WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DS/OV/16
17 October 2003
(03-5503)
UPDATE OF WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT CASES
NOTE : This summary has been prepared by the Secret ariat under its own responsibility.  The summary
is for general information only and is not intended to affect the rights and obligations ofMembers.
NEW DEVELOPMENTS SINCE LAST UPDATE
(FROM 13 SEPTEMBER 2003 UNTIL 15 OCTOBER 2003)
WT/DS No. Short Ti tle Action Section
WT/DS302 Dominican Republic –
CigarettesRequest for consultations I.1
WT/DS295 Mexico – AD on Beef and Rice Request for the establishment of a panel I.8
WT/DS294 US – Anti-Dumping Margins
("Zeroing")Request to join consultations I.9
WT/DS290,
WT/DS174EC – Trademarks and
Geographical IndicationsEstablishment of a panel II.A.2
WT/DS287 Australia – Quarantine Regime Request for the establishment of a panel I.12
WT/DS269 EC – Customs Classification
Chicken CutsRequest for the establishment of a panel I.22
WT/DS261 Uruguay – Tax Treatment Extension of suspension of the Panel II.A.10
WT/DS257 Canada – Softwood Lumber IV Notification of an appeal
Withdrawal of an appealIV.A.1
WT/DS244 US – Corrosion-Resistant Steel
Sunset ReviewNotification of an appeal IV.A.4
WT/DS219 EC – Tube and Pipe Fittings Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU VI.54
WT/DS136 US – 1916 Act (EC) Resumption of the arbitration proceeding
under Article 22.6VI.31WT/DS/OV/16
Page ii
STATISTICAL OVERVIEW
Complaints
notified to the
WTO1Active
Panels2Appellate Body
and Panel Reports
Adopted3Mutually Agreed
SolutionsOther Settled
or Inactive4
Disputes
Reporting
period/
datesince 1.1.1995 on reporting
datesince 1.1.1995 since 1.1.1995 since 1.1.1995
Number 302 23 73 42 24
EXPLANATORY NOTES:
1 This category encompasses all requests for consultations  notified to the WTO, including those requests which
have led to panel and appellate review proceedings.  
2 This category encompasses pending or suspended panel proceedings or appellate review proceedings, with the
exception of proceedings pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.
3 This category does not include reports resulting from proceedings pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.
4 This category includes cases where the contested measure has been terminated, a panel request was withdrawn,
etc.
Active
Compliance
Panels1Adopted Appellate
Body and Panel
Compliance
Reports2Arbitrations on
Level of
Suspension of
Concessions3WTO
Authorizations
of Suspension of
Concessions4
Reporting
period/
dateon reporting date since 1.1.1995 since 1.1.1995 since 1.1.1995
Number –1 2 7 7
EXPLANATORY NOTES:
1 This category encompasses pending or suspended panel or appellate review proceedings pursuant to Article 21.5
of the DSU.
2 This category includes reports resulting from proceedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU.
3 This category covers arbitration proceedings pursuant to Article 22.6 and 22.7 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the
Subsidies Agreement.
4 This category covers authorizations granted by the WT O pursuant to Article 22.7 of the DSU and Article 4.10 of
the Subsidies Agreement.
ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS BY DEVELOPED/DEVELOPING MEMBERS
COMPLAINTS BY DEVELOPED COUNTRY MEMBERS
Respondents – Developed 117
Respondents – Developing 70
COMPLAINTS BY DEVELOPING COUNTRY MEMBERS
Respondents – Developed 64
Respondents – Developing 45
COMPLAINTS BY BOTH DEVELOPED AND DEVELOPING COUNTRY MEMBERS
Respondents – Developed 6
Respondents – Developing 0WT/DS/OV/16
Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. PENDING CONSULTATIONS (m ost recent listed first) ...............................................................1
1. WT/DS302 – Dominican Republic  –   Measures Affecting the Importation and Internal Sale
of Cigarettes .................................................................................................................. ........................1
2. WT/DS301 – European Communities – Meas ures Affecting Comm ercial Ve ssels ..............................1
3. WT/DS300 – Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation of Cigarettes.....................2
4. WT/DS299 – European Communities – Countervailing Measures on Dynamic Random
Access Memory Chips from Korea................................................................................................. ......3
5. WT/DS298 – Mexico – Certain Pricing Measures  for Customs Valuation and Other Purposes...........3
6. WT/DS297 – Croatia – Measure Affecting Impor ts of Live Animals and Meat Products....................4
7. WT/DS296 – United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation on Dynamic Random Access
Memory Semiconductors (DRAMs) from Korea..................................................................................4
8. WT/DS295 – Mexico – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Beef and Rice ...................................59. WT/DS294 – United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping
Margins ("Zeroing")............................................................................................................ ..................5
10. WT/DS289 – Czech Republic– Additional Duty on Imports of Pig Meat from Poland. ......................6
11. WT/DS288 – South Africa – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Blanketing from Turkey...........6
12. WT/DS287 – Australia – Quarantine Regime for Imports....................................................................713. WT/DS286 – European Communities – Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken
Cuts ........................................................................................................................... ............................7
14. WT/DS284 – Mexico – Certain Measures Preventing the Importation of Black Beans from
Nicaragua ...................................................................................................................... ........................8
15. WT/DS283 – European Communities – Export Subsidie s on Sugar ....................................................8
16. WT/DS279 – India – Import Restrictions Maintained under the Export and Import Policy
2002-20 07 ...................................................................................................................... .......................9
17. WT/DS278 – Chile – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Fructose.......................................918. WT/DS275 – Venezuela – Import Licensing Meas ures on Certain Agricultural Products.................10
19. WT/DS274 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel
Products....................................................................................................................... ........................10
20. WT/DS272 – Peru – Provisional Anti-Dumping Duties on Vegetable Oils from Argentina..............1121. WT/DS271 – Australia – Certain Measures Affecting the Importation of Fresh Pineapple ...............1122. WT/DS269 – European Communities – Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken
Cuts ........................................................................................................................... ..........................12
23. WT/DS263 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Imports of Wine ..................................12
24. WT/DS262 – United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on
Certain Steel Products from France and Germany..............................................................................12
25. WT/DS256 – Turkey – Import Ba n on Pet Food fr om Hungary.........................................................13
26. WT/DS247 – United States – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Imports of Certain
Softwood Lumber from Canada.................................................................................................... ......13
27. WT/DS242 – European Communities – Generalized System of Preferences.....................................14
28. WT/DS239 - United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Silicon Metal from Brazil ............................1429. WT/DS233 – Argentina – Measures Affecting the Import of Pharmaceutical Products.....................1530. WT/DS232 – Mexico – Measures Affecting the Import of Matches ..................................................1531. WT/DS230 – Chile – Safeguard Measures and Modification of Schedules regarding Sugar .............1632. WT/DS229 – Brazil – Anti-Dumping Duties on Jute Bags from India...............................................16
33. WT/DS226 – Chile – Provisional Safeguard Measure on Mixtures of Edible Oils ............................17
34. WT/DS225 – United States – Anti-Dumping duties on Seamless Pipe from Italy .............................1735. WT/DS224 – United States – US Patents Code .................................................................................. 17
36. WT/DS223 – European Communities – Tariff-Rate Quota on Corn Gluten Feed from the
United St ates .................................................................................................................. .....................18
37. WT/DS220 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures relating to Certain
Agricultural Products .......................................................................................................... ................18
38. WT/DS218 – United States- Countervailing Duties on Certain Carbon Steel Products from
Brazil......................................................................................................................... ..........................18
39. WT/DS216 – Mexico – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Electric Transformers ....................19WT/DS/OV/16
Page iv
40. WT/DS215 – Philippines – Anti-Dumping Measures regarding Polypropylene Resins from
Korea.......................................................................................................................... .........................19
41. WT/DS209 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Soluble Coffee ....................................19
42. WT/DS208 – Turkey – Anti-Dumping Duty on Steel and Iron Pipe Fittings .....................................20
43. WT/DS205 – Egypt - Import Prohibition on Canned Tuna with Soybean Oil....................................2044. WT/DS203 – Mexico – Measures Affecting Trade in Live Swine .....................................................2045. WT/DS201 – Nicaragua – Measures Affecting Imports from Honduras and Colombia (II) ..............2046. WT/DS200 – United States – Section 306 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Amendments Thereto........21
47. WT/DS197 – Brazil – Measures on Minimum Import Prices.............................................................21
48. WT/DS191 – Ecuador – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measure on Cement from Mexico......................2249. WT/DS187 – Trinidad and Tobago – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Macaroni and
Spaghetti from  Costa Rica ...................................................................................................... ............22
50. WT/DS186 – United States – Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and Amendments Thereto........2251. WT/DS185 – Trinidad and Tobago – Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Pasta from Costa
Rica ........................................................................................................................... ..........................22
52. WT/DS183 – Brazil – Measures on Import Licensing and Minimum Import Prices..........................2353. WT/DS182 – Ecuador – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Cement from Mexico....................2354. WT/DS180 – United States – Reclassi fication of Certain Sugar Syrups ............................................23
55. WT/DS172 – European Communities – Measures Relating to the Development of a Flight
Management System .............................................................................................................. .............23
56. WT/DS173 – France – Measures Relating to the Development of a Flight Management
System......................................................................................................................... ........................24
57. WT/DS168 – South Africa – Anti-Dumping Duties on the Import of Certain Pharmaceutical
Products from India............................................................................................................ .................24
58. WT/DS167 – United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation with respect to Live Cattle
from Canada.................................................................................................................... ....................24
59. WT/DS159 – Hungary – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Steel Products from the Czech
Republic ....................................................................................................................... .......................25
60. WT/DS158 – European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of
Bananas II ..................................................................................................................... ......................25
61. WT/DS157 – Argentina – Anti-Dumping Measures  on Imports of Drill Bits from Italy...................25
62. WT/DS154 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Differential and Favourable
Treatment of Coffee ............................................................................................................ ................26
63. WT/DS153 – European Communities – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural
Products....................................................................................................................... ........................26
64. WT/DS150 – India – Measures Affecting Custom Duties..................................................................2665. WT/DS149 – India – Import Restrictions ...................................................................................... .....26
66. WT/DS148 – Czech Republic – Measure Affect ing Import Duty on Wh eat from Hungary ...............27
67. WT/DS147 – Japan – Tariff Quotas and Subsidies Affecting Leather ...............................................2768. WT/DS145 – Argentina – Countervailing Duties on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the
European Communities........................................................................................................... ............27
69. WT/DS144 – United States – Certain Measures Affecting the Import of Cattle, Swine and
Grain from Canada.............................................................................................................. ................28
70. WT/DS143 - Slovak Republic – Measure Affect ing Import Duty on Wh eat from Hungary...............28
71. WT/DS140 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Investigations Regarding Unbleached
Cotton Fabrics from India ...................................................................................................... .............28
72. WT/DS137 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Imports of Wood of Conifers
from Canada.................................................................................................................... ....................29
73. WT/DS134 – European Communities - Measures Affecting Import Duties on Rice..........................29
74. WT/DS133 – Slovak Republic - Measures Concerning the Importation of Dairy Products and
the Transit of Cattle.......................................................................................................... ...................29
75. WT/DS131 – France - Certain Income Tax Measures Constitu ting Subsidies ...................................29
76. WT/DS130 – Ireland - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies...................................30
77. WT/DS129 – Greece - Certain Income Ta x Measures Constituting Subsidies...................................30
78. WT/DS128 – Netherlands - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies...........................30
79. WT/DS127 – Belgium - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies ................................3080. WT/DS123 – Argentina - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear ............................................3081. WT/DS120 – India - Measures Affect ing Export of Certain Commodities ........................................30
82. WT/DS118 – United States - Harbour Maintenance Tax....................................................................31WT/DS/OV/16
Page v
83. WT/DS117 – Canada - Measures Aff ecting Film Distribution Services ............................................31
84. WT/DS116 – Brazil - Measures Affecting Payment Terms for Imports.............................................3185. WT/DS112 – Peru - Countervailing Duty Investigation against Imports of Buses from Brazil .........31
86. WT/DS111 – United States - Tariff Rate Quota for Imports of Groundnuts ......................................31
87. WT/DS109 – Chile - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages..........................................................................3188. WT/DS107 – Pakistan - Export Measures Affecting Hides and Skins ...............................................3289. WT/DS105 – European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of
Bananas ........................................................................................................................ .......................32
90. WT/DS104 – European Communities - Measures Affecting the Exportation of Processed
Cheese......................................................................................................................... ........................32
91. WT/DS100 – United States - Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry Products.................................3292. WT/DS97 – United States - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Imports of Salmon from
Chile.......................................................................................................................... ..........................32
93. WT/DS81 – Brazil - Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the Automotive Sector ...............32
94. WT/DS80 – Belgium - Measures Affecting Co mmercial Telephone Directory Services...................33
95. WT/DS78 – United States - Safeguard Measure Against Imports of Broom Corn Brooms ...............3396. WT/DS71 – Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft ........................................3397. WT/DS66 – Japan - Measures Affecting Imports of Pork ..................................................................3398. WT/DS65 – Brazil - Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the Automotive
Sector ......................................................................................................................... .........................33
99. WT/DS63 – United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Solid Urea from the
Former German Democratic Republic .............................................................................................. ..34
100. WT/DS61 – United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products ..................34101. WT/DS53 – Mexico - Custom s Valuation of  Imports.........................................................................34
102. WT/DS52 – Brazil - Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the Automotive
Sector ......................................................................................................................... .........................34
103. WT/DS51 – Brazil - Certain Auto motive Investment Measures.........................................................34
104. WT/DS47 – Turkey - Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products ...............................34105. WT/DS45 – Japan - Measures Affecting Distribution Services..........................................................35106. WT/DS41 – Korea - Measures Concerning  Inspection of Agricultural Products ...............................35
107. WT/DS30 – Brazil - Countervailing Duties on Imports of Desiccated Coconut and Coconut
Milk Powder from Sri Lanka ..................................................................................................... .........35
108. WT/DS29 – Turkey - Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products ...............................35109. WT/DS16 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of
Bananas ........................................................................................................................ .......................35
110. WT/DS3 – Korea - Measures Concerning the Testing and Inspection of Agricultural Products........36
II. ACTIVE PANELS ............................................................................................................... .............36
A. A
CTIVE PANELS ............................................................................................................................... ....36
1. WT/DS164 – Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear .................................................362. WT/DS174, WT/DS290 – European Communities – Protection of Trademarks and
Geographical Indications for Agricu ltural Products an d Foodstu ffs...................................................36
3. WT/DS188 – Nicaragua – Measures Affecting Imports from Honduras and Colombia (I)................384. WT/DS195 – Philippines – Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the Motor Vehicle
Sector ......................................................................................................................... .........................38
5. WT/DS204 – Mexico – Measures Affe cting Telecommunications Services......................................38
6. WT/DS214 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Steel Wire Rod
and Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe .................................................................................40
7. WT/DS246 – European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to
Developing Countries........................................................................................................... ...............40
8. WT/DS250 – United States – Equalizing Excise Tax Imposed by Florida on Processed Orange
and Grapefruit Products ........................................................................................................ ..............41
9. WT/DS260 – European Communities – Provisional Safeguard Measures on Imports of
Certain Steel Products......................................................................................................... ................42
10. WT/DS261 – Uruguay – Tax Treat ment on Certai n Product s ............................................................42
11. WT/DS264 – United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from
Canada......................................................................................................................... ........................43
12. WT/DS265, WT/DS266, WT/DS283 – European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar..........43
