5.61 For Canada, this interpretation is supported by additional support in the Indonesia Panel Report – Cars, which found that Article 3 “… prohibits subsidies that depend on export performance and compliance with local content requirements … 121 Canada argues that the section 3 prohibition is not due to the effect of a grant 122 by the purpose of a subsidy. On the contrary, according to Canada, Article 3 concerns subsidies that are granted or maintained only if certain conditions are met: Article 3.1, point (a), takes subsidies when the condition of granting subsidies is that exports must be exported or made; similarly, Article 3.1, point b) applies to subsidies where the subsidy is conditional on the existence of marginal and wage-based national salaries. In its final report, launched on Thursday, a three-member dispute resolution body, composed of Jose Antonio S. Buencamino, Leora Blumberg and Serge Pannatier, found that India`s export promotion programmes violate several provisions of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM). 7.9 In the event that the member has not taken appropriate measures to eliminate the negative effects of the grant or to withdraw the subsidy within six months of the adoption of the panel`s report or the appellate body`s report, the DSB gives the complaining member permission to take action. , depending on the degree and nature of the adverse effects, unless the DSB agrees to reject the application. Brazil argued that these measures were inconsistent with U.S. obligations under the following provisions: Article 5, paragraph 1, point 6.3 b), (c) and (d) (including point (including point j) of the list of export subsidies listed in Schedule I), 3.1 (b) and 3.2 of the MMMM agreement; Articles 3.3, 7.1, 8, 9.1 and 10.1 of the agriculture agreement; Article III:4 of the 1994 GATT. Brazil considered that the laws, regulations and administrative procedures of the United States mentioned above would be moderated and enforced by these provisions. – confirms, in a majority opinion, the panel`s finding that Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture does not exclude export credit guarantees from the export subsidy disciplines contained in Article 10.1 of this agreement; in a separate opinion, that Article 10.2 of the Convention on Agriculture does not exempt export credit guarantees from the disciplines provided for in Article 10.1 of that agreement until international discipline be accepted that U.S. export credit guarantee programs are prohibited under Article 3.1, point a) of the SCM Convention and are therefore inconsistent with Article 3.2 of the agreement; GSM 103 and CSAGP are an export subsidy in the sense of point j) of the indicative list of export subsidies on Schedule I of the MCS. agreement,” and confirms the body`s findings that these export credit guarantee programmes are export subsidies within the meaning of Article 3.1, point a), the SCM Convention and are inconsistent with Articles 3.1 (a) and 3.2 of this agreement; and notes that the proceeding did not err in the exercise of judicial activity with respect to Brazil`s assertion that U.S.

export guarantee programs are prohibited under Article 3.1, period (a) of the SCM Convention, granting a “benefit” within the meaning of Article 1.1 of this agreement; 5.58 For Canada, the keywords of interpretation of section 3.1 (a) are ” contingent …