BRAZIL – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TAXATION AND CHARGES NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY BRAZIL UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
Document: AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
Date: 6 October 2017
Document codes: WT/DS472/8; WT/DS497/6
Complainant: EU
Respondent: Brazil
Third parties: Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia, South Africa, Taiwan, Turkey, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. I:1, III:2, III:4, III:5  GATT 1994Art. 3.1(b), 3.2, 1.1  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 2.1, 2.2  Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs)

BRAZIL – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TAXATION AND CHARGES
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY BRAZIL
UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES
AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU),
AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
The following communication, dated 28 September 2017, from the delegation of Brazil, is being
circulated to Members.
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
programme").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 Appellant'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

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,
DIGITAL INCLUSION PROGRAMMES ("ICT PROGRAMMES") 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 domestic producers" within the meaning of Article III:8(b) of the
GATT 1994;4

2 See Panel Report, paras. 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

 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 Article 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 Article 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 the 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 INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 3.1(B)
OF THE SCM AGREEMENT TO THE ICT PROGRAMMES
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

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 interpretation 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

 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 findings 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 PEC AND RECAP PROGRAMMES
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

 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 INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION O F THE ENABLING
CLAUSE TO THE TAX TREATMENT OF MERCOSUR COUNTRIES UNDER INOVAR-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

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 complete 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
identified 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 paragraphs 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

 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 Report 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 implementation pursuant to Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement.