This is from the recent panel report in India - Agricultural Products:
7.791. In its panel request, the United States claimed that India acted inconsistently with Annex B(5)(a) to (5)(d) because it failed to, inter alia, identify the parts of its AI measures which, in substance, deviate from international standards, guidelines or recommendations. We note, however, that the United States has not submitted any arguments on its claim under Annex B(5)(c) in any of its written or oral submissions. When asked by the Panel whether it was pursuing this claim, the United States responded that it has not separately articulated a breach by India of Annex B(5)(c) in its submissions because India's breaches of Annex B(5)(a) and (b) left the United States unaware of India's AI measures until they became final, thereby preventing the United States from requesting copies of them when they remained in non-final form. ...
7.792. In the absence of argumentation, the Panel concludes that the United States failed to make a prima facie case of violation of Annex B(5)(c) by India. Accordingly, the Panel declines to make a finding with respect to the United States' claim pursuant to Annex B(5)(c).
The panel says the U.S. did not make a prima facie case on the claim under Annex B(5)(c); therefore, the panel "declines to make a finding" with respect to the claim. But isn't a conclusion that the U.S. failed to make a prima facie case a finding? It's not a finding of violation, or a finding that the measure is definitively not in violation, but it sill seems like a finding to me.
