No conflito entre Comunidade Europeia e Estados Unidos da América relativo aos subsídios concedidos pelos EUA aos produtores estadunidenses de grandes aeronaves civis, mais especificamente à The Boeing Company (DS353), o Órgão de Apelação (OA) da Organização Mundial do Comércio (OMC) entendeu que a medida é incompatível com as normas da OMC, recomendando ao Órgão de Solução de Controvérsias (OSC) que solicite aos EUA a adequação de suas normas às regras do comércio internacional.
O relatório do Órgão de Apelação foi emitido ontem, 12 de março de 2012.
Cumpre salientar que este relatório deverá ser submetido à aprovação do OSC. Somente o OSC decide os conflitos dentro da Organização Mundial do Comércio, através da adoção ou não dos relatórios do painel ou do Órgão de Apelação.
O OSC é composto por um representante de cada membro da OMC e para aprovação do relatório basta que apenas 1 (um) Estado vote a favor de sua adoção. Ressalta-se, também, que o voto do país vencedor da controvérsia é computado, sendo suficiente para a aprovação do relatório. Assim, no Caso Boeing, basta que a CE vote a favor do relatório do OA que este será adotado pelo Órgão de Solução de Controvérsias.
A única forma de um relatório ser rechaçado pelo OSC é mediante o consenso negativo, ou seja, todos os membros do Órgão de Solução de Controvérsias decidirem por sua não adoção.
O Caso Boeing
Em 2005, a Comunidade Europeia (CE) solicitou à OMC a celebração de consultas com os EUA, acusando o governo estadunidense de conceder subsídios proíbidos à Boeing, e que essas medidas eram incompatíveis com as normas do Acordo sobre Subsídios e Medidas Compensatórias (ASCM).
A Comunidade Europeia alegou que os EUA estavam concedendo cerca de U$ 19 bilhões de subsídios na forma de isenções e outros benefícios fiscais, inclusive pelos governos estaduais de Washington, Kansas e Illinois, bem como na ajuda financeira e outras formas de cooperação por meio da NASA, do Departamento de Defesa (USDOD), do Departamento de Comércio, e do Departamento de Trabalho.
Para a CE as medidas estadunidenses violam as alíneas “a” e “b” do art. 3º e as alíneas “a” e “c” do art. 5º, bem como as alíneas “a”, “b”, e “c” do parágrafo terceiro do art. 6º do ASMC. No que respeita ao GATT, a Comunidade Europeia entende que os EUA descumpriram o parágrafo 4º do art. 3º.
O Órgão de Apelação, embora tenha confirmado que os EUA concederam subsídios proíbidos à Boeing, causando dano às empresas europeias, entendeu que o valor da contribuição fincanceira é inferior àquela alegada pelos países europeus.
Por fim, insta lembrar que a rixa entre EUA e Comunidade Européia é maior do que pode parecer, havendo também na OMC uma reclamação apresentada pelo governo estadunidense contra a CE, alegando que os países europeus concedem subsidios proibidos à Airbus, por meio de financiamentos a juros baixos. A medida européia também foi considerada incompatível com as normas internacionais de comércio.
Leia abaixo, o resumo das principais constatações do Órgão de Apelação, publicadas no site da OMC:
"This dispute concerns a number of US measures affecting trade in large civil aircraft (“LCA”). The European Communities claimed that the United States has provided subsidies to US producers of LCA, namely The Boeing Company, and that such subsidies are prohibited and/or actionable under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”). In particular, the European Communities challenged: (i) a number of state and local measures granted to US LCA producers by the states of Washington, Kansas, and Illinois, and municipalities therein; (ii) payments and other support provided to Boeing by the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”), US Department of Defense (“USDOD”), US Department of Commerce, and US Department of Labor; and (iii) export subsidies allegedly granted to Boeing pursuant to provisions of the US Internal Revenue Code relating to Foreign Sales Corporation (“FSC”) / extraterritorial income (“ETI”) and successor legislation. The European Communities argued that these subsidies, which in its view amounted to $19.1 billion over the period 1989-2006, caused serious prejudice to its interests within the meaning of Articles 5(c) and 6.3 of the SCM Agreement. The Panel however determined the value of the subsidies to be at least $5.3 billion.
As an initial matter, the Appellate Body found that the Panel had erred in denying various requests made by the European Communities with respect to the information-gathering procedure under Annex V of the SCM Agreement. The Appellate Body found that the initiation of an Annex V procedure occurs automatically when there is a request for initiation of such a procedure and the DSB establishes a panel. However, the Appellate Body declined to make findings as to whether the conditions for an initiation of an Annex V procedure were fulfilled in this dispute.