13. WT/DS267 – United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton ................................................................45WT/DS/OV/16
Page vi
14. WT/DS268 – United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country
Tubular Goods from Argentina................................................................................................... ........46
15. WT/DS270 – Australia – Certain Measures Affecting the Importation of Fresh Fruit and
Vegetables..................................................................................................................... ......................46
16. WT/DS273 – Korea – Measures Affecting Trade in Commercial Vessels .........................................4717. WT/DS276 – Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of Imported
Grain .......................................................................................................................... .........................48
18. WT/DS277 – United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission in
Softwood Lumber from Canada.................................................................................................... ......48
19. WT/DS280 – United States – Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel Plate from Mexico............4920. WT/DS281 - United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Cement from Mexico ............4921. WT/DS282 – United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods
(OCTG) from Mexico ............................................................................................................. ............50
22. WT/DS285 – United States – Measures Affecting Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and
Betting Services ............................................................................................................... ...................50
23. WT/DS291, WT/DS292, WT/DS293 – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of
Biotech Products ............................................................................................................... ..................51
B. A
CTIVE COMPLIANCE PANELS .............................................................................................................52
III. REPORTS CI RCULAT ED ......................................................................................................... .....52
A. PANEL REPORTS ................................................................................................................ .............52
B. COMPLIANCE PANEL REPORTS (ARTICLE 21.5) ......................................................................52
C. APPELLATE BODY REPORTS ....................................................................................................... 52
D. APPELLATE BODY COMPLIANCE REPORTS (ARTICLE 21.5) ................................................52
IV. REPORTS APPEALED ............................................................................................................ .......52
A. PANEL REPORTS ................................................................................................................ .............52
1. WT/DS257 – United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with respect to
Certain Softwood Lumb er from Canada ............................................................................................ .52
2. WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/DS251, WT/DS252, WT/DS253, WT/DS254, WT/DS258 and
WT/DS259 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain SteelProducts....................................................................................................................... ........................53
3. WT/DS245 – Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples................................................56
4. WT/DS244 – United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on Corrosion-Resistant
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan .......................................................................................... .....57
B. COMPLIANCE PANEL REPORTS (ARTICLE 21.5) ......................................................................58
V. COMPLETED PANEL AND A PPELLATE BODY REVIEW ....................................................58
A. APPELLATE BODY AND PANEL REPORTS ADOPTED.............................................................58
1. WT/DS2 and WT/DS4 – United States - Standards for Reformulated and Conventional
Gasoline ....................................................................................................................... .......................58
2. WT/DS8, WT/DS10 and WT/D S11 – Japan - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages...................................58
3. WT/DS18 – Australia - Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon............................................594. WT/DS22 – Brazil - Measures Affecting Desiccated Coconut...........................................................595. WT/DS24 – United States - Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man-Made Fibre
Underwear...................................................................................................................... .....................60
6. WT/DS26 – European Communities - Measures Affecting Meat and Meat Products
(Hormones) ..................................................................................................................... ....................60
7. WT/DS27 – European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of
Bananas ........................................................................................................................ .......................61
8. WT/DS31 – Canada - Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals.......................................................61
9. WT/DS33 – United States - Measure Affecting Im ports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses ...........62
10. WT/DS34 – Turkey - Restrictions on Im ports of Textile and Clothing Products ...............................62
11. WT/DS44 – Japan - Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and Paper............................6312. WT/DS46 – Brazil - Export Financing Programme for Aircraft.........................................................6313. WT/DS48 – European Communities - Measures Affecting Livestock and Meat (Hormones) ...........6414. WT/DS50 – India - Patent Protection for Pharm aceutical and Agricultural  Chemical Products ........65
15. WT/DS54, WT/DS55, WT/DS59 and WT/DS64 – Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting the
Automobile Industry ............................................................................................................ ...............65WT/DS/OV/16
Page vii
16. WT/DS56 – Argentina - Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel
and Other Items................................................................................................................ ...................66
17. WT/DS58 – United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products..................66
18. WT/DS60 – Guatemala - Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding Imports of Portland Cement
from Mexico.................................................................................................................... ....................67
19. WT/DS62, WT/DS67 and WT/DS68 – European Communities - Customs Classification of
Certain Computer Equipment..................................................................................................... .........68
20. WT/DS69 – European Communities - Measures Affecting Importation of Certain Poultry
Products....................................................................................................................... ........................68
21. WT/DS70 – Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft ........................................6922. WT/DS75 and WT/DS84 – Korea - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages...................................................6923. WT/DS76 – Japan - Measures Affecting Agricultural Products .........................................................7024. WT/DS79 – India - Patent Protection for Pharm aceutical and Agricultural  Chemical Products ........70
25. WT/DS87 and WT/DS110 – Chile - Ta xes on Alcoholic Beverages..................................................71
26. WT/DS90 – India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Products ............................................................................................................ ..................71
27. WT/DS98 – Korea - Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products ...............7228. WT/DS99 – United States - Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory
Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea....................................................73
29. WT/DS103 and WT/DS113 – Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the
Exportation of Dairy Products.................................................................................................. ...........73
30. WT/DS108 – United States - Tax Treatme nt for "Foreign Sales Corporations".................................74
31. WT/DS114 – Canada - Patent Protec tion of Pharmaceutical Products ...............................................75
32. WT/DS121 - Argentina - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear.............................................7533. WT/DS122 – Thailand - Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or
Non-Alloy Steel and H- Beams from Poland.......................................................................................7 6
34. WT/DS126 – Australia - Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive
Leather ........................................................................................................................ ........................77
35. WT/DS132 – Mexico - Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)
from the Unit ed States......................................................................................................... ................78
36. WT/DS135 – European Communities - Measures Affecting the Prohibition of Asbestos and
Asbestos Products .............................................................................................................. .................78
37. WT/DS136 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916..................................................................80
38. WT/DS138 – United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled
Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom..................................80
39. WT/DS139 and WT/DS142 – Cana da – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry ........81
40. WT/DS141 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type
Bed-Linen from India........................................................................................................... ...............82
41. WT/DS146 and WT/DS175 – India - Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector ............................8442. WT/DS152 – United States – Sectio ns 301-310 of the Tr ade Act of 1974.........................................86
43. WT/DS155 – Argentina - Measures on the Export of Bovine Hides and the Import of Finished
Leather ........................................................................................................................ ........................86
44. WT/DS156 – Guatemala - Definitive Anti-dumping Measure regarding Grey Portland Cement
from Mexico.................................................................................................................... ....................87
45. WT/DS160 – United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act .............................................88
46. WT/DS161 and WT/DS169 – Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled, and
Frozen Beef.................................................................................................................... .....................89
47. WT/DS162 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916..................................................................91
48. WT/DS163 – Korea – Measures Aff ecting Government Procurement ...............................................92
49. WT/DS165 – United States – Import Measures on Certain Products from the European
Communities .................................................................................................................... ...................92
50. WT/DS166 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Wheat Gluten from
the European Communities ....................................................................................................... ..........94
51. WT/DS170 – Canada – Patent Protection Term.................................................................................. 96
52. WT/DS176 – United States – Sectio n 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act...........................................96
53. WT/DS177 and WT/DS178 – United States – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Fresh,
Chilled or Frozen Lamb from New Zealand .......................................................................................9 7
54. WT/DS179 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils and
Stainless Steel Sheet an d Strip from Korea..................................................................................... ....99WT/DS/OV/16
Page viii
55. WT/DS184 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products
from Japan..................................................................................................................... ....................100
56. WT/DS189 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Ceramic Floor
Tiles from Italy............................................................................................................... ...................102
57. WT/DS192 – United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from
Pakistan....................................................................................................................... ......................102
58. WT/DS194 – United States – Measures Treating Export Restraints As Subsidies ...........................10459. WT/DS202 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded
Carbon Quality Line Pipe....................................................................................................... ...........105
60. WT/DS206 – United States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Steel Plate
From India..................................................................................................................... ....................107
61. WT/DS207 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures relating to Certain
Agricultural Products .......................................................................................................... ..............108
62. WT/DS211– Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey..................110
63. WT/DS212 – United States – Countervailing M easures concerning Certain Products from the
European Communities........................................................................................................... ..........112
64. WT/DS213 – United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon
Steel Flat Products from Germany............................................................................................... .....114
65. WT/DS217, WT/DS234 – United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of
2000 ........................................................................................................................... .......................115
66. WT/DS219 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or
Pipe Fittings from Brazil...................................................................................................... .............117
67. WT/DS221 – United States – Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act................11868. WT/DS222 – Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft........................11969. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines...........................................120
70. WT/DS236 – United States – Preliminary Determinations with respect to Certain Softwood
Lumber from Canada ............................................................................................................. ...........122
71. WT/DS238 – Argentina – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Preserved Peaches............12372. WT/DS241 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on Poultry from Brazil........................12473. WT/DS243 – United States – Rules of Origin for Textiles and Apparel Products ...........................125
B. APPELLATE BODY AND PANEL COMPLIANCE REPORTS (ARTICLE 21.5) ADOPTED ...126
1. WT/DS18/RW – Australia - Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon ..................................126
2. WT/DS27/RW – European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution
of Bananas..................................................................................................................... ....................127
3. WT/DS46/RW and WT/D S46/RW/2 – Brazil - Export Financing Programme for Aircraft.............127
4. WT/DS58/RW – United States - Import Prohibitio n of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products.........128
5. WT/DS70/RW – Canada - Measures Aff ecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft...............................129
6. WT/DS99/RW – United States – Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory
Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea..................................................129
7. WT/DS103/RW and WT/DS113/RW – Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk
and the Exportation of Dairy Products.......................................................................................... ....130
8. WT/DS103/RW/2 and WT/DS113/RW/2 – Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of
Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products ..................................................................................... 131
9. WT/DS108/RW – United States – Tax Treatme nt for "Foreign Sales Corporations".......................132
10. WT/DS126/RW – Australia – Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive
Leather ........................................................................................................................ ......................132
11. WT/DS132/RW – Mexico - Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup
(HFCS) from th e United States .................................................................................................. .......133
12. WT/DS141/RW – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type
Bed Linen from India........................................................................................................... .............134
VI. IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF ADOPTED REPORTS .....................................................135
1. WT/DS2 and WT/DS4 – United States - Standards for Reformulated and Conventional
Gasoline ....................................................................................................................... .....................135
2. WT/DS8, WT/DS10 and WT/D S11 – Japan - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages.................................135
3. WT/DS18 – Australia - Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon..........................................135
4. WT/DS24 – United States - Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man-Made Fibre
Underwear...................................................................................................................... ...................136WT/DS/OV/16
Page ix
5. WT/DS26 and WT/DS48 – European Communities - Measures Affecting Meat and Meat
Products (Hormones) ............................................................................................................ ............136
6. WT/DS27 – European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of
Bananas ........................................................................................................................ .....................136
7. WT/DS31 – Canada - Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals.....................................................1408. WT/DS33 – United States - Measure Affecting Im ports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses .........141
9. WT/DS34 – Turkey – Restrictions on Im ports of Textile and Clothing Products ............................141
10. WT/DS46 – Brazil - Export Financing Programme for Aircraft.......................................................141
11. WT/DS50 – India - Patent Protection for Pharm aceutical and Agricultural  Chemical Products ......142
12. WT/DS54, WT/DS55, WT/DS59 and WT/DS64 – Indonesia - Certain Measures Affecting the
Automobile Industry ............................................................................................................ .............143
13. WT/DS56 – Argentina - Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel
and Other Items................................................................................................................ .................143
14. WT/DS58 – United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products................143
15. WT/DS69 – European Communities - Measures Affecting Importation of Certain Poultry
Products....................................................................................................................... ......................144
16. WT/DS70 – Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft ......................................14417. WT/DS75 and WT/DS84 - Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages.................................................14418. WT/DS76 – Japan - Measures Affecting Agricultural Products .......................................................14519. WT/DS79 – India - Patent Protection for Pharm aceutical and Agricultural  Chemical Products ......145
20. WT/DS87 and WT/DS110– Chile – Ta xes on Alcoholic Beverages................................................145
21. WT/DS90 – India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Products ............................................................................................................ ................146
22. WT/DS98 – Korea - Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products .............14623. WT/DS99 – United States - Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory
Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea..................................................146
24. WT/DS103 and WT/DS113 – Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the
Exportation of Dairy Products.................................................................................................. .........147
25. WT/DS108 – United States - Tax Treatme nt for "Foreign Sales Corporations"...............................148
26. WT/DS114 – Canada – Patent Protec tion of Pharmaceutical Products ............................................149
27. WT/DS121 – Argentina - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear ..........................................150
