<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>WTO Dispute Panel Report Finds us Countervailing Duty (CVD) On India’s Exports Of ‘Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products’ inconsistent with WTO Law on Subsidies</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/news?id=13099</link>
    <description>The WTO panel found that key elements of the US countervailing duty framework violated the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, specifically rejecting the US requirement to cumulate non subsidized and subsidized imports for injury determination; the panel also held that treating grants of mining rights as subsidies lacked factual basis, that Indian market prices should not have been ignored in subsidy calculations, and that extensive use of adverse facts available was unwarranted, while declining to accept certain Indian claims on subsidy quantification and public body status.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2014 09:55:14 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2014 09:55:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=359931" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>WTO Dispute Panel Report Finds us Countervailing Duty (CVD) On India’s Exports Of ‘Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products’ inconsistent with WTO Law on Subsidies</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/news?id=13099</link>
      <description>The WTO panel found that key elements of the US countervailing duty framework violated the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, specifically rejecting the US requirement to cumulate non subsidized and subsidized imports for injury determination; the panel also held that treating grants of mining rights as subsidies lacked factual basis, that Indian market prices should not have been ignored in subsidy calculations, and that extensive use of adverse facts available was unwarranted, while declining to accept certain Indian claims on subsidy quantification and public body status.</description>
      <category>News</category>
      <law>-</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2014 09:55:14 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/news?id=13099</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>