As regards the measures under the eight NASA R&D programmes at issue and the 23 USDOD Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (“RDT&E”) programmes at issue, the Appellate Body found that the payments and access to facilities, equipment and employees provided to Boeing under the NASA procurement contracts, and the payments and access to facilities provided to Boeing under the USDOD assistance instruments, constitute financial contributions within the meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement. Because the Appellate Body took a different approach to the Panel's, it did not need to resolve the issue of whether measures properly characterized as purchases of services are excluded from the scope of Article 1.1(1)(i) of the SCM Agreement. Consequently, the Appellate Body declared the Panel's interpretation that such measures are excluded from the scope of Article 1.1(a)(1)(i) of the SCM Agreement to be moot and of no legal effect. The Appellate Body also declared moot the Panel's finding that the USDOD procurement contracts are properly characterized as purchases of services and thus are not financial contributions under Article 1.1(a)(1). However, as neither participant had requested it to do so, the Appellate Body did not complete the analysis regarding the USDOD procurement contracts at issue in this dispute. The United States did not appeal the Panel's finding that the access to facilities, equipment and employees provided to Boeing under the NASA Space Act Agreements constitute a financial contribution under Article 1.1(a)(1).
Moreover, the Appellate Body upheld, albeit for different reasons, the Panel's findings that the payments and access to facilities, equipment, and employees provided under the NASA procurement contracts, and payments and access to facilities provided under the USDOD assistance instruments, conferred a benefit on Boeing within the meaning of Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement.
The Appellate Body did not review the Panel's finding that the access to facilities, equipment and employees provided to Boeing under the NASA Space Act Agreements conferred a benefit.
The Appellate Body found that the allocation of patent rights under contracts and agreements between NASA/USDOD and Boeing — on the assumption that such allocation is a self standing subsidy — is not explicitly limited to certain enterprises within the meaning of Article 2.1(a). However, it found that the Panel erred by failing to examine the European Communities' arguments that such allocation is “in fact” specific under Article 2.1(c) of the SCM Agreement. The Appellate Body thus found that the Panel's overall finding under Article 2.1 could not be sustained, but declined to find that such allocation is specific within the meaning of Article 2.1(c) of the SCM Agreement.
In relation to the Washington State B&O tax rate reduction, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that the reduction in the Washington State B&O tax rate applicable to commercial aircraft and component manufacturers constitutes the foregoing of revenue otherwise due, and therefore a financial contribution within the meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1)(ii) of the SCM Agreement. The Appellate Body also upheld the Panel's finding that the Washington State B&O tax rate reduction is a subsidy that is specific within the meaning of Article 2.1(a) of the SCM Agreement.
As for the subsidies provided by the City of Wichita (Kansas) through the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds ("IRB"), the Appellate Body upheld, albeit for different reasons, the Panel's finding that the IRB subsidies provided to Boeing and Spirit are specific within the meaning of Article 2.1(c) of the SCM Agreement.
With respect to the Panel's analysis of adverse effects, the Appellate Body observed that the Panel had conducted a separate analysis of adverse effects caused by the NASA/USDOD aeronautics R&D subsidies in the 200-300 seat LCA market (through their “technology effects”), and an analysis of the adverse effects caused by all the subsidies in the 100-200 seat and 300-400 seat LCA market (through their “price effects”). As regards to the analysis of the “technology effects”, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's overall conclusion that the aeronautics R&D subsidies caused serious prejudice to the interests of the European Communities within the meaning of Articles 5(c) and 6.3(b) and (c) of the SCM Agreement with respect to the 200 300 seat LCA market. Specifically, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding of significant lost sales and significant price suppression in the 200 300 seat LCA market, but reversed the Panel's finding of a threat of displacement and impedance with respect to the 200 300 seat LCA market as it relates to Kenya, Iceland, and Ethiopia (but not with respect to Australia) within the meaning of Article 6.3(b) of the SCM Agreement.
As for the Panel's analysis of price effects, the Appellate Body reversed the Panel's findings that the FSC/ETI subsidies and the B&O tax rate reductions caused serious prejudice to the interests of the European Communities within the meaning of Articles 5(c) and 6.3(b) and (c) of the SCM Agreement with respect to the 100-200 seat and 300-400 seat LCA markets. In completing the analysis, the Appellate Body found that the FSC/ETI subsidies and the Washington State B&O tax rate reduction caused, through their effects on Boeing's prices, serious prejudice in the form of significant lost sales within the meaning of Articles 5(c) and 6.3(c) of the SCM Agreement with respect to the 100-200 seat LCA market.
Moreover, the Appellate Body: (i) found that the Panel erred in failing to consider whether the price effects of the B&O tax rate reductions complement and supplement the technology effects of the aeronautics R&D subsidies in causing significant lost sales and significant price suppression, and a threat of displacement and impedance, in the 200-300 seat LCA market; (ii) reversed the Panel's finding that the remaining subsidies had not been shown to have affected Boeing's prices in a manner giving rise to serious prejudice with respect to the 100 200 seat and 300-400 seat LCA markets; and (iii) in completing the analysis, found that the effects of the City of Wichita IRBs complemented and supplemented the price effects of the FSC/ETI subsidies and the State of Washington B&O tax rate reduction, thereby causing serious prejudice, in the form of significant lost sales, within the meaning of Articles 5(c) and 6.3(c) of the SCM Agreement, in the 100 200 seat LCA market."
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário