Common use of In US Clause in Contracts

In US. Ripe Olives from Spain, the Panel rejected the European Union's argument that the USITC was prevented from considering sections of the market, i.e., customer groups in the context of its injury analysis, because those sections had not been explicitly included the USITC's definition of the domestic industry: 16.1. We find no support, however, for the different proposition espoused by the European Union, which is that an investigating authority may only consider sections of a market while undertaking an injury analysis when it has explicitly identified these sections in the definition of the domestic industry. There is no reason that an investigating authority's analysis of market segments would necessarily imply that the final injury determination was not made with respect to the domestic industry as defined by the investigating authority. We therefore disagree that the USITC's analysis of market segments posed a risk of distortion. In particular, in this case the three customer groups collectively represented the whole market. Their analysis by the USITC would thus not necessarily leave parts of the domestic industry unexamined. We therefore do not see any material risk of distortion arising from the fact that the USITC did not incorporate into its definition of the domestic industry reference to the various market segments it later analysed. … We consequently reject the European Union's claim that the USITC was prevented from considering customer groups because such customer groups were not explicitly referred to in the definition of the domestic industry."7

In US. Ripe Olives from Spain, the Panel rejected the European Union's argument that the USITC was prevented from considering sections of the market, i.e., customer groups in the context of its injury analysis, because those sections had not been explicitly included the USITC's definition of the domestic industry: 16.1. We find no support, however, for the different proposition espoused by the European Union, which is that an investigating authority may only consider sections of a market while undertaking an injury analysis when it has explicitly identified these sections in the definition of the domestic industry. There is no reason that an investigating authority's analysis of market segments would necessarily imply that the final injury determination was not made with respect to the domestic industry as defined by the investigating authority. We therefore disagree that the USITC's analysis of market segments posed a risk of distortion. In particular, in this case the three customer groups collectively represented the whole market. Their analysis by the USITC would thus not necessarily leave parts of the domestic industry unexamined. We therefore do not see any material risk of distortion arising from the fact that the USITC did not incorporate into its definition of the domestic industry reference to the various market segments it later analysed. … We consequently reject the European Union's claim that the USITC was prevented from considering customer groups because such customer groups were not explicitly referred to in the definition of the domestic industry."7 1.2.3 domestic producers"