Brazil contends that they do.
Canada's position is that they do not. Brazil made the same claim in respect of previous modifications to the original proex program made in response to the 20 august 1999 dsb rulings. On appeal by brazil, the appellate body, in its report of 21 july 2000, upheld the panel's conclusions canada has brought this proceeding because there is, again, a disagreement as to the consistency with the scm agreement of measures taken by brazil that purport to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the dsb. However, as canada will show, payments made under the latest revisions to proex continue to be prohibited subsidies under articles 1 and 3 of the scm agreement. I to the scm agreement because no such exception exists.