We critically assess the Appellate Body (AB) report on the Brazil–Taxation dispute, taken to the World Trade Organisation by the European Union and Japan, and encompassing seven different Brazilian industrial programmes granting tax benefits to different firms and products. The trigger of the dispute was most likely the automotive sector programme, instituted under pressure from the local industry and without much attention to effects on consumers or imports. The resulting WTO case underscores some salient issues related to the WTO compatibility of subsidy programmes, in particular the application of the National Treatment rules to subsidies provided exclusively to domestic producers, and the identification of local content requirements, prohibited under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM). The AB diverged from the Panel report and its jurisprudence on those issues. The AB tried to reconcile the existence of legitimate eligibility criteria in subsidy programmes and their discriminatory features with WTO rules under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the SCM. However, the legal test, developed by the AB in this dispute to distinguish prohibited local content requirements from legitimate eligibility criteria, may facilitate circumvention of the SCM prohibition of local content requirements and have important impacts on trade flows.

中文翻译：

---

重新打开潘多拉魔盒以寻求与 WTO 兼容的产业政策？巴西税收纠纷

我们批判性地评估上诉机构 (AB) 关于巴西——税收欧盟和日本向世界贸易组织提起的争端，包括巴西七项不同的工业计划，为不同的公司和产品提供税收优惠。引发争议的原因很可能是汽车行业计划，该计划是在当地行业的压力下制定的，并未过多关注对消费者或进口的影响。由此产生的 WTO 案例强调了与补贴计划的 WTO 兼容性有关的一些突出问题，特别是国民待遇规则对专门提供给国内生产商的补贴的适用，以及《补贴和反补贴协议》禁止的当地含量要求的确定措施（SCM）。AB 与专家组的报告及其在这些问题上的判例背道而驰。AB 试图将补贴计划中存在的合法资格标准及其歧视性特征与关税与贸易总协定和 SCM 下的 WTO 规则相协调。但是，AB 在本次争议中开发的用于区分禁止的本地含量要求与合法资格标准的法律测试可能有助于规避 SCM 对本地含量要求的禁止，并对贸易流动产生重要影响。