WT/DS472/8  
WT/DS497/6  
 
6 October  2017 
(17-5386) Page: 1/8 
  Original: English  
 
 
BRAZIL – CERTAIN MEASURES CON CERNING TAXATION AND CHARGES  
NOTIFICATION OF AN A PPEAL BY BRAZIL  
UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 A ND ARTICLE 17 OF THE  UNDERSTANDING ON RUL ES 
AND PROCEDURES GOVER NING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU),  
AND UNDER RULE 20(1)  OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPEL LATE REVIEW  
The following communication, dated 28 September 2017, from the delegation of Brazil, is  being 
circulated to Members.  
_______________  
 
 
1. Pursuant to Articles 16.4 and 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review 
(WT/AB/WP/6) ("Working Procedures"), Brazil hereby notifies the Dispute Settlement Body of its 
decision to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretation in  the reports of the Panel in Brazil 
– Certain Measures Concerning Taxation and Charges  (WT/DS472 , DS497) ("Panel Report").  
2. The seven programmes at issue are: (a) the Informatics programme; (b) the programme of 
Incentives for the Semiconductors Sector ("PA DIS programme"); (c) the programme of Support 
for the Technological Development of the Industry of Digital TV Equipment ("PATVD programme"); 
(d) the programme for Digital Inclusion ("Digital Inclusion programme"); (e) the programme of 
Incentive to the Tech nological Innovation and Densification of the Automotive Supply Chain 
("INOVAR -AUTO"); (f) the regime for predominantly exporting companies ("PEC programme"); and 
the Special Regime for the Purchase of Capital Goods for Exporting Enterprises ("RECAP 
progra mme").1 
3. The issues that Brazil raises in this appeal relate to the Panel's findings and conclusions with 
respect to the consistency of the challenged programmes with various provisions of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures  (SCM Agreement), and the Agreement on Trade -Related Investment 
Measures (TRIMS Agreement).  
4. Pursuant to Rules 20(1) and 21(1) of the Working Procedures, Brazil files this Notice of 
Appeal together with its App ellant's Submission with the Appellate Body Secretariat.  
5. Pursuant to Rule 20(2)(d)(iii) of the Working Procedures, this Notice of Appeal provides an 
indicative list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing the alleged errors of law and legal 
interpretation by the Panel, without prejudice to Brazil's ability to rely on other paragraphs of the 
Panel Report in its appeal.  
                                                
1 The complainants explained in their panel requests that these programmes are "set up and 
implemented", "established and administered" through the measures identified in paragraph 2.38 of the Panel 
Report.  WT/DS472/8 • WT/DS497/6  
 
