Scribd
Upload
34 views2 pages

P Page 1 of 27: Leadings and Uthorities

The document is a prayer for relief from an applicant asking a panel to make five findings: 1) That Locasia's revocation of a treaty with Grandiana was valid under international law, 2) That Grandiana's ban on imports violated WTO agreements, 3) That Grandiana's subsidy was inconsistent with WTO agreements, 4) That Locasia's imposition of countervailing duties was in line with its WTO obligations, and 5) That Locasia's revocation of MFN status for Grandiana was justified under WTO agreements. The applicant respectfully submits this prayer for relief to the panel.

Uploaded by

Kevin joseph
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
34 views2 pages

P Page 1 of 27: Leadings and Uthorities

The document is a prayer for relief from an applicant asking a panel to make five findings: 1) That Locasia's revocation of a treaty with Grandiana was valid under international law, 2) That Grandiana's ban on imports violated WTO agreements, 3) That Grandiana's subsidy was inconsistent with WTO agreements, 4) That Locasia's imposition of countervailing duties was in line with its WTO obligations, and 5) That Locasia's revocation of MFN status for Grandiana was justified under WTO agreements. The applicant respectfully submits this prayer for relief to the panel.

Uploaded by

Kevin joseph
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

-PLEADINGS AND AUTHORITIES- Page 1 of 27

-PRAYER FOR RELIEF- Page 27 of 27

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

APPLICANTS, IN LIGHT OF THE GIVEN FACTS AND SUBMITTED CONTENTIONS, ASKS, IF IT MAY PLEASE

THE PANEL, TO ADJUDGE AND FIND THAT:

1. THE REVOCATION OF THE TREATY CONTRACT BY LOCASIA WAS VALID UNDER

INTERNATIONAL LAW

2. THE IMPOSITION OF BAN ON IMPORTS BY GRANDIANA WAS A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2.1 AND

2.2 OF THE TBT AGREEMENT AND ARTICLE III:4 OF THE GATT AGREEEMENT.

3. THE SUBSIDY IMPOSED BY GRANDIANA WAS INCOSISTENT WITH THE SCM AGREEMENT

4. THE IMPOSITION OF COUNTERVAILING DUTY BY LOCASIA IS IN CONSONANCE WITH ITS WTO

OBLIGATIONS.

5. THE REVOCATION OF MFN STATUS OF GRANDIANA WAS JUSTIFIED UNDER ARTICLE (20)(1)

OF THE GATT AGREEMENT

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

APPLICANT

You might also like