28. WT/DS122 – Thailand - Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or
Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland.....................................................................................150
29. WT/DS126 – Australia - Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive
Leather ........................................................................................................................ ......................150
30. WT/DS132 – Mexico - Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)
from the Unit ed States......................................................................................................... ..............151
31. WT/DS136 and WT/DS162 – United St ates - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 ......................................151
32. WT/DS138 – United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled
Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom................................153
33. WT/DS139 and WT/DS142 – Cana da – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry ......154
34. WT/DS141 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type
Bed-Linen from India........................................................................................................... .............154
35. WT/DS146 and WT/DS175 – India - Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector ..........................155
36. WT/DS155 – Argentina - Measures on the Export of Bovine Hides and the Import of Finished
Leather ........................................................................................................................ ......................155
37. WT/DS156 – Guatemala - Definitive Anti-dumping Measure regarding Grey Portland Cement
from Mexico.................................................................................................................... ..................155
38. WT/DS160 – United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act ...........................................155
39. WT/DS161 and WT/DS169 Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled, and
Frozen Beef.................................................................................................................... ...................157
40. WT/DS166 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Wheat Gluten from
the European Communities ....................................................................................................... ........157
41. WT/DS170 – Canada – Patent Protection Term................................................................................15 7
42. WT/DS176 – United States – Sectio n 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act.........................................158
43. WT/DS177 and WT/DS178 – United States – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Fresh,
Chilled or Frozen Lamb from New Zealand .....................................................................................159
44. WT/DS179 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils and
Stainless Steel Sheet an d Strip from Korea..................................................................................... ..159WT/DS/OV/16
Page x
45. WT/DS184 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products
from Japan..................................................................................................................... ....................160
46. WT/DS189 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Ceramic Floor
Tiles from Italy............................................................................................................... ...................162
47. WT/DS192 – United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from
Pakistan....................................................................................................................... ......................162
48. WT/DS202 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded
Carbon Quality Line Pipe....................................................................................................... ...........162
49. WT/DS206 – United States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Steel Plate
From India..................................................................................................................... ....................162
50. WT/DS207 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures relating to Certain
Agricultural Products .......................................................................................................... ..............163
51. WT/DS211 – Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey.................16352. WT/DS212 – United States – Countervailing Measures concerning Certain Products from the
European Communities........................................................................................................... ..........163
53. WT/DS217, WT/DS234 – United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of
2000 ........................................................................................................................... .......................164
54. WT/DS219 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or
Pipe Fittings from Brazil...................................................................................................... .............164
55. WT/DS222 – Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft........................164
56. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines...........................................165
57. WT/DS236 – United States – Preliminary Determinations with respect to Certain Softwood
Lumber from Canada ............................................................................................................. ...........165
58. WT/DS238 – Argentina – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Preserved Peaches............166
VII. SETTLED OR INACTIVE CASES...............................................................................................166
A. MUTUALLY AGREED SOLUTIONS ............................................................................................166
1. WT/DS5 – Korea - Measures Concerning the Shelf-life of Products ...............................................166
2. WT/DS6 – United States - Imposition of Import Duties on Automobiles from Japan under
Sections 301 and 304 of th e Trade Act of 1974................................................................................16 6
3. WT/DS7, WT/DS12 and WT/DS14 – European Co mmunities - Trade Description of Scallops .....166
4. WT/DS19 – Poland - Import Regime for Automobiles.....................................................................166
5. WT/DS20 – Korea - Measures Concerning Bottled Water ...............................................................167
6. WT/DS21 – Australia - Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmonids .....................................1677. WT/DS28 – Japan - Measures Concerning Sound Recordings.........................................................1678. WT/DS35 – Hungary - Export Subsidies in  Respect of Agricu ltural Pr oducts.................................167
9. WT/DS36 – Pakistan - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical
Products....................................................................................................................... ......................167
10. WT/DS37 – Portugal - Patent Protection  under the Industrial Property Act....................................168
11. WT/DS40 – Korea - Laws, Regulations and Pr actices in the Telecommunications Sector ..............168
12. WT/DS42 – Japan - Measures Concerning Sound Recordings.........................................................16813. WT/DS43 – Turkey - Taxation of Foreign Film Revenues...............................................................16814. WT/DS72 – European Communities - Measures Affecting Butter Products ....................................16815. WT/DS73 – Japan - Procurement of a Navigation Satellite..............................................................169
16. WT/DS74 – Philippines - Measures Affecting Pork and Poultry......................................................169
17. WT/DS82 – Ireland - Measures Affecting the Grant of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights..........16918. WT/DS83 – Denmark - Measures Affecting the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights ........16919. WT/DS85 – United States - Measures Af fecting Textiles and Apparel Products.............................169
20. WT/DS86 – Sweden - Measures Affecting the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights ..........170
21. WT/DS91 – India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Products ............................................................................................................ ................170
22. WT/DS92 – India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Products ............................................................................................................ ................170
23. WT/DS93 – India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Products ............................................................................................................ ................170
24. WT/DS94 – India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Products ............................................................................................................ ................170
25. WT/DS96 – India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Products ............................................................................................................ ................171WT/DS/OV/16
Page xi
26. WT/DS99 – United States - Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory
Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea..................................................171
27. WT/DS102 – Philippines - Measures Affecting Pork and Poultry....................................................171
28. WT/DS103 and WT/DS113 – Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the
Exportation of Dairy Products.................................................................................................. .........171
29. WT/DS115 – European Communities - Measures Affecting the Grant of Copyright and
Neighbouring Rights ............................................................................................................ .............172
30. WT/DS119 – Australia - Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Coated Woodfree Paper
Sheets ......................................................................................................................... .......................172
31. WT/DS124 – European Communities - Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights for
Motion Pictures and Television Programs ........................................................................................ 172
32. WT/DS125 – Greece - Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights for Motion Pictures and
Television Programs............................................................................................................ ..............172
33. WT/DS151 – United States - Measures Af fecting Textiles and Apparel Products ...........................172
34. WT/DS171 – Argentina – Patent Protection for Pharmaceuticals and Test Data Protection for
Agricultural Chemicals ......................................................................................................... ............173
35. WT/DS190 – Argentina – Transitional Safeguard Measures on Certain Imports of Woven
Fabrics of Cotton and Cotton Mixtures Originating in Brazil...........................................................173
36. WT/DS196 – Argentina – Certain Measures on the Protection of Patents and Test Data.................17437. WT/DS198 – Romania – Measures on Minimum Import Prices ......................................................174
38. WT/DS199 – Brazil – Measures A ffecting Patent Protection ...........................................................175
39. WT/DS210 – Belgium – Administration of Measures Establishing Customs Duties for Rice .........17540. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines...........................................176
41. WT/DS235 - Slovakia – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Sugar ...................................................17642. WT/DS237 – Turkey – Certain Import Procedures for Fresh Fruit...................................................177
B. OTHERS....................................................................................................................... ....................177
1. WT/DS1 – Malaysia - Prohibition of Imports of Polyethylene and Polypropylene..........................177
2. WT/DS9 – European Communities - Duties on Imports of Cereals .................................................1783. WT/DS13 – European Communities - Duties on Imports of Grains.................................................1784. WT/DS15 – Japan - Measures Affecting the Purchase of Telecommunications Equipment ............1785. WT/DS17 – European Communities - Duties on Imports of Rice ....................................................178
6. WT/DS23 – Venezuela - Anti-Dumping Investigation in Respect of Imports of Certain Oil
Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) ................................................................................................... ...178
7. WT/DS25 – European Communities - Implementation of the Uruguay Round Commitments
Concerning Rice................................................................................................................ ................178
8. WT/DS32 – United States - Measures Affecting Imports of Women's and Girls' Wool Coats.........179
9. WT/DS38 – United States - The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act..............................179
10. WT/DS39 – United States - Ta riff Increases on Products from  the European Communities............179
11. WT/DS49 – United States - Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding Imports of Fresh or
Chilled Tomatoes from Mexico ................................................................................................... .....179
12. WT/DS57 – Australia - Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Import Credit Scheme.............................18013. WT/DS77 – Argentina - Measures Affecting Textiles and Clothing ................................................18014. WT/DS88 – United States - Measure Affecting Government Procurement......................................180
15. WT/DS89 – United States - Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Colour Television Receivers
from Korea ..................................................................................................................... ...................180
16. WT/DS95 – United States - Measure Affecting Government Procurement......................................18117. WT/DS101 – Mexico - Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)
from the Unit ed States......................................................................................................... ..............181
18. WT/DS106 – Australia - Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive
Leather ........................................................................................................................ ......................181
19. WT/DS181 – Colombia – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Plain Polyester Filaments from
Thailand ....................................................................................................................... .....................181
20. WT/DS193 - Chile – Measures Affecting the Transit and Importation of Swordfish.......................18221. WT/DS227 – Peru – Taxes on Cigarettes ....................................................................................... ..182
22. WT/DS228 – Chile – Safegu ard Measures on Sugar ........................................................................183
23. WT/DS240 - Romania – Import Prohibition on Wheat and Wheat Flour.........................................18324. WT/DS255 – Peru– Tax Treatment on Certain Imported Products ..................................................183WT/DS/OV/16
Page 1
I. PENDING CONSULTATIONS (most recent listed first)
1. WT/DS302 – Dominican Republic  –   Measures Affecting the Importation and Internal
Sale of Cigarettes
Complaint by Honduras. On 8 October 2003, Honduras requested consultations with the
Dominican Republic concerning certain measures affecting the importation and internal saleof cigarettes. This request is a new and expanded version of a complaint filed by Honduras on
28 August 2003 (WT/DS300/1). 
According to Honduras, the Dominican Republic:
• applies special rules, procedures and administrative practices to determine the value
of imported cigarettes for the purpose of applying the Selective Consumption Tax
(inter alia , in certain instances, considers the value of imported cigarettes to be equal
to the value of the "nearest similar" produ ct in the domestic market), and fails to
establish and apply transparent and generally applicable criteria for determining the
value of imported cigarettes ( inter alia , fails to establish and apply such criteria for
the identification of the "nearest similar" product);
• does not publish the surveys conducted by the Central Bank that are to be used to
determine the value of cigarettes for the purpose of applying the SelectiveConsumption Tax;
• accords conditions of competition to imported cigarettes that are less favourable than
those accorded to domestic cigarettes by requiring that stamps be affixed to cigarettes
packages in the territory of the Dominican Republic;
• entails costs and administrative burdens hindering the importation of cigarettes by
requiring importers of cigarettes to post a bond;
• levies a transitional surcharge for economic stabilization of 2% of the CIF value of
the imported goods;
• levies a foreign exchange fee of 4.75% of the value of the imported merchandise.
Honduras considers that these Dominican Republic's measures are inconsistent with
Articles II:1(b), III:2, III:4, X:1, X:3(a), XI:1, and XV:4 of GATT 1994.
2. WT/DS301 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Commercial Vessels
Complaint by Korea.  On 3 September 2003, Korea requested consultations with the
European Communities concerning certain measures by the EC and its member States in
favour of their shipbuilding industry which, according to Korea, are inconsistent with their
WTO obligations.  These measures are as follows:
• EC Regulation 1177/2002 ("TDM Regulation") and EC Regulation 1540/98, as well
as the EC member States' implementing provisions. These measures provide forsubsidies in favour of commercial vessels in various forms;
• The provision by the EC and the member States of subsidies in support of
commercial vessels built in the EC, in form of (a) operational aid granted on a
contractual basis in forms such as grants, export credits, guarantees or tax breaks, (b)WT/DS/OV/16
Page 2
restructuring aid, (c) regional or other investment aid, (d) research and development
aid, (e) environmental protection aid and (f) insolvency and closure aid.
Korea considered that these measures are in breach of their obligations under the provisions
of the WTO Agreements, inter alia :
• Articles 1, 2, 3.1, 5(a) and (c), 6.3(a), (b) or (c), 6.4 and 6.5 of the Agreement on
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("SCM Agreement");
• Articles I:1 and III:4 of GATT 1994; and
• Article 23(1) and (2) of the DSU and Articles 4, 7 and 32(1) of the SCM Agreement.
Concerning the last point, the request states that the TDM Regulation and the member States'
implementing measures "have been designed and implemented as unilateral measures seekingredress of a perceived violation of Korea's obligations under the SCM Agreement" and
"constitute specific actions against perceived subsidies of another Member".  This may refer
to the ongoing dispute concerning Korea's own subsidies, on which a panel was established in
July 2003 (WT/DS273).
Korea also considered that the above-described measures nullify or impair benefits accruing
to Korea under the WTO Agreements, within th e meaning of Articles XXIII:1(a) and (b) of
GATT 1994 and Article 5(b) of the SCM Agreement.
On 12 September 2003, China requested to join the consultations.
3. WT/DS300 – Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation of Cigarettes
Complaint by Honduras.  On 28 August 2003, Honduras requested consultations with the
Dominican Republic concerning its measures which affect the importation of cigarettes.
Honduras' request concerns three types of measures:
(a) The manner in which the tax base is assessed for purposes of collection of the
Selective Tax on Consumption regarding cigarettes, which in Honduras' view creates
a less favourable treatment for Honduran cigarettes than that received by like
domestic products and by like products imported from third countries.  This is
inconsistent with the Dominican Republic's obligations under Articles III:2 and I:1 ofGATT 1994;
(b) The requirement that stamps must be affixed on the product inside the territory of the
Dominican Republic and under supervision of its tax authorities, which in Honduras'
view creates a less favourable treatment for Honduran cigarettes than that received by
like domestic products.  This is also inconsistent with the Dominican Republic's
obligations under Article III:4 of GATT 1994; and,
(c) The requirement that importers, including importers of cigarettes, post a bond as a
pre-requisite for importation, which in Honduras' view creates a "charge" other than a
custom duty, and is therefore inconsistent with the Dominican Republic's obligations
under Article I:1(b) of GATT 1994.  In another sense, it is also a "restriction" on the
importation of cigarettes and therefore inconsistent with the Dominican Republic's
obligations under Article XI:1 of GATT 1994.
Honduras claimed that such measures unduly restrict its exports to Dominican Republic and
nullify or impair benefits accruing to Honduras under the WTO Agreement.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 3
4. WT/DS299 – European Communities – Countervailing Measures on Dynamic Random
Access Memory Chips from Korea
Complaint by Korea.  On 25 July 2003, Korea requested consultations with the European
Communities concerning the EC's provisional countervailing measures and any finalcountervailing measures which may be finalized and implemented later this year against
dynamic random access memory chips ("DRAMs") from Korea.
According to Korea, when considering the dete rminations with respect to the provisional
measures against the DRAMs from Korea, which have already been implemented, and any
final measures on the same products, which may be finalized and implemented later this year,
the European Commission failed to comply with various WTO substantive and proceduralrequirements, including demonstration of  the existence of a financial contribution and a
benefit conferred, and demonstration of  specificity of the subsidies concerned.
In Korea's view, these EC's measures at issue are inconsistent with the EC's obligations under
the following WTO provisions:
(a) Articles VI:3 and X.3 of GATT 1994;(b) Articles 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 22 and 32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures.