- 2 - 
 
  I. REVIEW OF THE PANEL' S INTERPRETA TION AND APPLICATION  OF 
ARTICLE  III:8(B) OF THE GATT  1994 TO THE INFORMAT ICS, PADIS, PATVD, 
DIGI TAL INCLUSION PROGRA MMES ("ICT PROGRAMME S") AND THE INOVAR -AUTO 
PROGRAMME  
6. Brazil seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's finding that domestic production 
subsidies within the meaning of Article III:8(b) of the GATT 1994 are not exempt from the 
disciplines of Article III thereof. The Panel's errors of law and legal interpretation include:  
 The Panel erred in finding that the scope of Article III:8(b) of the GATT 1994 is limited to 
the provision of subsidies to domestic producers where those subsidie s do not have any 
component that introduces discrimination between imported and domestic products;2  
 The Panel erred in finding that Article III:8(b) of the GATT 1994 only serves to clarify 
that Members are not required to subsidize foreign producers in ta ndem with domestic 
producers;3 
 The Panel erred by failing to determine, in the first instance, whether the measures at 
issue are product -related measures subject to the disciplines of Article III  of the 
GATT  1994 or, conversely, whether the measures provid e subsidies to domestic 
producers and are therefore subject to the disciplines of the SCM Agreement.  
7. For these reasons, Brazil respectfully requests that the Appellate Body reverse the Panel's 
interpretative finding, in paragraphs 7.87, 8.3, and 8.14 of th e Panel Report, that subsidies that 
are provided exclusively to domestic producers pursuant to Article III:8(b) of the GATT 1994 are 
not per se exempted from the disciplines of Article III of the GATT. As a result, Brazil also requests 
that the Appellate B ody reverse all of the Panel's consequential findin gs to this effect in 
paragraphs  7.93, 7.184, 7.631, and 7.696 of the Panel Report.  
8. Brazil respectfully requests that the Appellate Body find that the Panel erred by failing to 
determine, in the first instance, whether the measures at issue are product -related measures 
subject to the disciplines of Article III of the GATT 1994 or, conversely, whether the measures 
provide subsidies to domestic producers and are therefore subject to  the disciplines of the  
SCM Agreement.  
9. Consequently, Brazil also requests that the Appellate Body reverse the Panel's findings in 
paragraphs 7.174, 7.318, 7.319, 7.688, 7.772, 7.773, 8.5(a), 8.5(b), 8.6(a), 8.6(b), 8.16(a), 
8.16(c), 8.17(a), and 8.17(c) of the Panel Report that the ICT programmes and INOVAR -AUTO are 
inconsistent with Articles III:2 and III:4 of the GATT 1994. The Appellate Body should also reverse  
the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.365, 7.806, 8.5(d), 8.6(d), 8.16(e), and 8.17(e) of the Panel 
Report that the IC T programmes and INOVAR -AUTO are inconsisten t with Article 2.1 of the 
TRIMs  Agreement.  
II. REVIEW OF THE PANEL' S INTERPRETATION AND  APPLICATION OF ARTIC LE III:2 
OF THE GATT 1994 TO THE ICT PROGRAMMES  
10. Brazil seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel' s finding that production -step 
requirements under the ICT programmes, and the requirement for products to obtain the status of 
"developed" in Brazil, result in imported products being subject to internal taxes in excess of those 
applied to like domestic pr oducts, inconsistently with Article III :2, first sentence, of the 
GATT  1994. The Panel's errors of law and legal interpretation include:  
 The Panel erred in failing to determine that the ICT programmes constitute "payments of 
subsidies exclusively to domest ic producers" within the meaning of Article III:8(b) of the 
GATT 1994;4 
                                                
2 See Panel Report, para s. 7.83 -7.87. 
3 See Panel  Report, para. 7.84.  
4 See Panel Report, paras. 7.77 -7.87, 7.93.  WT/DS472/8 • WT/DS497/6  
 
- 3 - 
 
   The Panel erred in finding that the complainants had demonstrated that imported 
products were taxed in excess of domestic like products under the ICT programmes 
within the meaning of Article III:2;5 
 The Panel erred in finding that the "cash flow" and the "time -value of money" effects 
under the ICT programmes result in a higher tax burden on imported intermediate 
products.6 
11. For these reasons, Brazil requests further that the Appellate B ody reverse the Panel's 
findings in paragraphs 7.174, 8.5(a), and 8.16(a) of the Panel Report that the ICT programmes 
result in imported products being subject to internal taxes in excess of those applied to like 
domestic products, inconsistently with Arti cle III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994.  
12. As a result, Brazil also requests that the Appellate Body reverse the Panel's consequential 
finding in paragraphs 7.365, 8.5(d), and 8.16(e) of the Panel Report that the ICT programmes are 
inconsistent with Art icle 2.1 of the TRIMS Agreement.  
III. REVIEW OF THE PANEL' S INTERPRETATION AND  APPLICATION OF ARTIC LE III:4 
OF THE GATT 1994 TO THE ICT PROGRAMMES  
13. Brazil seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's finding that the ICT programmes 
accord to imported p roducts treatment less favourable than that accorded to like domestic 
products, inconsistently with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. The Panel's errors of law and legal 
interpretation include:  
 The Panel erred in failing to determine that the ICT programmes constitute "payments of 
subsidies exclusively to domestic producers" within the meaning of Article III:8(b) of the 
GATT 1994;7 
 The Panel erred in finding that the accreditation requirements under the 
ICT programmes are inconsistent with Article III:4 of th e GATT 1994;8 
 The Panel erred in finding that the ICT programmes are inconsistent with Article III:4 of 
the GATT 1994 by virtue of purported administrative burdens on intermediate products;9  
 The Panel erred in finding that the PPBs and other production st ep requirements under 
the ICT programmes are inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 because they 
require the use domestic products.10 
14. For these reasons, Brazil respectfully requests that the Appellate Body reverse  the Panel's 
finding in paragraphs  7.318, 7.319, 8.5(b), and 8.16(c) of the Panel Report that the 
ICT programmes accord to imported products treatment less favourable than that accorded to like 
domestic products, inconsistently with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.  
15. As a result, Brazil also  requests that the Appellate Body reverse the Panel's consequential 
finding in paragraphs 7.365, 8.5(d), and 8.16(e) of the Panel Report that the ICT programmes are 
inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TRIMS Agreement.  
IV. REVIEW OF THE PANEL' S INTERPRETA TION AND APPLICATION  OF ARTICLE 3.1(B) 
OF THE SCM AGREEMENT  TO THE ICT PROGRAMME S 
16. Brazil seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's finding  that the ICT programmes 
provide subsidies that are contingent upon the use of domestic ov er imported goods un der 
 
