Originally Posted by
KenV
The WTO disagreed. Repeatedly.
Do you really think that?
Their site is here:
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e..._e/ds316_e.htm
8.1 Conclusions
8.1. In light of the findings in the foregoing sections of the Report, and with respect to the aerospace tax measures at issue, as amended and extended through Washington State's Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB 5952), the Panel concludes that:
a. Each of the seven aerospace tax measures at issue in the present case constitutes a subsidy within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement;
b. Regarding the European Union's claim that the aerospace tax measures at issue are subsidies de jure contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods within the meaning of Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement:
i. The European Union has not demonstrated that the aerospace tax measures are de jure contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods with respect to the First Siting Provision in ESSB 5952 considered separately;
c. With respect to the First Siting Provision and the Second Siting Provision in ESSB 5952, considered jointly, the B&O aerospace tax rate for the manufacturing or sale of commercial airplanes under the 777X programme is a subsidy de facto contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods within the meaning of Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement.
8.2. Having found that the B&O aerospace tax rate for the manufacturing or sale of commercial airplanes under the 777X programme is inconsistent with Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement, the Panel also finds that the United States has acted inconsistently with Article 3.2 of the SCM Agreement.
8.3. Under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is an infringement of the obligations assumed under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or impairment. We conclude that, to the extent that the United States has acted inconsistently with the SCM Agreement, it has nullified or impaired benefits accruing to the European Union under that Agreement.
8.2 Recommendation
8.4. Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement provides that, having found a measure in dispute to be a prohibited subsidy:
[T]he panel shall recommend that the subsidizing Member withdraw the subsidy without delay. In this regard, the panel shall specify in its recommendation the time period within which the measure must be withdrawn.
8.5. The Panel has found that the European Union has demonstrated that the B&O aerospace tax rate for the manufacturing or sale of commercial airplanes under the 777X programme, pursuant to ESSB 5952, is a subsidy contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods, prohibited under Articles 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement.
8.6. Accordingly, taking into account the nature of the prohibited subsidy found in this dispute, the Panel recommends that the United States withdraw it without delay and within 90 days.
Again, I am no apologist for either side as it is clear that both sides provide assistance to their aviation industry and WTO rulings seem to go back and forth. Throwing emotive words around like 'illegal' does not really reflect what has been going on in the US for decades.
As for the current situation the US has decided to make a ruling outside of the WTO and have drafted unilateral penalties. I am not sure the WTO would approve of such methods, so good luck.