On 25 August 2003, Korea requested further consultations with the EC concerning the EC's
final countervailing measures, which were adopted by the European Council on 11 August
2003 and published in the Official Journal of the EC on 22 August 2003.
Korea wished to consult on the same issues raised in its previous consultations request, but
from the additional perspectives of the adopted final measures.
Korea further elaborated the EC's violation of Article 15 of the SCM Agreement.  Korea
claimed that the material injury finding by the EC is inconsistent, inter alia , with Articles
15.1, 15.2, 15.4, and 15.5 of the SCM Agreement.
5. WT/DS298 – Mexico – Certain Pricing Measu res for Customs Valuation and Other
Purposes
Complaint by Guatemala.  On 22 July 2003, Guatemala requested consultations with Mexico
concerning certain Mexican customs rules, procedures and administrative practices which
impose officially established prices for customs valuation and other purposes.  Guatemala
also contested the Mexican authorities' practice of requiring a deposit or bond to guarantee theobservance of these officially established prices.
In Guatemala's view, Mexican customs rules, procedures and administrative practices at issue
are inconsistent with Mexico's obligations under the following WTO provisions:
(a) Articles I, II, VII and X of GATT 1994;
(b) Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 22 of the Customs Valuation
Agreement;
(c) Article 4 of the Agriculture Agreement;WT/DS/OV/16
Page 4
(d) Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
6. WT/DS297 – Croatia – Measure Affecting Impo rts of Live Animals and Meat Products
Complaint by Hungary.  On 9 July 2003, Hungary requested consultations with Croatia
regarding certain measures taken by Croatia affecting imports of live animals and meatproducts.
According to Hungary, the import measure was introduced by Croatia on 5 June 2003 without
notification to the SPS Committee.  The measure is alleged to aim at the prevention of the
spread of the BSE disease.  Apart from ruminants, it applies to all other animals of any
economic significance such as live pigs, poultry and fish and products thereof.  The measure
prohibits imports unless there is a prohibition in the exporting country on feeding animalswith feed containing animal protein (fish meal is also not allowed to be used under all
circumstances).
Hungary asserts that the measure introduced by Croatia is not based on any scientific
principle linked to the prevention of the spread of BSE.  Hungary considers that there is noscientific basis for applying such feeding requir ements to animals other than ruminants.  The
Hungarian authorities are unaware of any case where BSE was proved to be spread through
pigs, poultry or fish and meat thereof.  Hungar y notes that it is a BSE-free country.  Hungary
is also not aware of any international standard  which would justify such feeding requirements.
The Hungarian authorities were not informed of any risk assessment either conducted by thecompetent Croatian authorities.
In Hungary's view, the measure at issue appears to be inconsistent with Croatia's obligations
under the following WTO provisions:
(a) Articles XI and XX of the GATT 1994;
(b) Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6, 6.1, 6.2, 7 and Annex B of the
SPS Agreement.
7. WT/DS296 – United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation on Dynamic Random
Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMs) from Korea
Complaint by Korea.  On 30 June 2003, Korea requested consultations with the United States
concerning the US authorities' affirmative preliminary and final countervailing duty
determinations, the preliminary injury determin ation and any subsequent determinations that
may be made during the injury investigation, on DRAMs and DRAM modules from Korea.
Korea is also challenging all related laws and regulations, including Section 771 of the USTariff Act of 1930 and 19 CFR 351 respectively.
Korea claimed that the above determinations are inconsistent, inter alia , with Articles VI:3
and X:3 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 22, 32.1 of the SCM
Agreement.
On 18 August 2003, Korea requested further consultations with regard to the US authorities'
countervailing duty determinations on DRAMs and DRAM modules from Korea. This
request concerns the USITC's affirmative final injury determination and the DOC's final
countervailing duty order, both of which were p ublished on 11 August 2003, that is, after the
first request for consultations was made by Korea.  Korea claimed that the determinations
mentioned above are inconsistent, inter alia , with Articles 15.1, 15.2, 15.4, and 15.5 of the
SCM Agreement.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 5
8. WT/DS295 – Mexico – Definitive Anti-D umping Measures on Beef and Rice
Complaint by the United States.  On 16 June 2003, the United States requested consultations
with Mexico concerning its definitive anti-dumping measures on beef and long grain white
rice as well as certain provisions of Mexico's Foreign Trade Act and its Federal Code of CivilProcedure.
The US claimed that these measures were inconsistent with Mexico's obligations under the
provisions of GATT 1994, the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement.  In
particular, the US claimed that:
Mexico's definitive anti-dumping measures on beef and long grain white rice were
inconsistent with at least Articles 3, 5.8, 6, 9, 12, 11.1 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement.
Certain provisions of Mexico's Foreign Trade Act and its Federal Code of Civil Procedure
were inconsistent with Articles 5.8, 6, 6.1.1, 6.8, 7, 9, 9.5, 10.6, 11 and 11.1 of theAnti-Dumping Agreement and Articles 11.9, 12.1.1, 12.7, 17, 19, 19.3, 20.6, 21 and 21.1 of
the SCM Agreement.
The US also claimed that Mexico's measures appear to nullify or impair benefits accruing to
the US directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.
On 19 September 2003, the U.S. requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 2
October, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
9. WT/DS294 – United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating
Dumping Margins ("Zeroing")
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 12 June 2003, the European Communities
requested consultations with the United States concerning a methodology used by the US,
among others, in the calculation of dumping margins, known as "zeroing".  The "zeroing"
methodology, generally speaking, involves treating specific price comparisons which do not
show dumping as zero values in the calculation of a weighted average dumping margin.
The request concerns specific provisions of the US Tariff Act of 1930 and the Department of
Commerce implementing regulation as well as  US Department of Commerce methodology
and its determinations in specific cases involving products imported from the EC.
The EC has indicated specific aspects of the zeroing methodology that it will raise in the
consultations, including the way in which it is applied in calculating dumping margins, its
impact on determinations of injury, its impact in cases which would otherwise be de minimis ,
and the level of the dumping margins in 21 specific US anti-dumping cases.
The EC has attached to its request details of those specific cases, alleging that in each of them
the US used zeroing methodology.  Most of the products in these cases were steel.  The EC
asserts that in each case the dumping margin without zeroing would have been lower,
de minimis or negative.
In the EC's view, the Act, regulation, methodology and these specific determinations appear
to be inconsistent with the United States' obligations under the following WTO provisions:
(a) Articles 1, 2.4, 3, 5.8, 9.3, 9.5, 11, 18.3 and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ;WT/DS/OV/16
Page 6
(b) Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994 ;
(c) Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement .
On 27 June 2003, India and Korea requested to join the consultations.  On 30 June 2003,
Japan and Mexico requested to join the consultations.
On 8 September 2003, the European Communities requested further consultations with the
United States.  The EC wished to add ten more cases to the list of specific cases.
The EC indicated specific aspects of the ze roing methodology that it will raise in the
additional consultations, including the way in which it is applied in calculating dumping
margins, its impact on determinations of injury, its impact in cases which would otherwise be
de minimis , and the level of the dumping margins in specific US anti-dumping cases.
In the EC's view, these additional specific determinations appear to be inconsistent with the
US obligations under the same WTO provisions mentioned above.
On 25 September 2003, Mexico requested to join the consultations.
10. WT/DS289 – Czech Republic– Additional Duty  on Imports of Pig Meat from Poland.
Complaint by Poland.  On 14 April 2003, Poland requested consultations with the Czech
Republic concerning the additional duty levied by the Czech Republic on imports of pig meat
from Poland.  According to Poland, the Czech Republic published on 25 March 2003 a
Decree dated 12 March 2003 which provides that customs duties levied under tariff heading
0203 11 10 on pig meat imported from Poland shall be 50% above the Czech Republic's tariff
binding for that tariff heading, or 23 CZK/kg, whichever is higher.  Poland also claims thatthis measure appears to be subject to a minimum import price as the aforementioned duty rate
does not apply to imports with declared customs value exceeding 36 CZK/kg.  No other
sources of imports have been mentioned in the Decree, which, in Poland's view, seems to
imply that the restrictions introduced by this action apply exclusively to Poland and, as such,
are discriminatory in their purpose, nature and effect.
Poland claims that this measure appears to be inconsistent with the obligations of the Czech
Republic under Article 4 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and constitutes a
nullification and impairment of the rights and benefits, within the meaning of Article XXIII of
GATT 1994, that Poland is entitled to enjoy, inter alia,  under GATT Articles I and II.
Poland also claims that the institution and implementation of the said measure had not been
preceded by any bilateral notice or consultations, with the Decree taking effect on the date of
its publication.
11. WT/DS288 – South Africa – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Blanketing from
Turkey
Complaint by Turkey.  On 10 April 2003, Turkey requested consultations with South Africa
concerning its definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of blanketing in roll form from
Turkey.  These measures were imposed further to an investigation by the South African Board
on Tariffs and Trade (BTT) into the alleged circumvention of anti-dumping duties on blankets
originating in or imported from Turkey.
Turkey claims that:  (i) the TBT failed to ensure proper notifications;  (ii) the establishment of
facts was not proper;  and (iii) the TBT's evaluation of these facts was not unbiased andWT/DS/OV/16
Page 7
objective, particularly in relation to the initia tion and the conduct of the investigation as well
as the imposition of the anti-dumping duty.
Turkey claims that South Africa's measures  are in violation of Articles 5.5, 6.1, 6.1.3, 6.2, 6.9,
6.10, 9.2, 9.3 and Article 12.1 of the Anti-Dumping  Agreement;  and Articles III and X of the
GATT 1994.
12. WT/DS287 – Australia – Quarantine Regime for Imports
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 3 April 2003, the EC requested consultations
with Australia regarding the Australian quarantine regime for imports, both as such and as
applied to certain specific cases.  According to the EC, the Australian quarantine regime for
imports appears to be governed both by legislation as well as by the exercise of discretiongranted to a Director of Quarantine and by administrative guidance issued on the exercise of
that discretion.
As regards the quarantine regime as such, the EC claims that the effect of this regime appears
to be that the import of products is a priori  prohibited, although there is no risk assessment.
Risk assessments appear to be commenced, if at all, only once the import of a product has
been specifically requested. 
  In some cases, no risk assessment has been commenced despite
such request.  In other cases it has been commenced but not completed.  As regards specific
cases, the EC claims that:
• Australia permits the import of deboned pigmeat from Denmark for processing in
Australia but refuses the import of processed deboned pigmeat from Denmark.  It alsoclaims that the processing requirements imposed in Australia may be more trade-
restrictive than necessary in the circumstances to protect Australia from PRRS (Porcine
Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome).  It also appears that requests have been made
for access to Australia for processed pigmeat or deboned pigmeat for processing fromother EU Member States which have been refused.
• Australia permits the import of poultry meat which has been cooked to high temperature
and for long periods to prevent the entry of IBD (infectious bursal disease).  The EC
claims that it appears that IBD may already be present in the Australian poultry flock and
that no efforts are being made to eradicate it.  The EC also claims that the processing
requirements imposed in Australia may be mo re trade-restrictive than necessary in the
circumstances to protect Australia from IBD.
The EC considers that the measures referred to above may be contrary to the SPS Agreement,
and in particular, although not limited to, Ar ticles 2.2, 2.3, 3.3, 4.1, 5.1, 5.6 and, if applicable,
5.7, 8 and Annex C.  On 16 April 2003, Chile and the Philippines requested to join the
consultations.  On 22 April 2003, India and Canada requested to join the consultations.
Australia informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Canada, Chile, India and thePhilippines to join the consultations.
On 29 August 2003, the European Communities requested the establishment of a panel. At its
meeting on 2 October, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
13. WT/DS286 – European Communities – Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless
Chicken Cuts
Complaint by Thailand.  On 25 March 2003, Thailand requested consultations with the EC
concerning EC Commission Regulation 1223/2 002, as amended, pursuant to which frozen
boneless chicken cuts with a certain salt content have been reclassified.  Previously, suchgoods were classified as salted meat at an ad valorem  rate of 15.4%.  Now, such goods areWT/DS/OV/16
Page 8
classified as frozen chicken at the specific duty of 102.4 Euro per 100 kg, which results in an
ad valorem  rate that is higher than the bound rate.
According to Thailand, the measure at issue is inconsistent with the EC's obligations under
Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 and its Schedule of Concessions.  On 3 and10 April 2003 respectively, Brazil and the United States requested to join the consultations.
The EC informed the DSB that it has accepted the request of Brazil to join the consultations.
14. WT/DS284 – Mexico – Certain Measures Preventing the Importation of Black Beans
from Nicaragua
Complaint by Nicaragua.  On 17 March 2003, Nicaragua requested consultations with Mexico
regarding certain measures imposed by Mexico, which prevent the importation of black beansfrom Nicaragua.  These measures include:
• The administration of the procedures set out in Official Standard 006-FITO-95 and
Official Standard 028-FITO-95, includin g the refusal of the competent Mexican
authorities to furnish importers with the document containing the phytosanitary
requirements necessary for the importation of black beans from Nicaragua;
• The more favourable treatment that the competent Mexican authorities accord in the
administration of the above procedures to like products originating in countries otherthan Nicaragua;
• The failure to publish the specific phytosa nitary requirements for the importation of
black beans from Nicaragua; and
• The failure to publish the rules, requirements and procedures concerning the tender for
the quota allocation of black beans from Nicaragua.
In Nicaragua's view, the above measures are in consistent with Mexico's obligations under
Articles I:1, X:1, X:3(a), XI:1 and XIII:1 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 1.2, 1.3, 1.4(a) and
2.2(a) of the Licensing Agreement.  In addition, Nicaragua claims that, if the above measures
are sanitary or phytosanitary measures as defined in the SPS Agreement, they would also be
inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 7 and paragraph 1 of Annex B of theSPS Agreement.
On 27 March 2003, the United States requested to join the consultations.  On 28 March 2003,
Canada requested to join the consultations.
15. WT/DS283 – European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar
Complaint by Thailand.  On 14 March 2003, Thailand requested consultations with the EC
concerning EC subsidies for sugar and suga r-containing products accorded under Council
Regulation (EC) No. 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the European Communities’ common
organization of the markets in the sugar sector
1 and other EC related legislation and
administrative policies ("EC sugar regime").  Australia and Brazil also filed complaints on the
same matter (WT/DS265 and WT/DS266 respectively).