                                                
5 See Panel Report, para. 7.151.  
6 See Panel Report, paras. 7.170 -7.172.  
7 See Panel Report, paras. 7.77 -7.87, 7.184.  
8 See Panel Report, para. 7.220 -7.225.  
9 See Panel Report, paras. 7.252 -7.255. 
10 See Panel Report, paras. 7.288, 7.299 -7.301; and 7.311 -7-313.  WT/DS472/8 • WT/DS497/6  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Article  3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement. The Panel's errors of law and legal interpretation include:  
 The Panel erred in finding that the tax exemptions, suspensions and reductions granted 
under the ICT programmes both on the sales of intermediate goods an d on the 
purchases of raw materials, intermediate goods, packaging materials, inputs, capital 
goods and computational tools constitute financial contributions, in the form of 
government revenue otherwise due that is foregone or not collected, within the me aning 
of Article 1.1(a)(1)(ii) of the SCM Agreement;11  
 The Panel erred in finding that the tax exemptions, reductions and suspensions granted 
under the ICT programmes are prohibited subsidies within the meaning of Article 3.1(b) 
of the SCM Agreement;12 
17. For these reasons, Brazil respectfully requests that the Appellate Body reverse  the Panel's 
findings in paragraphs 7.489 and 7.490 that the exemptions, suspensions and reductions of taxes 
on the sales of intermediate products and on the purchases of inputs by accredited companies 
under the ICT programmes constitute financial contributions in the form of "government revenue 
that is otherwise due is foregone or not collected" within the meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iii) of the 
SCM Agreement.  
18. Consequently, the Ap pellate Body should also reverse  the Panel' s finding in 
paragraphs  7.493 and 7.494 that the exemption, reduction and suspension of taxes on sales of 
intermediate products and on purchases of inputs by accredited companies under the 
ICT programmes confer a benefit on the recipient under Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement. As a 
result, the Appellate Body should also reverse  the Panel's ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 7.495, 
8.5(e), and 8.16(f) that the that the exemption, reduction and suspension of taxes on sales of 
intermediate products and on purchases of inputs by accredited companies under the 
ICT programmes constitutes subsidies within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement.  
19. Brazil further requests that the Appellate Body reverse  the Panel's finding in 
paragraphs  7.500, 8.5(e), and 8.16(f) that the exemptions, reductions, and suspensions granted 
under the ICT programmes are subsidies contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods 
within the meaning of Article 3.1(b)  of the SCM Agreement, and thus are prohibited subsidies, 
inconsistent with Article 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement.  
20. Consequently, Brazil also respectfully requests that the Appellate Body declare moot and of 
no legal effect  the Panel's recommendation  under Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement that Brazil 
withdraw the ICT programs in 90 days, as reflected in paragraphs 8.11 and 8.22 of the Panel 
Report.  
V. REVIEW OF THE PANEL' S INTERPRETATION AND  APPLICATION OF ARTIC LE III:4 
OF THE GATT 1994 TO THE INOVAR -AUTO PROGRAMME  
21. Brazil seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's finding that  certain aspects of the 
accreditation requirements under the INOVAR -AUTO Programme related to investments in 
R&D expenditures on engineering, basic industrial technology a nd to the performance of certain 
manufacturing steps in Brazil accord less favourable treatment to imported products than that 
accorded to like domestic products, inconsistently with Article  III:4 of the GATT 1994. The Panel's 
errors of law and legal inter pretation include:  
 The Panel erred in failing to determine that the INOVAR -AUTO Programme constitutes 
"payments of subsidies exclusively to domestic producers" within the meaning of 
Article  III:8(b);13 
  
