81 Note that there is no disagreement between the parties in Indonesian cars about the fact that Indonesia is a developing country that is entitled to treatment by S-D S-D under Article 27.9 of the SCM agreement. Similarly, all parties to Brazil Aircraft agreed that Brazil was a developing country within the meaning of the SCM agreement. See Panel Report, Indonesia Cars, by. 14.157; Panel Report, Brazil-Aircraft, para. 2. 7.38. It should be customary to obtain explicit consent from the companies concerned before the planned participation of the companies concerned in the Export Member State. In the event that the member has not taken appropriate measures to eliminate the negative effects of the subsidy or to withdraw the subsidy within six months of the adoption of the panel`s report or the appellate body`s report, the DSB gives the complainant the authority to take counter-measures commensurant to the degree and nature of the adverse effects found. unless the DSB agrees to reject the application. 5.31 Canada argues that the «benefit» should not be construed simply as an «advantage that goes beyond commercial or commercial activity,» an interpretation that Canada believes is available in Brazil (points 6.60, 6.148, 6.179). In Canada`s view, the «benefit» and therefore the «subsidy» of the SCM convention, including its annexes, require a more differentiated and differentiated approach. 5.26 According to Canada, the usual rules of interpretation of international law require that interpretation reflect the usual meaning of the words used in the context and with respect to the purpose and purpose of the agreement in question (points 5.1 to 5.4).
In Canada`s view, too, the interpreter must ensure, when interpreting and analyzing the relevant provisions of an international agreement, that the solution of any ambiguity does not disturb «the carefully drawn balance of members` rights and duties» (6). Once the agreement of the companies concerned has been obtained, the investigating authorities should inform the authorities of the exporting member of the names and addresses of the companies to be visited and the dates agreed upon. If, despite the emergence of non-specificity resulting from the application of the principles set out in paragraphs (a) and (b), there is reason to believe that the subsidy may indeed be specific, other factors may be taken into account. These factors include: the use of a subsidy program by a limited number of firms, the overriding use of certain firms, the granting of disproportionate amounts of subsidies to certain firms, and the manner in which the responsible authority exercised discretion in the decision to grant a grant (3). The application of this paragraph takes into account the extent of the diversification of economic activities under the jurisdiction of the granting authority and the duration of the grant program.