According to Thailand:
• The EC sugar regime accords imported sugar a less favourable treatment than that
accorded to domestic sugar and provides for subsidies contingent upon the use ofdomestic over imported products;
                                                     
1 Published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 30 June 2001 (L 178/1-45)WT/DS/OV/16
Page 9
• The EC sugar regime accords export subsidies above its reduction commitment levels
specified in Section II of Part IV of the EC's Schedule to the sugar produced in excess ofits production quotas (so-called C sugar);
• The EC provides export subsidies (known as “export refunds”) that cover the difference
between the world market price and the high  prices in the EC for the products in
question, thus enabling those products to be exported.
Thailand considers that the above subsidies are inconsistent with the EC's obligations under
Article III:4 of GATT 1994, Articles 3.1(a), 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement and
Articles 3.3, 8, 9.1 and 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  On 20 March 2003, Mauritius
requested to join the consultations as third party.
On 9 July 2003, Thailand requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 21 July
2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
16. WT/DS279 – India – Import Restrictions Maintained under the Export and Import
Policy 2002-2007
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 23 December 2002, the European
Communities requested consultations with India concerning import restrictions maintained by
India under its Export and Import Policy 2002-2007 with respect to particular products ofconcern to the European Communities.
The European Communities considered that th ese import restrictions may constitute an
infringement of, in particular but not necessarily exclusively, the following WTO provisions:
• Articles III, X and XI of GATT 1994;
• Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture;
• Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Agreem ent on Import Licensing Procedures;
• Articles 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures;
• Article 2 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.
According to the EC, the import restrictions at issue cannot be justified under Articles XX or
XXI of GATT 1994.
On 17 January 2003, the US requested to join the consultations.  On 31 January 2003, India
accepted the request of the US.
17. WT/DS278 – Chile – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Fructose
Complaint by Argentina.  On 20 December 2002, Argentina requested consultations with
Chile concerning a definitive safeguard measure on imports of certain kinds of fructose.Chile imposed the measure on 19 November 2002 for a period of one year backdated to
30 July 2002, at a rate of 14% ad valorem. 
Argentina alleges that Chile's safeguard measure violates Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and
Articles 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1(b), 4.1(c), 4.2(a,) 4.2(b), 5.1, 7.1 and 7.5 of the Safeguards
Agreement, for the following reasons:
• there were no unforeseen developments which justified the measure;
• the investigation was not based on a like or directly competitive product;
• there was no determination of an increase in imports;
• the injury factors did not justify the determination of a threat of serious injury;WT/DS/OV/16
Page 10
• there was no objective determination of a causal link between the increase in imports
and the threat of serious injury;
• the investigating authorities' report was not published and did not contain findings
and reasoned conclusions on all pertinent issues of fact and law;
• the measure is applied beyond the permissible extent; and
• Chile reapplied the measure before the end of the minimum permitted non-application
period.
18. WT/DS275 – Venezuela – Import Licensing Me asures on Certain Agricultural Products
Complaint by the United States.  On 7 November 2002 the United States requested
consultations with Venezuela concerning Venezuelan import licensing systems and practices
that restrict agricultural imports from the United States.  According to the United States,
Venezuela has established import licensing requirements for numerous agricultural products,
including corn, sorghum, dairy products (for ex ample, cheese, whey, whole milk powder, and
non-fat dry milk), grapes, yellow grease, poultry, beef, pork, and soybean meal.
The United States claimed that Venezuela appears to have established a discretionary import
licensing regime for the above products.  It further claimed that, through its import licensing
practices, Venezuela has failed to establish a transparent and predictable system for issuing
import licenses and has severely restricted and distorted trade in these goods.
The United States alleges that Venezuela’s import licensing systems and practices appear to
be inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture;  Articles III, X, XI, and
XIII of GATT 1994;  Article 2.1 of the TRI Ms Agreement, and Articles 1.4, 3.2, 3.5, 5.1, 5.2,
and 5.3 of the Import Licensing Agreement.  Venezuela’s measures also appear to nullify or
impair the benefits accruing to the United States directly or indirectly under the citedagreements.
On 20 November 2002, the EC and Canada requested to join the consultations.  On
21 November 2002, New Zealand and Chile requested to join the consultations.  On
22 November 2002, Argentina and Colombia requested to join the consultations.  On25 November 2002, Venezuela informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of
Argentina, Canada, Chile, the EC and New Zealand to join the consultations.
19. WT/DS274 – United States – Definitive Safe guard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel
Products
Complaint by Chinese Taipei.  On 1 November 2002, Chinese Taipei requested consultations
with the United States with regard to safeguard measures on steel imposed by the United
States on imports of certain steel products.  These measures are currently been reviewed by a
Panel in the joint cases WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/DS251, WT /DS252, WT/DS253,
WT/DS254, WT/DS258, WT/DS259.  Ch inese Taipei is a third party in these proceedings.
This dispute concerns the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the United States in the
form of an increase in duties on imports of certain flat steel, hot-rolled bar, cold-finished bar,
rebar, certain tubular products, carbon and alloy fittings and flanges, stainless steel bar,
stainless steel rod, tin mill products and stainless steel wire, and in the form of a tariff rate
quota on imports of slabs.  These measures were published in the Proclamation 7529, dated
5 March 2002 (Federal Register Vol. 67, No 45 of 7 March 2002).  Chinese Taipei considersthat these measures are in violation of the United States obligations under Articles I:1 and
XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1(c), 4.2(a), 4.2(b) and 5.1 of the
Agreement on Safeguards.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 11
On 21 November 2002, Japan requested to join the consultations.  The United States informed
that DSB that it accepted the request of Japan to join the consultations.
20. WT/DS272 – Peru – Provisional Anti-Dumping Duties on Vegetable Oils from Argentina
Complaint by Argentina.  On 21 October 2002, Argentina requested consultations with Peru
on its anti-dumping investigation on imports of sunflower and soja vegetable oils and their
mixtures originating in Argentina (Res olution No. 016-2002-CDS-INDECOPI); and its
imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties on those imports as a result of the said
investigation (Resolution No. 040-2002-CDS-INDE COPI).  Argentina considered that both
the on-going investigation and the provisional determination of the existence of dumping,
injury and causal link which led to the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties, areinconsistent with Peru's obligations under Articles 5.2, 5.3, 5.8, 4.1(ii), 6.8 and Annex II, 2.2,
2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 7, 12.2.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT
1994.
As regards the measure imposing provisional anti-dumping duties, Argentina considered that
it is also inconsistent with Peru's obligations under Articles 5.2, 5.3, 5.8, 6.8 and Annex II,2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 7, 12.2.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the
GATT 1994.
21. WT/DS271 – Australia – Certain Measures  Affecting the Importation of Fresh
Pineapple
Complaint by the Philippines.  On 18 October, the Philippines requested consultations with
Australia on certain measures affecting the importation into Australia of fresh pineapple,
which include, but are not limited to:
• Section 64 of the Quarantine Proclamation 1998  promulgated under the Quarantine Act
1908;
• Regulations, requirements and procedures issued pursuant thereto, including Plant
Biosecurity Policy Memorandum 2002/45 (requiring that fresh pineapple fruit from ThePhilippines, the Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, and Thailand shall, among other
requirements, be de-crowned and subjected to pre-shipment methyl bromide fumigation
as conditions for importation into Australia);
• Amendments to any of the foregoing;  and
• Their application.
The Philippines considered that these measures are inconsistent with the obligations of
Australia under the GATT 1994 and the SPS Agreement.  The relevant provisions of these
agreements include, but are not limited to Articles XI and XIII of the GATT 1994, and
Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the SPS Agreement.
On 1 November 2002, the EC and Thailand requested to join the consultations.  On 7
November 2002, Australia informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of the EC and
Thailand to join the consultations.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 12
22. WT/DS269 – European Communities – Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless
Chicken Cuts
Complaint by Brazil.  On 11 October 2002, Brazil requested consultations with the European
Communities concerning EC Commission Regulation No. 1223/2002 ("Regulation No.
1223/2002"), of 8 July 2002, which provides a new description of frozen boneless chickencuts under the EC Combined Nomenclature ("CN") code 0207.14.10.  According to Brazil,
this new description includes a salt content to the product that did not exist before and
subjects the imports of these products to a higher tariff than that applicable to salted meat
(CN code 0210) in the EC's Schedules under the GATT 1994.
Brazil submits that Regulation No. 1223/2002 automatically forces products that were
previously imported under CN code 0210.99.39, and subject to an ad valorem  tariff rate of
15,4%, to be classified under CN code 0207.14.10, and subject to a higher tariff rate of 102,4
€/100kg/net.  This tariff rate of 102,4 €/100kg/net is in excess of the tariff rate for salted meat
(CN code 0210) provided for in the EC's Schedules under the GATT 1994.
As a result of this measure, Brazil considered that its commerce has been accorded treatment
less favorable than that provided in the EC Sc hedules, in contravention of the obligations of
the EC under Articles II and XXVIII of the GATT 1994.  In addition, Brazil claimed that the
application of this measure by the EC nullifies and impairs, within the meaning of Article
XXIII:1, benefits accruing to Brazil directly or indirectly under the GATT 1994.
On 25 October 2002, the United States requested to join the consultations.
On 19 September 2003, Brazil requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 2
October, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
23. WT/DS263 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Imports of Wine
Complaint by Argentina.  On 4 September 2002, Argentina requested consultations with the
EC regarding several EC regulations and other mandatory provisions on oenological practices
and on trade in wine.
Argentina's complaint is in respect of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1493/1999 and
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 883/2001, which relate to the administration and thecommon organisation of the market in wine, the establishment of authorized oenological
practices and the regulation of trade between the countries of the EU and third countries.
Argentina considered that these measures are inconsistent with Articles 2 and 12 of the TBT
Agreement, Articles I:1 and III:4 of GATT 1994 and Article XVI.4 of the WTO Agreement.
24. WT/DS262 – United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping and Countervailing
Duties on Certain Steel Products from France and Germany
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 25 July 2002 the EC requested consultations
with the US regarding anti-dumping and counter vailing duties imposed by the US, further to
sunset review proceedings, on imports of (1) corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products
("corrosion resistant steel") from France (A-427-808 and C-427-810) and Germany
(A-428-815 and C-428-817) and (2) cut-to-length carbon steel plate ("cut-to-length steel")
from Germany (A-428-816 and C-428-817).  The EC refers in particular to:WT/DS/OV/16
Page 13
• the final results of the sunset reviews by the US Department of Commerce (the "DOC")
of the anti-dumping duty orders on corrosi on-resistant steel from France and from
Germany and of the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel from France;
• the determinations of the US International Trade Commission (the "ITC") on the sunset
reviews of the anti-dumping and countervailing duties on cut-to-length steel fromGermany and on corrosion resistant steel from France and Germany; and
• certain provisions and procedures contained in Sections 751 (c) and 752 of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (the "Act"), in the implementing regulations and in the Policy Bulletin
issued by the DOC.
In its request for consultations, the EC consider ed that these determinations resulting in the
continuation of the duties are erroneous and based on deficient rulings, procedures and
provisions pertaining to the Act and related regulations.  The EC considered that the abovedeterminations are not in conformity with the obligations of the US under Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6
(including annex II), 11.1, 11.3, 11.4,18.3 and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
Articles 10, 11, 12, 15, 21.1, 21.3, 21.4, 32.3 and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement;  Articles VI
and X of the GATT 1994;  and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
On 7 and 8 August  2002 respectively Canada and Japan requested to join the consultations.
25. WT/DS256 – Turkey – Import Ban on Pet Food from Hungary
Complaint by Hungary.  On 3 May 2002, Hungary requested consultations with Turkey.  This
request was in respect of Turkey's import ban on pet food from Hungary.  Hungary claimed
that this import ban, which applies to any European country from the beginning of 2001, is
imposed with the declared intention to be protected against the spread of BSE (Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopety).  Hungary submitted  that, since Hungary is a BSE-free country,
the danger of alleged cross-infection does not seem to have any scientific basis.  Hungary also
noted that its pet food is used exclusively for the feeding of cats and dogs.  In addition,
Hungary submitted that there was neither official publication of the Turkish regulation
imposing the ban, nor notification of it to the relevant WTO Committee.
Hungary considered that the import ban appears to be inconsistent with Turkey's obligations
under Article XI of the GATT 1994;  Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.6, 6.1, 6.2 and 7 andAnnex B of the SPS Agreement;  Article 14 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
Hungary also claimed that Turkey's measure appears to nullify and impair the benefits
accruing to Hungary directly or indirectly under the said agreements.
26. WT/DS247 – United States – Provisional An ti-Dumping Measure on Imports of Certain
Softwood Lumber from Canada
Complaint by Canada.  On 6 March 2002, Canada requested consultations under Article 4.8
of the DSU (urgency procedure) with the United States regarding an anti-dumping measure
applied by the US to imports of softwood lumber from Canada.
Specifically, Canada expressed concern about three aspects of the US anti-dumping measure.
Canada considered that:
• the initiation of the investigation was, therefore, inconsistent with Articles 5.2 and 5.3 of
the AD Agreement and, therefore, the application of provisional measures was
inconsistent with Article 7.1 of the AD Agreement;WT/DS/OV/16
Page 14
• the preliminary dumping determination was inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the
AD Agreement;  and
• the "zeroing" methodology applied by the US in the preliminary investigation was
inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement.
The US, although accepting the request for consultations, however did not accept that this
was a case of urgency for the purpose of Article 4.8 of the DSU.
27. WT/DS242 – European Communities – Generalized System of Preferences
Complaint by Thailand.  On 7 December 2001, Thailand requested consultations with the EC
under Article XXIII of GATT 1994 in respect of measures under the EC's Generalized
System of Preferences ("GSP") scheme.  The GSP scheme was at the time implementedthrough Council Regulation (EC) no. 2820/98 of 21 December 1998 applying a multiannual
scheme of generalized tariff preferences for the period of 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001,
and was expected to continue to be implemented through the Amended Proposal for a Council
Regulation applying a scheme of generalized tariff preferences for the period 1 January 2002
to 31 December 2004 dated 14 November 2001.
Thailand considered that certain measures under the EC's GSP adversely affect imports into
the EC of goods originating in Thailand.  In particular, Thailand claimed that, through its GSP
scheme as implemented, the EC failed to carry out its obligations under Article I of GATT
1994 and the Enabling Clause, as incorporated into GATT 1994.