                                                
11 See Panel Report, paras. 7.432 -7.433, 7.444 -7.445; 7.454 -7.455; 7.463 -7.464; 7.473 -7.474; and 
7.495.  
12 See Panel Report, paras. 7.274 -7.302, 7.319.  
13 See Panel Report, para. 7.696.  WT/DS472/8 • WT/DS497/6  
 
- 5 - 
 
   The Panel erred in failing to conclude that because the accreditation requirements under 
the INOVAR -AUTO Programme do not relate to products, they cannot be per se 
inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 or Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement;14 
 The Panel erred in finding that accreditation requirements to perform a minimum 
number of manufacturing steps in Brazil are per se inconsistent with Article III:4 of the 
GATT 1994;15 
 The Panel erred in finding that the different accreditation processes for com panies 
seeking accreditation as "domestic manufacturers" and companies seeking accreditation 
as "investors" or "importers/distributors" would per se  result in less favourable 
treatment being accorded to imported finished motor vehicles, under Article III:4 .16 
22. For these reasons, Brazil respectfully requests that the Appellate Body reverse  the Panel's 
finding, in paragraph 7.696 of the Panel Report, that Article III:8(b) of the GATT 1994 "does not 
exempt from the disciplines of Article III components of [domes tic] production subsidies that 
introduce product discrimination in the form of less favourable treatment on imported like 
products."  
23. Brazil also requests that the Appellate Body reverse  the Panel's finding in paragraphs 7.773, 
8.6(b) and 8.17(c) of the Pan el Report that the accreditation requirements under INOVAR -AUTO 
to: (a) perform a minimum number of manufacturing steps in Brazil; and (b) invest in R&D in 
Brazil and make expenditures on engineering, basic industrial technology and capacity -building of 
suppliers in Brazil accord less favourable treatment to imported products than that accorded to like 
domestic products, inconsistently with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.  
24. As a result, Brazil requests that the Appellate Body also reverse the Panel's consequ ential 
finding in paragraphs 7.806, 8.6(d), and 8.17(e) of the Panel Report that these aspects of the 
accreditation requirements are inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TRIMS Agreement.  
25. To the extent that the Panel 's findings are based on the erroneous a ssumption that 
production step requirements are sufficient to establish a contingency upon the use of domestic 
over imported goods within the meaning of Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement, Brazil requests 
that the Appellate Body reverse  the Panel 's findin gs in paragraphs 7.751, 7.823, 7.847, 8.6(e), 
and 8.17(f) of the Panel Report that INOVAR -AUTO constitutes a prohibited import substitution 
subsidy under Article 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement.  
VI. REVIEW OF THE PANEL' S FINDINGS INTERPRET ATION AND AP PLICATION OF 
ARTICLES 1.1 AND 3.1 (A) OF THE SCM AGREE MENT TO THE TAX SUSP ENSIONS 
GRANTED UNDER THE PE C AND RECAP PROGRAMM ES 
26. Brazil seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's finding that the tax suspensions 
granted under the PEC and RECAP programmes  are subsidies within the meaning of Article 1.1 of 
the SCM Agreement and contingent upon export performance within the meaning of Article 3.1(a) 
of the SCM Agreement. The Panel's errors of law and legal interpretation include:  
 The Panel erred in failing to use the tax treatment of structural tax accumulators as the 
benchmark treatment;17  
 The Panel erred in its comparison of its preferred benchmark treatment with the 
challenged treatment under PEC and RECAP;18 
 The Panel erred in finding that "cash availabil ity" and "implicit interest income" are 
government revenue otherwise due;19  
                                                
14 See Panel Report, para. 7.70.  
15 See Panel Report, paras. 7.737 -7.751.  
16 See Panel Report, paras. 7.658 -7.661, 7.732.  
17 See Panel Report, paras. 7.1167, 7.1169, and 7.183.  
18 See Panel Report, paras. 7.1175, 7.1179, 7.1203, 7.1207.  
19 See Panel Report, para. 7.1179, 7.1190, 7.1194.  WT/DS472/8 • WT/DS497/6  
 
