (or their successors to the contract) to purchase or use solar cells or solar modules of domestic origin in order to be eligible to enter into and maintain certain power purchase agreements under the NSM.

    The US argued that these domestic content requirements mandated by the Indian Government under Phases I and II of the NSM were discriminatory and inconsistent with India’s WTO obligations. Specifically, the US challenged the measures’ consistency with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 (National Treatment), arguing that they accord less favorable treatment to imported products than to like domestically produced goods.Additionally, the US argued that these domestic content requirements were trade-related investment measures which fell within paragraph 1(a) of the Illustrative List of the TRIMs Agreement’s annex and were therefore inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement.

    In its defense, India argued that its domestic content requirements at issue were not inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 or Article 2.1 of the TRIMS Agreement. India also sought to rely on the exceptions in  Article III:8(a), Articles XX(j) and/or XX(d) of GATT 1994 (General Exceptions).

    The US requested consultations with India initially in February 2013 and then in relation to Phase II of the NSM in February 2014. A panel was established in May 2014 and the parties agreed to the panel’s composition in September of that same year.

    Ruling

    In its report circulated today, the Panel found in favour of the US’ view. It held that:

    • India’s domestic content requirements in question were trade-related investment measures for the purposes of the Illustrative List in the TRIMs Agreement’s Annex and were therefore inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement.
    • The Panel also found that the domestic content requirements in question do accord “less favourable treatment” within the meaning of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994

    In regards to India’s argument about the government procurement derogation under Article III:8(a) of the GATT 1994, the Panel referred to the Appellate Body’s interpretation of that article in the Canada — Renewable Energy / Feed-In Tariff Program dispute in which the EU had successfully challenged domestic content requirements imposed by the Ontario provincial government in relation to its Feed-In Tariff (FIT) programme. Relying on its interpretation in that dispute, the Panel held that discrimination relating to solar cells and modules under the domestic content measures is not covered by Article III:8(a) of the GATT 1994.

    The Panel also argued that India failed to show that the domestic content requirements were justified under the general exceptions, Article XX(j) or Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994.

    The big picture

    What this dispute and others like it concerning domestic support for renewable energy programmes show is the increasing intersection and conflict between  trade and environmental policy, in particular, trade and climate change policy.It is an issue which is more than moot for small island developing States  like Barbados  (a Caribbean leader in solar energy which aims to become a “green economy”) in regards to how much policy space is available to policy makers to provide support for the advancement of the renewable energy sector in the country without running afoul of the country’s WTO obligations.

    The relationship between trade and climate policy is one of the issues which was discussed at length in the E15 Initiative Report entitled “Analysis and Options for Strengthening the Global Trade and Investment System for Sustainable Development”, particularly in this think piece  considering “the costs and benefits  for adjusting WTO rules to provide additional policy space to mitigate climate change and promote renewable energy”.

    As countries take more aggressive measures in order to meet their national emissions reduction targets in the spirit of the Paris Agreement’s goal to limit the global temperature increase to no more than 2 percent above pre-industrial levels (with the best endeavour goal of 1.5 percent), there is likely to be more conflict between WTO rules and climate change policies in years to come. WTO members will be forced to address ways in which the WTO rules can be flexed to more adequately accommodate members’ climate change mitigation policies, while at the same time ensuring that they are not used as a guise for protectionism.

    For further information on the US-India Solar dispute, please see the  WTO’s case summary and the full Panel Report.

    Alicia Nicholls, B.Sc., M.Sc., LL.B. is a trade and development consultant with a keen interest in sustainable development, international law and trade. You can also read more of her commentaries and follow her on Twitter @LicyLaw.