According to Thailand, the benefits accruing to  it directly or indirectly under the WTO
Agreement are being nullified or impaired as a result of this alleged failure by the EC to carry
out its obligations under the WTO Agreement.  Thailand also made a non-violation claim to
the effect that the application by the EC of the above-mentioned measures nullifies or impairsthe benefits accruing to Thailand directly or indirectly under the WTO Agreement pursuant to
Article XXIII:1(b) of GATT 1994.
Costa Rica (on 17 December 2001), Guatem ala (on 19 December 2001), Honduras and
Nicaragua (on 20 December 2001), and Colombia (on 24 December 2001) requested to bejoined in the consultations as third parties  but not admitted because these are consultations
under Article XXIII.  Colombia raised the matter under "other business" in the DSB of
18 January 2002.  It admitted that it was not de jure  entitled to be joined in consultations
under Article XXIII, but stated that this raised the issue of "co-defendants" under the DSU
again.
28. WT/DS239 - United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Silicon Metal from Brazil
Complaint by Brazil.  On 17 September 2001, Brazil requested consultations with the US.  On
1 November 2001, Brazil requested that their original request for consultations be cancelled
and replaced with a new request.  In this new request, Brazil requested consultations with the
US in respect of the following:
• Antidumping duties imposed by the US on imports of silicon metal from Brazil:
Antidumping Duty Order:  Silicon Metal From Brazil, 56 Fed. Reg. 36135 (July 31,
1991) (US case number A-351-806).WT/DS/OV/16
Page 15
• Section 351.106(c) of the US Department of  Commerce's ("Department") regulations,
which establishes that a de minimis margin of 0.5 percent applies for administrative
reviews.
• US "zeroing" methodology when establishing margins of dumping, as reflected in
Chapter 6 of the Antidumping Manual of the Department and in Section 771(35) ofthe Tariff Act of 1930.
According to Brazil, the above methodologies are inconsistent with Articles 2.4.2, 5.8, 9.3,
11.1, 11.2 and 18.3 of the AD Agreement.
On 28 September 2001, Thailand requested to join the consultations.  On 19 November 2001,
the EC requested to join the consultations.
29. WT/DS233 – Argentina – Measures Affectin g the Import of Pharmaceutical Products
Complaint by India.  On 25 May 2001, India requested consultations with Argentina
concerning Argentina's Law No. 24.766 and Decr ee No. 150/92. According to India, these
measures constitute unnecessary obstacles to international trade and prevent Indian
medicines, drugs and other pharmaceuticals from entering into the Argentinean market, thus
discriminating against Indian drugs vis-à-vis  like products of other countries and of
Argentina.
According to India, the above measures require that before entering the Argentinean market,
all drugs and other pharmaceuticals must be registered with the National Administration of
Drugs, Foodstuffs and Medical Technology, Ministry of Health of Argentina. The aboveDecree contains two annexes listing countries.
• In respect of Annex I countries, pharmaceutical products are required to be manufactured
in facilities approved by the relevant governmental bodies of these countries or by theArgentinean Ministry of Health and meet the National Health Authority's manufacturing
and quality control requirements.
• In respect of Annex II countries, manufacturing facilities are required to be inspected and
approved by the Ministry of Health of Argentina before export of these pharmaceuticalproducts into Argentina.
According to India, it does not figure in either of those two annexes. This alleged
discrimination would have led to total lack of market access for Indian drugs andpharmaceutical products in Argentina.  India considered that infringement of the following
provisions have taken place:  Articles 2 (especially 2.2), 5 (especially 5.1 and 5.2) and 12 of
the TBT Agreement;  Articles I and III of the GATT 1994;  and Article XVI:4 of the
Agreement establishing the WTO.
30. WT/DS232 – Mexico – Measures Affe cting the Import of Matches
Complaint by Chile.  On 17 May 2001, Chile requested consultations with Mexico in respect
of a series of Mexican laws and regulations which are alleged to constitute unnecessary
barriers to the import of Chilean matches. Ac cording to Chile, pursuant to these laws and
regulations, matches have been classified in Mexico as an explosive and hazardous product,
due to a confusion between the chemical element " fósforo " (phosphor) and " fosfóros
(o cerillos) de seguridad " (matches). As a result, Chilean matches have been subject to
control by the National Defense Ministry and, consequently, to a series of requirements
regarding packaging, entry, liquidation, transportation and storage applicable to explosives
and other hazardous substances, with the aim of providing protection to the Mexican industry.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 16
According to Chile, these measures are inconsistent with, inter alia , the following provisions:
Articles 1, 2 and 5 of the TBT Agreement;  Articles 1, 3 and 5 of the Agreement on Import
Licensing Procedures; and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.
31. WT/DS230 – Chile – Safeguard Measures and Modification of Schedules regarding
Sugar
Complaint by Colombia. On 17 April 2001, Colombia requested consultations with Chile
concerning the definitive safeguard measures imposed by Chile on 20 January 2000 in respect
of a number of agricultural products, including sugar, and extended in November 2000 for the
duration of one year; and Chile's decision of 14 March 2001 not to recognize Colombia's
substantial interest to be consulted with respect to the modification of concessions regarding,
inter alia , refined sugar (HS sub-heading 17.01.99.00).
In November of 2000, Chile had notified its intention to modify these concessions pursuant to
Article XXVIII of GATT 1994. According to Colombia, the above measures are inconsistent
with Chile's obligations under the following provisions Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 12 of the
Safeguards Agreement;  Articles II, XIX and XXVIII of GATT 1994;  and the Understandingon the Interpretation of Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994 and the Guidelines of 10
November 1980 regarding Procedures for Negotiations under Article XXVIII.
According to Colombia, the Chilean measures, taken together or individually, appear to
nullify and impair benefits accruing to Colombia under the cited agreements.  As indicated byColombia in its request, this new request repla ces in its totality the request for consultations
by Colombia circulated as WT/DS228/1.
32. WT/DS229 – Brazil – Anti-Dumping Du ties on Jute Bags from India
Complaint by India.  On 9 April 2001, India requested consultations with Brazil concerning:
• the determination by the Brazilian government to continue to impose anti-dumping duties
on jute bags and bags made of jute yarn from India, based on an allegedly forged
document regarding dumping margin attributed to a non-existing Indian company;
• its refusal to reconsider the decision to continue anti-dumping duties on Indian jute
products despite the fact that the non-existence of that company was brought to the notice
of the authorities;
• non-consideration of the fresh evidence regarding cost of production, domestic sales
prices, export prices, etc., of Indian jute manufacturers, and refusal to initiate review ofthe decision to impose anti-dumping duties;
• the general practice of Brazil regarding review and imposition of anti-dumping duties;
and
• Brazilian anti-dumping laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, Article 58 of
Decree No. 1.602 of 1995.
According to India, the provisions with wh ich these determinations and legal provisions
appear to be inconsistent include, but are not limited to Articles VI and X of GATT 1994;
Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 (especially 6.6, 6.7, 6.8 and Annex II, 6.9, 6.10), 11, 12, 17.6(i), 18.3,
18.4;  and Article XVI of the WTO Agreement.
In addition, the determination to continue the anti-dumping duties allegedly nullifies and
impairs benefits accruing to India under, or ot herwise impedes the attainment of objectives of,
the cited agreements.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 17
33. WT/DS226 – Chile – Provisional Safeguard Measure on Mixtures of Edible Oils
Complaint by Argentina.  On 19 February 2001, Argentina requested consultations with Chile
concerning a provisional safeguard measure on imports of mixed edible oils (tariff heading
1517.9000 of the Chilean Harmonised System), adopted by the Chilean authorities on 11
January 2001, and consisting of an ad valorem  duty of 48% on imports of those products. On
10 January 2001 the notification by Chile of the initiation of the investigation was circulated
as document G/SG/N/6/CHL/5, and on 19 January 2001 the notification of the
recommendation by the Chilean investigating au thority to impose a provisional safeguard
measure was circulated as document G/SG/N/7/5/Suppl.1.
Argentina claimed that the provisional safeguard measure is inconsistent with Chile's
obligations under Article XIX of GATT 1994 and the SA, including, but not limited to,Articles 2, 4, 6 and 12.
34. WT/DS225 – United States – Anti-Dumping duties on Seamless Pipe from Italy
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 5 February 2001, the EC requested
consultations with the US concerning anti-dumping duties imposed by the US on imports ofseamless line and pressure pipe ("seamless pipe") from Italy.  The request relates in particular
to the final results of a sunset review of the measure, carried out by the US Department of
Commerce (DOC) and published in the federal register on 7 November 2000.  It also covers
certain aspects of the procedures followed by the DOC for initiating sunset reviews which are
contained in Section 751 c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and in the implementing regulationsissued by the DOC.
The EC considered that the final results of th e sunset review are in breach of Articles 5.8,
11.1 and 11.3 of the AD Agreement.  The EC also considered that the initiation of the sunset
review is inconsistent with Articles 11.1, 11.3, and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement andwith Article XVI.4 of the WTO Agreement .
35. WT/DS224 – United States – US Patents Code
Complaint by Brazil.  On 31 January 2001, Brazil requested consultations with the US
concerning the provisions of the US Patents Code, in particular those of Chapter 18 [38] –
"Patent Rights in Inventions Made with Federal Assistance ".  Brazil detected several
discriminatory elements in the US Patents Code, including, but not limited to, the followingexamples:
• the stipulation that no small business firm or non-profit organization which receives title
to any subject invention shall grant to any pe rson the exclusive right to use or sell any
subject invention in the US unless such person agrees that any products embodying the
subject invention or produced through the use of the invention will be manufacturedsubstantially in the US.
• Brazil also referred to a requirement that each funding agreement with a small business
firm or non-profit organization shall contain appropriate provisions to effectuate the
above-mentioned requirement; and
• the statutory restrictions limiting the right to use or sell any federally owned invention in
the US only to a licensee that agrees that any products embodying the invention or
produced through the use of the invention will be manufactured substantially in the US.
Brazil requested consultations with the US on these and other provisions of the US Patents
Code, to "understand how the US justifies the consistency of such requirements with itsWT/DS/OV/16
Page 18
obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, especially Articles 27 and 28, the TRIMs
Agreement, Article 2 in particular, and Articles III and XI of GATT 1994".
36. WT/DS223 – European Communities – Tarif f-Rate Quota on Corn Gluten Feed from
the United States
Complaint by the United States.  On 25 January 2001, the US requested consultations with the
EC concerning the application by the EC of a tariff-rate quota (TRQ) on corn gluten feed
imported from the US.  The TRQ was made applicable 5 days after the date of adoption by
the DSB of the panel report on US – Wheat Gluten  (WT/DS166) stating that the US safeguard
measure on wheat gluten was incompatible with the WTO Agreements.
According to the US the TRQ does not satisfy the requirements of the Safeguards Agreement
for a Member to suspend concessions or other obligations and, therefore, the imposition of the
TRQ on corn gluten feed imported from the US appears to be inconsistent with Articles I, II
and XIX of the GATT 1994, and Articles 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 of the Safeguards Agreement.
37. WT/DS220 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures relating to Certain
Agricultural Products
Complaint by Guatemala.  On 5 January 2001, Guatemala requested consultations with Chile
concerning:
(1) the Chilean legislation regarding safeguards and price band systems, including Law
18.525, as subsequently amended by Law 18.591 and Law 19.546, as well as
implementing regulations and complementary and/or amending provisions;
(2) the initiation of an investigation regarding products subject to the price band system
contained in notification (G/SG/N/6/CHL/ 2), the conduct of the investigation, the
preliminary determination contained in notification (G/SG/N/7/CHL/2/Suppl.1), and
the definitive determination contained in notifications (G/SG/N/8/CHL/1),
(G/SG/N/10/CHL/1), (G/SG/ N/8/CHL/1/Suppl.1) and (G /SG/N/10/CHL/1/Suppl.1);
these notifications indicate that wheat, wheat flour, sugar and edible vegetable oils
are subject to said safeguard measures;
(3) the request for an extension of these measures contained in notifications
(G/SG/N/10/CHL/1/Suppl.2) and (G /SG/N/10/CHL/1/Suppl.2/Corr.1).
Guatemala considered that the measures referred to:
• under (1) are inconsistent with, inter alia , Article II of GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the
Safeguards Agreement,
• under (2) are inconsistent with, inter alia , Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the Safeguards
Agreement, and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994, and
• under (3) appears to be inconsistent with, inter alia , Chile's obligations under GATT 1994
and Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement.
38. WT/DS218 – United States- Countervailing Duties on Certain Carbon Steel Products
from Brazil
Complaint by Brazil.  On 21 December 2000, Brazil requested consultations with the US
concerning an aspect of US countervailing dut y practice and the imposition of countervailing
duties on certain carbon steel products originating in Brazil. Brazil is concerned with the
practice of the US of applying its countervailing duty laws so as to consistently find that
privatized companies benefit from pre-privatization subsidy benefits, and the unwillingness of
the United States to bring its practice into conformity with the SCM Agreement.  In addition,WT/DS/OV/16
Page 19
Brazil is concerned with the results of a continued imposition of an order and a final
countervailing duty decision by the US based on a finding that the benefits from equity
infusions provided to companies prior to th eir privatization are passed through to the
companies following a change in ownership and control.
Brazil considered that findings that three companies were benefitting from subsidies provided
prior to their privatization are in breach of Articles 1.1(b), 10, 14, 19 and 21 of the SCM
Agreement, in so far as they are based on supposed benefits from equity infusions granted to
the companies prior to their privatization.  In addition, Brazil considers that the decision not
to terminate the investigation is in breach of Article 11.9 of the SCM Agreement. Brazil notes
that the Commerce Department relied on the same analysis of subsidization following a
privatization, which was found to be inconsistent with WTO obligations by the AppellateBody in US –Lead and Bismuth II .
39. WT/DS216 – Mexico – Provisio nal Anti-Dumping Measure on Electric Transformers
Complaint by Brazil.  On 20 December 2000, Brazil requested consultations with Mexico
concerning the 17 July 2000 provisional anti-dumping measure on electronic transformershaving a power of more than 10.000 KVA, classified under tariff line 8504.23.01 of the
General Import Law, from Brazil.  Brazil considered that the above determination and the
resulting provisional measures are inconsistent with Mexico's obligations under the AD
Agreement and the GATT 1994, in particular, with Articles 5.2, 5.3, 5.8, 6.8, 7.1(i), 7.1(ii)
and Annex II of the AD Agreement.
