This viewpoint remained unchanged despite the fact that in August ofLexon Insurance Co. But, could unexpected decisions and ongoing projects developing in different countries start paving the way towards a more diversified and less opaque REEs market?
Summary of the dispute to date The summary below was up-to-date at Consultations Complaint by the United States. The request refers to materials falling under but not limited to eight-digit Chinese Customs Commodity Codes and over 30 measures.
The request also refers to a number of Chinese published as well as unpublished measures that, operating separately or collectively, allegedly impose and administer export restrictions. These restrictions include export duties, export quotas, minimum export price requirements, export licensing requirements and additional requirements and procedures in connection with the administration of the quantitative restrictions.
The United States claims that these measures are inconsistent with: On 22 Marchthe European Union and Japan requested to join the consultations. On 27 Junethe United States requested the establishment of a panel. On 24 Septemberthe Director-General composed the panel.
On 22 Marchthe Chair of the panel informed the DSB that the panel expects to issue its final report to the parties by 21 Novemberin accordance with the timetable adopted after consultation with the parties.
On 26 Marchthe panel report was circulated to Members. Summary of key findings This dispute concerns Chinese export restrictions on rare earths, tungsten, and molybdenum.
These are raw materials used in the production of various kinds of electronic goods. China argued that the restrictions are related to the conservation of its exhaustible natural resources, and necessary to reduce pollution caused by mining. The complainants disagreed, arguing that the restrictions are designed to provide Chinese industries that produce downstream goods with protected access to the subject materials.
China imposes three distinct types of restrictions on the export of rare earths, tungsten, and molybdenum: The complainants argued that, with the exception of tungsten ores and concentrates which they excluded from the scope of their claimnone of the products at issue are included in Annex 6, and China is therefore not entitled to impose the export duties on them.
Specifically, Article XX b allows WTO Members to maintain measures that would otherwise be inconsistent with the GATT if the measures are necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health.
In this case, China argued that the export duties are necessary to protect human, animal and plant life and health from the pollution caused by mining the products at issue.
Jul 11, · China is her most immediate challenge. Lynas is now profitable, but Ms. Lacaze sees a potential trade war between China and the United States as more of a threat than an opportunity. Beijing could keep rare earths off the market, depriving many American and European manufacturers of the minerals they need. Lynas couldn’t . China’s near-monopoly position in rare earth elements and a range of potential federal investments that would support the development of a vertically integrated rare earth supply chain in the United States. China’s commerce ministry slashed export quotas for rare earth metals in , citing stockpiling in Japan, smuggling and the environmental damage in China from processing the metals from ore. Prices spiked and caused difficulties for global manufacturers already in need of more supply.
Accordingly, the majority held that China could not invoke the exception in Article XX b to seek to justify its export duties. Although it recognized that such restrictions are inconsistent with the GATTChina argued that they are justified under the exception in Article XX g of the GATTsince they relate to the conservation of an exhaustible natural resource.
The Panel did not agree.
Additionally, the Panel found that the challenged export quotas do not work together with measures restricting domestic Chinese use of rare earths, tungsten, and molybdenum, as required by the second part of Article XX g.
After examining the various domestic measures that China claimed restricted domestic access to rare earths, tungsten, and molybdenum, the Panel concluded that the overall effect of the foreign and domestic restrictions is to encourage domestic extraction and secure preferential use of those materials by Chinese manufacturers.
Although China has committed to eliminating trading restrictions in its Accession Protocol, it argued that the restrictions in question are justified pursuant to Article XX gsince they too relate to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources.
Although the Panel found that China could rely on the Article XX exceptions to justify the restrictions in question, it found that China had not satisfactorily explained why its trading rights restrictions were justified under this provision.
On 8 Aprilthe United States notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the panel.
On 17 AprilChina filed an other appeal in the same dispute. The Appellate Body consolidated the appellate proceedings in DS, DS, and DS before a single Appellate Body Division, harmonized the timetable of the three appellate proceedings, and held one oral hearing for all three proceedings.
On 24 Juneupon expiry of the day period specified in Article Summary of key findings China did not appeal any of the final conclusions of the Panel, but appealed only limited aspects of the Panel's reasoning and certain intermediate findings.
The Appellate Body declined to accept China's interpretation of Paragraph 1. As a result, the Marrakesh Agreement, the Multilateral Trade Agreements, and China's Accession Protocol form a single package of rights and obligations that must be read together.
Yet, such interpretation does not in itself answer the questions of whether there is an objective link between an individual provision in China's Accession Protocol and existing obligations under the Marrakesh Agreements and the Multilateral Trade Agreements, or whether China may rely on an exception provided for in those agreements to justify a breach of such Protocol provision.
Such questions must be answered through a thorough analysis of the relevant provisions on the basis of the customary rules of treaty interpretation and the circumstances of the dispute. Rather, the Panel rightly considered that it should focus on the measures' design and structure rather than on their effects in the marketplace.Aug 18, · The price of one major rare earth compound, cerium oxide, went from US$/kg in April to US$36/kg in October.
There are two important issues raised by China’s apparent ban of rare earth exports to Japan. China’s commerce ministry slashed export quotas for rare earth metals in , citing stockpiling in Japan, smuggling and the environmental damage in China from processing the metals from ore.
Prices spiked and caused difficulties for global manufacturers already in need of more supply. China’s rare earth policies have raised concerns among many in Congress because rare earths are important to a number of U.S. industries, including high technology (such as advanced electronics and medical equipment) and green technology (such as hybrid cars and wind turbines).
China is rich in rare-earth resources and produces a number of different kinds of rare-earth products. China’s scientists discovered rare-earth resources in Bayan Obo in and started the.
China’s six major suppliers’ decision to stockpile on 5, tons of nine types of rare earth metals this year, and government’s plans to create a separate national reserve by buying 15, "Unequivocally the illegal mining of rare earths in China is the biggest issue facing the industry." The carbon footprint in China’s sprawling rare earths sector is likely to grow, along with the contamination of water sources with toxins and other environmental damage.