- 6 - 
 
   The Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in its assessment of the 
evidence of export contingency;20 
27. For these reasons, Brazil respectfully requests that the Appella te Body reverse  the Panel's 
conclusions in paragraph 7.1211 of the Panel Report that the PEC and RECAP programmes 
constitute financial contributions in the form of government revenue that is otherwise due and is 
foregone or not collected within the meaning  of Article 1.1(a)(1)(ii) of the SCM Agreement.  
28. As a result, the Appellate Body should also reverse the Panel's finding in paragraph 7.1212 
of the Panel Report that the PEC and RECAP programmes confer a benefit under Article 1.1(b) of 
the SCM Agreement, an d its ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 7.1223, 8.7, and 8.18 that the 
tax suspensions under the PEC and RECAP programmes constitute subsidies within the meaning of 
Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement.   
29. Brazil respectfully requests that the Appellate Body find that the Panel acted inconsistently 
with its duty to conduct an objective assessment of the matter under Article 11 of the DSU in 
examining the evidence on export contingency.  
30. Brazil also respectfully requests that the Appellate Body reverse the Panel's finding in 
paragraphs 7.1238, 8.7, and 8.18 that the tax suspensions granted under the PEC and RECAP 
programmes are subsidies that are contingent upon export performance within the meaning of 
Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement.  
31. As a consequence, Brazil r espectfully requests that the Appellate Body declare moot and of 
no legal effect the Panel's recommendation under Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement in paragraphs 
8.11 and 8.22 that Brazil withdraws these alleged subsidies within 90 days.  
VII. REVIEW OF THE  PANEL'S INTERPRETATI ON AND APPLICATION O F THE ENABLING 
CLAUSE TO THE TAX TR EATMENT OF MERCOSUR COUNTRIES UNDER INOV AR-AUTO  
32. Brazil seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's finding that the complainants' 
claims under Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 we re within the Panel's terms of reference, that the 
differential tax treatment accorded to Mexico, Argentina, and Uruguay under INOVAR -AUTO was 
not properly notified to the WTO, and that this differential tax treatment is not justified under 
paragraphs 2(b)  and 2(c) of the Enabling Clause. The Panel's errors of law and legal interpretation 
include:  
 The Panel erred in finding that the complainants were not on notice that the differential 
tax treatment at issue was adopted (and, in Brazil's view, justified) un der the 
Enabling  Clause, such that the complainants were required to invoke the Enabling Clause 
in their panel requests in order for the complainants claim s under Article I:1 of the 
GATT  1994 to be within the Panel's terms of reference;21 
 The Panel erred in  finding that Brazil had not properly notified the differential tax 
treatment at issue under paragraph 4(a) of the Enabling Clause;22 
 The Panel erred in finding that for a non -tariff measure to be within the scope of 
paragraph 2(b) of the Enabling Clause, it must be governed by specific provisions on 
special and differential treatment that are distinct from the provisions of the GATT 1994 
incorporating the GATT 1947;23 
 The Panel erred by conflating the substantive analysis under paragraph 2(c) with the 
obligation to notify under paragraph 4(a), concluding that  the differential tax treatment 
at issue is not justified under paragraph 2(c) of the Enabling Clause for the same reason 
that it concluded that the differential tax treatment was not properly notified.24  
                                                
20 See Panel Report, para. 7.1234.  
21 See Panel Report, paras. 7.1076 -7.1083, 7.1108 -7.1115, 7.1120.  
22 See Panel Report, paras. 7.1076 -7.1083, 7.1108 -7.1115, 7.1119.  
23 See Panel Report, paras. 7.1088 -7.1097.  
24 See Panel Report, paras . 7.1108 -7.1118.  WT/DS472/8 • WT/DS497/6  
 