40. WT/DS215 – Philippines – Anti-Dumping Me asures regarding Polypropylene Resins
from Korea
Complaint by Korea.  On 15 December 2000, Korea requested consultations with the
Philippines concerning the Preliminary and Final Determinations of the Tariff Commission ofthe Philippines on Polypropylene Resins from Korea, dated 15 November 1999 and
11 September 2000 respectively.  Korea considered that errors were made by the Philippines
in those determinations which resulted in erroneous findings and defective conclusions with
regard to, among others, like product, dumping, injury, and causality, as well as the
imposition, calculation and collection of anti-dumping margins which are incompatible with
the obligations of the Philippines under the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, in
particular, but not necessarily limited to, Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 (including Annex II), 7, 9, and 12,and Article VI of GATT 1994.
41. WT/DS209 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Soluble Coffee
Complaint by Brazil.  On 12 October 2000, Brazil requested consultations with the EC
concerning measures applied under the EC's Generalized System of Preferences scheme(GSP) that affect imports of soluble coffee originating in Brazil. The measures in question
include the so-called "graduation" mechanism, which progressively and selectively reduces or
eliminates preferences granted to specific products and/or beneficiary countries under the
GSP scheme;  and the "drugs regime", which confers a special preferential treatment for
products originating in the Andean and Central American Common Market countries that areconducting a campaign to combat drugs.
According to Brazil, the EC legislation that es tablishes the special treatment for products –
among which soluble coffee – is Council Regulation (EC) No. 1256/96, dated 20 June 1996,
and current Council Regulation (EC) No. 2820/98, dated 21 December 1998. Brazilconsidered that the above measures, both separately and jointly, adversely affect the
importation into the EC of soluble coffee originating in Brazil. Brazil alleged that theseWT/DS/OV/16
Page 20
measures are inconsistent with the obligations of the EC under the Enabling Clause and under
Article I of GATT 1994.
42. WT/DS208 – Turkey – Anti-Dumping Duty  on Steel and Iron Pipe Fittings
Complaint by Brazil.  On 9 October 2000, Brazil requested consultations with Turkey
concerning the anti-dumping duty on steel and iron pipe fittings from Brazil, imposed by
Communication No. 2000/3 (published in the Turkish official gazette on 26 April 2000).
Brazil considered that Turkey failed to ensu re proper notifications in this case, that its
establishment of the facts was not proper, and that its evaluation of these facts was not
unbiased nor objective, particularly in relation to:
• the initiation of the investigation;
• the conduct of the investigation, including the evaluation, findings and determinations of
dumping and injury;
• the evaluation, findings and determinations of the causal link between dumping and
injury;
• the imposition of the anti-dumping duty.
Brazil considered that Turkey has acted inconsistently with Article VI of the GATT 1994 and
Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 12 and 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
43. WT/DS205 – Egypt - Import Prohibitio n on Canned Tuna with Soybean Oil
Complaint by Thailand.  On 22 September 2000, Thailand requested consultations with Egypt
concerning the prohibition imposed by Egypt on importation of canned tuna with soybean oil
from Thailand, pursuant to Letter dated 2 January 2000 of the Ministry of Economy and
Foreign Trade of Egypt and Circular Note no. 5 of the Year 2000 issued on 13 January 2000by the Customs Authority of Egypt. Thailand considered that, through the above-mentioned
measures, the Arab Republic of Egypt failed to carry out its obligations under the following
provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization:
Articles I, XI, and XIII of the GATT, and Ar ticles 2, 3 and 5, and Annex B, paragraph 2 and
paragraph 5, of the SPS Agreement.
44. WT/DS203 – Mexico – Measures A ffecting Trade in Live Swine
Complaint by the United States. On 10 July 2000, the US requested consultations with
Mexico in respect of Mexico's 20 October 1999 definitive anti-dumping measure on live
swine for slaughter (merchandise classified under tariff classification 0103.92.99 of theGeneral Import Law) exported from the United States, independently from the country or
origin, and actions by Mexico in the conduct of the anti-dumping investigation resulting in
that measure.
In the view of the US the measures are inconsistent with Mexico's obligations under
Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3, 5.1, 5.6, 7 and 8 of the SPS Agreement;  Article 4.2 of the Agriculture
Agreement;  Articles 2 and 5 of the TBT Agreement;  and Articles III:4 and XI:1 of the
GATT 1994.
45. WT/DS201 – Nicaragua – Measures Affecting Imports from Honduras and
Colombia (II)
Complaint by Honduras. On 26 June 2000, Honduras requested consultations with Nicaragua
in respect of Law 325 of 1999 whereby a tax is established on goods and services coming
from or originating in Honduras and Colombia  as well as implementing Decree 129-99 andWT/DS/OV/16
Page 21
Ministerial Order 041-99.  Honduras considered that Law 325 of 1999 and implementing
Decree 129-99 are incompatible with Nicaragua's obligations under the GATT 1994, and in
particular Articles I and II thereof, and that the aforementioned measures as well as
Ministerial Order 041-99 are incompatible with Nicaragua's obligations under Articles II and
XVI of the GATS.
46. WT/DS200 – United States – Section 306 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Amendments
Thereto
Complaint by the European Communities. On 5 June 2000, the EC requested consultations
with the US concerning Section 306 of the Trad e Act of 1974, as last amended by Section 407
of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-200).  The EC considered that
Section 306, as amended, provides for a mandatory and unilateral revision of the list ofproducts subject to suspension of GATT 1994 concessions or other Section 301(a) action 120
days after the application of the first suspension and then every 180 days thereafter, in order
to affect imports from Members which have been determined by the United States not to have
implemented recommendations made pursuant to a WTO dispute settlement proceeding.  In
particular, the EC alleged that:
• Section 306, as amended, is in breach of the DSU since it mandates unilateral action
without any prior multilateral control;
• The measure mandates suspension of or threats to suspend concessions or other
obligations other than those on which authorisation was granted by the DSB.  As apractical result, all US concessions bound in its Schedule of commitments under the
GATT 1994 can, according to the EC, be unilaterally modified at will;
• The measure is in breach of the obligation of equivalence, in that it creates a structural
imbalance between the cumulative level of the suspension of concessions and the level ofnullification and impairment as determined under relevant DSU procedures;  and
• The measure creates a chilling effect on the market-place, thus affecting the security and
predictability of the multilateral trading system.
Hence, the EC considered that Section 306 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by
Section 407 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000, is inconsistent with, in particular, the
following WTO provisions: Articles 3.2, 21.5, 22 and 23 of the DSU; Article XVI:4 of the
WTO Agreement; and Articles I, II and XI of the GATT 1994.
47. WT/DS197 – Brazil – Measures on Minimum Import Prices
Complaint by the United States.  On 30 May 2000, the US requested consultations with Brazil
concerning the use of the latter's minimum import prices for customs valuation purposes.  The
measures at issue are Decree No. 2.498/98 and other related statutes and regulations, which
establish a system to verify the declared values of imported goods.  The US asserted that
Brazil utilises this verification system – in conjunction with non-automatic import licensingprocedures – to prohibit or restrict the import of  products with declared values below what the
US considers arbitrarily determined minimum prices.  The US considered that Brazil's
measures are inconsistent with its obligations under Articles 1 through 7, and 12 of the
Customs Valuation Agreement; general notes 1, 2 and 4 of Annex 1 of the Customs Valuation
Agreement; Articles II and XI of the GATT 1994; Articles 1 and 3 of the Agreement on
Import Licensing Procedures; Articles 2 and 7 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing;
and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 22
48. WT/DS191 – Ecuador – Definitive Anti-D umping Measure on Cement from Mexico
Complaint by Mexico. On 15 March 2000, Mexico requested consultations with Ecuador
concerning a definitive anti-dumping measure imposed by Ecuador, through publication in
the Official Register No. 361 of 14 January 2000, on imports of cement from Mexico falling
under tariff subheading 2523.29.00, as well as Ecua dor's actions preceding that measure.
Mexico alleged that the definitive anti-dumping measure and the actions that preceded it,
including the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping measure and the initiation of the
investigation, violate, inter alia , Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 18 and Annex II of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement as well as Article VI of the GATT 1994.
49. WT/DS187 – Trinidad and Tobago – Provis ional Anti-Dumping Measure on Macaroni
and Spaghetti from Costa Rica
Complaint by Costa Rica. On 17 January 2000, Costa Rica requested consultations with
Trinidad and Tobago in respect of Legal Notice No. 237 of the Ministry of Trade and Industry
of Trinidad and Tobago, pursuant to which provisional anti-dumping duties are imposed on
the importation of macaroni and spaghetti from Costa Rica, the actions preceding that
decision (see WT/DS185) as well as the 1992 Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties Actof 1992, as amended by the Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (Amendment) Act of
1995 and the Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties Regulations of 1996.  Costa Rica
claimed that these measures are inconsistent particularly with certain paragraphs of Articles 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 18 as well as Annex I and II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
50. WT/DS186 – United States – Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and Amendments
Thereto
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 12 January 2000, the EC requested
consultations with the US in respect of Section 337 of the US Tariff Act (19 USC. § 1337)
and the related Rules of Practice and Procedure of the International Trade Commissioncontained in Chapter II of Title 19 of the US Code of Federal Regulations.  The EC alleged
that those measures violate Article III of GATT 1994 and TRIPS Agreement Articles 2 (in
conjunction with Article 2 Paris Convention), 3, 9 (in conjunction with Article 5 Berne
Convention), 27, 41, 42, 49, 50 and 51.
51. WT/DS185 – Trinidad and Tobago – Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Pasta from
Costa Rica
Complaint by Costa Rica.  On 18 November 1999, Costa Rica requested consultations with
Trinidad and Tobago in respect of
• the anti-dumping investigation being carried out by Trinidad and Tobago at the request of
the company "Cereal Products Limited" against imports of pasta from the Costa Rican
company "Roma Prince Sociedad Anónima",
• proceedings undertaken as part of a preliminary hearing prior to the initiation of the anti-
dumping investigation, and
• Articles 3 and 5 of the 1996 Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Regulation of
Tobago and Trinidad.
Costa Rica claimed that these measures are inconsistent with Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 12 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 23
52. WT/DS183 – Brazil – Measures on Import Licensing and Minimum Import Prices
Complaint by the European Communities.  This request, dated 14 October 1999, is in respect
of a number of Brazilian measures, particularly Brazil's non-automatic licensing system and
the minimum pricing practice, which allegedly restrict EC exports - notably of textile
products, Sorbitol and Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC).  The EC claimed that those Brazilianmeasures violate, in particular, Articles II, VIII, X and XI of the GATT 1994; Article 4.2 of
the Agreement on Agriculture; Articles 1, 3, 5 and 8 of the Agreement on Import Licensing
Procedures; and Articles 1 through 7 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of
the GATT 1994.
53. WT/DS182 – Ecuador – Provisional Anti-Dum ping Measure on Cement from Mexico
Complaint by Mexico.  On 5 October 1999, Mexico requested consultations with Ecuador
concerning a provisional anti-dumping measure imposed by Ecuador, through publication in
the Official Register of 14 July 1999, on imports of cement from Mexico falling under tariff
heading 2523.29.00, as well as Ecuador's actions preceding that measure.  Mexico considered
that the provisional anti-dumping measure and the actions preceding it violate, inter alia ,
Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 18 and Annex II  of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as well as
Article VI of the GATT 1994.
54. WT/DS180 – United States – Reclassi fication of Certain Sugar Syrups
Complaint by Canada. On 6 September 1999 Canada requested consultations with the US in
respect of the proposed reclassification of certain sugar syrups by the US Customs Service.Canada claimed that these US measures are in violation of Article II of the GATT 1994 and
Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  In  addition, Canada alleged that these measures
nullify or impair benefits accruing to it under the same provisions of the GATT and the
Agreement on Agriculture.
55. WT/DS172 – European Communities – Measures Relating to the Development of a
Flight Management System
Complaint from the United States. On 21 May 1999, the US requested consultations with the
EC in respect of alleged actionable subsidies granted or maintained to a French company,
Sextant Avionique ("Sextant"), to develop a ne w flight management system ("FMS") adapted
to Airbus aircraft.  The US alleged that the French government has agreed to grant, and the
European Commission has approved, a loan, on pr eferential and non-commercial terms, in the
amount of 140 million French francs, to be disbursed over three years, for a project in which
Sextant will develop a FMS adapted to Airbus aircraft.  The US considered that this aid:
• is a specific subsidy within the meaning of Articles 1 and 3 of the SCM Agreement,
which subsidy has caused and continues to cause adverse effects within the meaning of
Article 5 of the SCM Agreement;
• has caused and continues to cause serious prejudice within the meaning of Articles 5(c)
and 6 of the SCM Agreement because the subsidy may involve the direct forgiveness ofdebt;
• may displace or impede imports of FMS from the United States into France;
• may displace or impede exports of FMS from the United States to third country markets;
• may cause significant price undercutting by the subsidised product as compared with the
price of a like product of another Member in the same market or may cause significantprice suppression, price depression or lost sales in the same market;  andWT/DS/OV/16
Page 24
• has caused and continues to cause a nullification or impairment of benefits accruing
directly or indirectly to it under GATT 1994 within the meaning of Article XXIII:1(b) ofGATT 1994, and Article 5(b) of the SCM Agreement.
56. WT/DS173 – France – Measures Relating to the Development of a Flight Management
System
Complaint by the United States.  On 21 May 1999, the US requested consultations with
France.  This complaint is identical to the one addressed to the EC above (WT/DS172).
57. WT/DS168 – South Africa – Anti-Dumping  Duties on the Import of Certain
Pharmaceutical Products from India
Complaint by India.  On 1 April 1999, India requested consultations with South Africa in
respect of a recommendation for the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties by the SouthAfrican Board on Tariffs and Trade (BTT), contained in its Report No. 3799, dated 3 October
1997, on the import of certain pharmaceutical products from India.  India alleged that South
Africa initiated anti-dumping proceedings against the importation of ampicillin and
amoxycillin of 250mg capsules from India.  The BTT allegedly made a preliminary
determination on 26 March 1997 that ampicillin and amoxycillin of 250mg and 500mgcapsules, exported by M/S Randaxy Laboratories Ltd of India, were being dumped into the
South African Customs Union (SACU).  This was allegedly followed by a recommendation to
impose final duties on these products by the BTT, which was reported on 10 September 1997.
