亚洲色欲色欲www,精品久久亚洲中文无码,午夜做爰xxxⅹ性高湖视频美国,藏獒又硬又粗进去好爽a片免费

The European Union argued before the original panel that China had dropped its Article 6.5 claim with respect to XXX’s questionnaire response because China had not developed arguments in this regard in its first written submission. China clarified in its second written submission that it had not dropped this claim and provided its supporting arguments with respect to the claim. In response to questioning from the panel, the European Union stated that the way in which China had developed this claim violated the European Union’s due process rights and the panel’s working procedures. The panel expressed concern over the way in which China had developed this claim but decided that, overall, the European Union had not been deprived of its due process rights; accordingly, it addressed the claim on its merits. However, in terms of the scope of the claim, the panel noted that China’s claim concerned all the information submitted in XXX’s questionnaire response and that China had only presented evidence and arguments with respect to information concerning “product types”. For this reason, the panel limited its substantive assessment of the claim under Article 6.5 to the information on product types. The panel then noted that the Commission had treated the information about XXX’s product types as confidential without a showing of good cause and found this to be in violation of Article 6.5. Having found a violation of Article 6.5, the panel refrained from making a finding under Article 6.5.1. On appeal, the Appellate Body found that China had not substantiated its claim under Article 6.5 with respect to the “product type”information in the questionnaire because it had asserted it late in the proceedings and had failed to provide supporting arguments and evidence. Therefore, the Appellate Body concluded that the European Union was not called upon to respond to this claim. On this basis, the Appellate Body reversed the panel’s finding that the European Union had acted inconsistently with Article 6.5.

7.29. 歐盟在向原專家組提出的抗辯中指出，中國放棄了就XXX公司調(diào)查問卷答卷根據(jù)第6.5條提出的主張，因?yàn)橹袊诘谝淮螘骊愂鲋?，并未提出與之有關(guān)的抗辯。中國在其第二次書面陳述中澄清，其并未放棄該主張，并提供了與該主張有關(guān)的支持證據(jù)。歐盟在回復(fù)專家組詢問時(shí)指出，中國提出該主張的方式侵犯了歐盟的正當(dāng)程序權(quán)，違反了專家組的工作程序。專家組對中國提出該主張的方式表示關(guān)注，但專家組認(rèn)定，總體而言，中國的做法并未剝奪歐盟的正當(dāng)程序權(quán)；并根據(jù)法律理據(jù)審核了該條主張。但對于該主張的范圍，專家組指出，中國的主張涉及XXX公司調(diào)查問卷答卷中提交的所有信息，但中國僅提交了與“產(chǎn)品類別”信息相關(guān)的證據(jù)與抗辯。因此，對于中國根據(jù)第6.5條提出的主張，專家組將對該主張的實(shí)質(zhì)評估限制為產(chǎn)品類別信息。專家組又指出，歐盟委員會(huì)將XXX公司的產(chǎn)品類別信息進(jìn)行保密處理，并未說明正當(dāng)理由，因此裁定該做法違反第6.5條。做出違反第6.5條的裁定之后，專家組并未根據(jù)第6.5.1條做出其他裁定。在上訴時(shí)，上訴機(jī)構(gòu)認(rèn)定中國并未證實(shí)其根據(jù)第6.5條提出的與調(diào)查問卷答卷中“產(chǎn)品類別”信息有關(guān)的主張，因?yàn)橹袊谠V訟后期提出該主張，且未提供支持抗辯與證據(jù)。因此，上訴機(jī)構(gòu)裁定，歐盟不需要對該主張做出回應(yīng)。在此基礎(chǔ)上，上訴機(jī)構(gòu)駁回了專家組提出的歐盟的做法不符合第6.5條的裁定。