- 7 - 
 
  33. For these reasons, Brazil respectfully requests that the Appellate Body reverse  the Panel's 
conclusions in paragraphs 7.1083, 7.1120, 8.6(h), and 8.17(i) that the complainants did not have 
an obligation to invoke the Enabling Clause in their panel reques ts, and reverse the Panel's 
consequential conclusion that the complaints' claims under Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 were 
within the Panel's terms of reference.  
34. Consequently, Brazil requests that the Appellate Body declare moot and of no legal effect  
the P anel's findings under paragraphs 8.6(g) and 8.17(h) that the tax reductions accorded to 
imported products from Argentina, Mexico and Uruguay under INOVAR -AUTO are advantages 
granted by Brazil to products originating in those countries, which are not accord ed immediately 
and unconditionally to like products originating in other WTO Membe rs, inconsistently with 
Article  I:1 of the GATT 1994.  
35. In case the Appellate Body were to find that the complainants ' claim under Article I:1 was 
properly within the Panel 's terms of reference, Brazil respectfully requests that the Appellate Body 
reverse  the Panel's conclusions in paragraphs 7.1079, 7.1081, 7.1083, 7.115 and 7.119 that the 
differential tax treatment at issue was not properly notified under  paragraph 4(a) of the  
Enabling  Clause.  
36. Brazil respectfully requests that the Appellate Body reverse  the Panel's conclusion in 
paragraphs 7.1096 that a non -tariff measure within the scope of paragraph 2(b) of the Enabling 
Clause must be governed by specific provisions on specia l and differential treatment that are 
distinct from the provisions of the GATT 1994 incorporating the GATT 1947. Brazil also requests 
that the Appellate Body reverse the Panel's consequential finding in paragraphs 7.1097, 8.6(i), and 
8.17(j) that the tax reductions accorded to imported products from Argentina, Mexico and Uruguay 
and found to be inconsistent under Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 ar e not justified under 
paragraph  2(b) of the Enabling Clause.  
37. Brazil further requests that the Appellate Body comp lete the analysis  and find that the 
differential tax treatment is justified under paragraph 2(b) and complies with the requirements of 
paragraph 3 of the Enabling Clause.  
38. Brazil respectfully requests that the Appellate Body reverse  the Panel's conclusion i n 
paragraph 7.1118 that Brazil did not meet its burden of proof in respect of the substantive 
requirements of paragraph 2(c) of the Enabling Clause, and the Panel's ultimate conclusion in 
paragraphs 8.6(i) and 8.17(j) that the tax reductions accorded to im ported products from 
Argentina, Mexico and Uruguay and found to be inconsistent under Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 
are not justified under paragraph 2(c) of the Enabling Clause.  
39. Brazil further requests that the Appellate Body complete the analysis  and fin d that the 
differential tax treatment is justified under paragraph 2(c) and complies with the requirements of 
paragraph 3 of the Enabling Clause.  
VIII.  REVIEW OF THE PANEL' S RECOMMENDATION U NDER ARTICLE 4.7 OF THE 
SCM AGREEMENT  
40. If the Appellate Body were t o uphold the Panel 's findings that the measures at issue are 
prohibited subsidies under Articles 3.1(a) and 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement, Brazil then seeks 
review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's recommendation that Brazil withdraw the subsidies 
identif ied in paragraphs 8.5(e), 8.6(e), 8.7, 8.16(f), 8.17(f), and 8.18 of the Panel's Report within 
90 days.25 The Panel's errors of law and legal interpretation include:  
 The Panel erred by failing to provide "reasoned and adequate explanations and coherent 
reasoning" for its 90 -day recommendation, as required by Article 11 of the DSU;26 
  
                                                
25 Brazil notes that the Panel refers to the prohibited subsidies in p aragraphs 8.5(f) and 
paragraphs  8.6(f) in paragraphs 8.11 and 8.22 of the Panel Report, but the relevant paragraphs are in fact 
8.5(e) and 8.6(e).  
26 See Panel Report, para. 6.17.  WT/DS472/8 • WT/DS497/6  
 
- 8 - 
 
   The Panel erred by failing to provide the "basic rationale" for its 90 -day 
recommendation, as required by Article 12.7 of the DSU;27 
41. For these reasons, Brazil respectfully reques ts that the Appellate Body find that the Panel 
acted inconsistently with Articles 11 and 12.7 of the DSU in making its recommendations under 
Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement and reverse the Panel's recommendation in paragraphs 8.11 and 
8.22 of the Panel Re port that Brazil withdraw the subsidies identified in paragraphs 8.5(e), 8.6(e), 
8.7, 8.16(f), 8.17(f), and 8.18 within 90 days.  
42. Brazil further requests that the Appellate Body complete the analysis , and specify a time 
period of 18 months for implementatio n pursuant to Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement.  
__________  
                                                
27 See Panel Report, para. 6.17.