India contended that:
• the definition and calculation by the BTT of normal value is inconsistent with South
Africa's WTO obligations, because erroneous methodology was used for determining thenormal value and the resulting margin of dumping;
• the determination of injury was not based on positive evidence and did not include an
evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state ofthe industry, which led to an erroneous determination of material injury suffered by the
petitioner;
• the South African authorities' establishment of the facts was not proper and that their
evaluation was not unbiased or objective; and
• the South African authorities have not taken into account India's special situation as a
developing country.
India alleged violations of Articles 2, 3, 6(a) to (c) individually and in conjunction with 12, 12
and 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and Articles I and VI of GATT 1994.
58. WT/DS167 – United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation with respect to Live
Cattle from Canada
Complaint by Canada.  On 19 March 1999, Canada requested consultations with the US
concerning the initiation of a countervailing duty investigation by the US, on 22 December1998, with respect to live cattle from Canada.  Canada alleged that:
• the initiation of this investigation is incons istent with US obligations under the Subsidies
Agreement, including the fact that the written application filed with the US Department ofCommerce was not made by or on behalf of th e domestic industry, and that there was not,
sufficient information provided with respect to the measures or actions alleged to be
subsidies, for purpose of initiating an investigation under the SCM Agreement;WT/DS/OV/16
Page 25
• the measures or actions alleged to be subsidies either are not, in law or fact, subsidies
within the meaning of the Subsidies Agr eement, or do not confer more than a de minimis
level of countervailing subsidy; and
• this initiation of investigation is inconsistent with US obligations under the Agreement on
Agriculture relating to "due restraint".
Canada alleged violations of Articles 1, 2, 10, 11.1 – 11.5, and 13.1 of the Subsidies
Agreement; and Article 13 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
59. WT/DS159 – Hungary – Safeguard Measure on  Imports of Steel Products from the
Czech Republic
Complaint by the Czech Republic.  On 21 January 1999, the Czech Republic requested
consultations with Hungary in respect of the imposition of quantitative restrictions by
Hungary on imports of a broad range of steel products from the Czech Republic.  The Czech
Republic alleged that Hungary imposed a safeguard measure in the form of an import quota
on imports of a broad range of steel products from the Czech Republic, and that this measure
only applies to the Czech Republic.  The Czech Republic contended that these quantitative
restrictions are in breach of Hungary's obligations under GATT Articles I and XIX, as well as
provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards.
60. WT/DS158 – European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and
Distribution of Bananas II
Complaint by Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama and the United States.  On 20 January
1999, these countries (complaining parties) requested consultations with the EC in respect ofthe implementation of the recommendations of the DSB in European Communities – Regime
for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas . The complaining parties state that the
15-month reasonable period of time for the EC to implement the DSB's recommendations and
rulings ended on 1 January 1999 (see WT/DS27).  The complaining parties alleged that the
EC modified its regime in a manner that will not permit this dispute to conclude at this timeon the basis of a solution that is acceptable to their governments, and as a result, jointly and
severally, request consultations with the EC concerning the EC banana regime established by
EC Regulation 404/93, as amended and implemented by Council Regulation 1637/98 of
20 July 1998 and EC Commission Regulation 2362/98 of 28 October 1998. The complaining
parties contended that their objective is to clarify and discuss in detail with the EC the variousaspects of the EC's modified banana regime, including their effect on the market, their
concerns about their WTO-inconsistency, and ways that the EC might modify its regime in
order to produce a satisfactory settlement of this dispute.
61. WT/DS157 – Argentina – Anti-Dumping Measures  on Imports of Drill Bits from Italy
Complaint from the European Communities.  On 14 January 1998, the EC requested
consultations with Argentina in respect of definitive anti-dumping measures allegedlyimposed by Argentina on imports of drill bits from Italy. The EC stated that on 12 September
1998, Argentina imposed definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of drill bits from Italy.
The investigation which led to the imposition of these measures had allegedly been initiated
on 21 February 1997.  The EC alleged that due to the fact that Argentina's investigation
exceeded 18 months, it was in violation of  Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 26
62. WT/DS154 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Differential and Favourable
Treatment of Coffee
Complaint by Brazil.  On 7 December 1998, Brazil requested consultations with the EC in
respect of the special preferential treatment under the EC's Generalised System of Preferences
(GSP).  Brazil asserted that the EC GSP scheme is applicable to products originating in the
Andean Group of countries and the Central American Common Market countries, that are
conducting programs to combat drug production and trafficking.  In the case of soluble
coffee, this special preferential treatment, contained in Council Regulation (EC) No. 1256/96,
amounts to duty free access into the EC market.  Brazil stated that it is aware that there is a
proposed Council Regulation which would unify al l EC laws and regulations concerning the
operation of the GSP scheme for both agricultural and industrial products.  Brazil contended
that this special treatment adversely affects the importation into the EC of soluble coffee
originating in Brazil.  Brazil alleged that th is special treatment is inconsistent with the
Enabling Clause, as well as with Article I of GATT 1994.  Brazil further alleges that this
special treatment nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to Brazil directly or indirectly under
the cited provisions.
63. WT/DS153 – European Communities – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and
Agricultural Products
Complaint by Canada.  On 2 December 1998, Canada requested consultations with the EC in
respect of the protection of inventions in the area of pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical
products under the relevant provisions of EC legislation, particularly Council Regulation(EEC) No. 1768/92 and European Parliament  and Council Regulation (EC) No. 1610/96, in
relation to EC obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.  Canada considered that under the
above Regulations, a patent term extension scheme, which is limited to pharmaceutical and
agricultural chemical products, has been implemented.  Canada alleged that Regulations
(EEC) No. 1768/92 and (EC) No. 1610/96 are in consistent with the EC's obligations not to
discriminate on the basis of field of technology, as provided by Article 27.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement, because these Regulations only apply to pharmaceutical and agricultural
products.
64. WT/DS150 – India – Measures Affecting Custom Duties
Complaint by the European Communities. On 30 October 1998, the EC requested consultations
with India concerning a series of increases in  customs duties allegedly implemented by India.
The EC stated that the measures in question relate to Schedule 1 of the 1975 Customs Tariff
Act, the Special Customs Duty, and the Special Additional Duty.  The EC contended that under
these measures, the aggregate value of tariffs re sulting from the addition of the different duties
applied by India exceed India's WTO bound rates under a series of tariff headings.  The EC
alleged violations of Articles II:1(b) and III:2 of GATT 1994.
65. WT/DS149 – India – Import Restrictions
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 29 October 1998, the EC requested
consultations with India concerning import restrictions allegedly maintained by India under
its Export and Import Policy, 1997-2002, for reasons other than Article XVIII:B of GATT1994.  The EC stated that India notified these restrictions to the WTO in Part A of Annex I to
its notification of 20 May 1997 under paragraph 9 of the Understanding on the Balance-of-
Payments Provisions of GATT 1994 (WT/BOP/N/24).  India claimed that these restrictions
are justified under Article XX and/or Article XXI of GATT 1994.  The EC contended that
these import restrictions constitute an infringement of Articles III, X, XI, XIII and XVII ofGATT 1994, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, and Articles 1, 2 and 3 of theWT/DS/OV/16
Page 27
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, a nd cannot be justified under Articles XX or
XXI of GATT 1994.
66. WT/DS148 – Czech Republic – Measure Affecting Import Duty on Wheat from Hungary
Complaint from Hungary.  On 12 October 1998, Hungary requested consultations with the
Czech Republic in respect of a regulation adopted by the Czech Republic which entered into
force on 9 October 1998, and which allegedly increased the import duty of wheat originating
in Hungary.  Hungary asserted that th e increased import duty on wheat (HS1001.1000,
1001.9099) exceeds several times the respective bound rates in the Czech Schedule for 1998.
Hungary also alleged that it is the only country subject to this measure.  Hungary contended
that this measure is inconsistent with Articles I and II of GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the
Agreement on Agriculture.  Hungary invoked th e urgency provision of the DSU (4.8), due to
the severe economic and trade losses that are being caused by this measure, which was
expected to remain in force until 26 April 1999.
67. WT/DS147 – Japan – Tariff Quotas and Subsidies Affecting Leather
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 8 October 1998, the EC requested
consultations with Japan concerning the management of the tariff quotas for leather and the
subsidies allegedly benefiting the leather industry and "Dowa" regions in Japan.  The EC
stated that the management of the three tariff quotas is specified in a notice published every
year by the Ministry of International Trade & Industry (MITI), which is based on Article 6 of
the Ministerial Order on the tariff quota system for heavy oil, crude oil, etc. The ECcontended that:
• the complexity of the management of the tariff quota system, as well as the fact that
applications for licenses may only be submitted on a single day, appears open tocriticism;
• many licenses are granted for quantities without real economic interest, and some have a
very short validity period;
• the system leads to a situation that deters foreign companies from establishing in Japan
for purposes of importing leather directly;
• subsidies were granted on the basis of the "Law concerning Special Fiscal Measures",
which extended the duration of 15 subsidy programmes; and
• these subsidies are specific and that the total value of these different subsidy programmes
is liable to cause serious prejudice to its interests.
The EC alleged violations of Articles 1(6), 3(5)(g), (h), (i) and (j) of the Import Licensing
Agreement, and Article 6 of the Subsidies Agreement.
68. WT/DS145 – Argentina – Countervailing Duties  on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the
European Communities
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 23 September 1998, the EC requested
consultations with the EC in respect of definitive countervailing duties allegedly imposed by
Argentina on imports of wheat gluten from the EC.  The EC stated that Argentina imposed a
countervailing duty on wheat gluten imports from the EC with effect from 23 July 1998.  The
investigation which led to the imposition of these duties had been initiated on 23 October
1996 and, consequently, the EC contended that the investigation exceeded 18 months,
contrary to Article 11.11 of the Subsidies Agreement.  The EC also claimed a violation of
Article 10 of the same Agreement.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 28
69. WT/DS144 – United States – Certain Measure s Affecting the Import of Cattle, Swine
and Grain from Canada
Complaint by Canada.  On 25 September 1998, Canada requested consultations with the US
in respect of certain measures, imposed by the US state of South Dakota and other states,
prohibiting entry or transit to Canadian trucks carrying cattle, swine, and grain.  Canadaalleged that these measures adversely affect the importation into the United States of cattle,
swine, and grain originating in Canada.  Canada alleges violations of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13
and Annexes B and C of the SPS Agreement; Ar ticles 2, 3, 5 and 7 of the TBT Agreement;
Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Articles I, III, V, XI and XXIV:12 of GATT
1994.  Canada also made a claim of nullification or impairment of benefits accruing to it
under the cited Agreements.  Canada invoked Article 4.8 of the DSU for expedited
consultations in view of the perishable nature of the goods in question.
70. WT/DS143 - Sl ovak Republic – Measure Affecting Import Duty on Wheat from
Hungary
Complaint from Hungary. On 18 September 1998, Hungary requested consultations with the
Slovak Republic in respect of a regulation adopted by the Slovak Republic which entered intoforce on 10 September 1998, which allegedly increased the import duty of wheat originating
in Hungary.  Hungary asserted that th e increased import duty on wheat (HS1001.1000,
1001.90) amounts to 2540 SKK/t which equals to approximately 70% ad valorem .  Hungary
alleged that:
• the bound rates for these tariff lines in the Slovak Schedule for 1998 are set at 4.4%
(HS1001.1000), 27% (HS1001.9010) and 22.5% (HS1001.9091, 1001.9099);
• it is the only country subject to this measure; and
• this measure is inconsistent with Articles I and II of GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the
Agreement on Agriculture.
Hungary invoked the urgency provision of the DSU due to the severe economic and trade
losses that are being caused by this measure, which was expected to remain in force until10 March 1999.
71. WT/DS140 – European Communities – An ti-Dumping Investigations Regarding
Unbleached Cotton Fabrics from India
Complaint by India.  On 3 August 1998, India reque sted consultations with  the EC in respect of
alleged repeated recourse by the EC to anti-dumping investigations on unbleached cotton
fabrics (UCF), from India.  India considered, in the light of the information which had
become available before and after the adoption of Regulation 773/98, that:
• the determination of standing, the initiation, the selection of the sample, the determination
of dumping and the injury are inconsistent with the EC's WTO obligations;
• the establishment by the EC of the facts was not proper and that the EC's evaluation of
facts was not unbiased and objective; and
• the EC has not taken into account the special situation of India as a developing country.
India alleged violations of Articles 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.6, 3.3, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1(I), 5.2, 5.3,
5.4, 5.5, 5.8, 6.10, 7.1(I), 7.4, 9.1, 9.2, 12.1, 12.2 and 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,
and Articles I and VI of GATT 1994.  India also alleged nullification and impairment of
benefits accruing to it under the cited agreements.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 29
72. WT/DS137 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Imports of Wood of
Conifers from Canada
Complaint by Canada.  On 17 June 1998, Canada requested consultations with the EC in respect
of certain measures concerning the importation into the EC market of wood of conifers from
Canada.  The measures include, but are not limited to, Council Directive 77/93, of 21 December
1976, as amended by Commission Directiv e 92/103/EEC, of 1 December 1992, and any
relevant measures adopted by EC Member stat es affecting imports of wood of conifers from
Canada into the EC.  Canada alleged that th ese adversely affect the importation into the EC
market of wood of conifers from Canada.  Canada alleged violations of Articles I, III and XI of
GATT 1994, Articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the SPS Agreement, and Article 2 of the TBT
Agreement.  Canada also made a claim for nullific ation and impairment of benefits  accruing to
it indirectly under the cited agreements.
73. WT/DS134 – European Communities - Measu res Affecting Import Duties on Rice
Complaint by India.  On 28 May 1998, India reque sted consultations with the EC in respect of
the restrictions allegedly introduced by an EC Regulation establishing a so-called cumulative
recovery system (CRS), for determining certain  import duties on rice, with effect from 1 July
1997.  India contended that the measures introduced  through this new regulation will restrict the
number of importers of rice from India, and will have a limiting effect on the export of rice from
India to the EC.  India alleged violations of  Articles I, II, III, VII and XI of GATT 1994,
Articles 1-7, 11 and Annex I of the Customs Va luation Agreement, Articles 1 and 3 of the
Import Licensing Agreement, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, Article 2 of the SPS Agreement,and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  India also claimed nullification and impairment
of benefits accruing to it under the various agreements cited.
74. WT/DS133 – Slovak Republic - Measures Concerning the Importation of Dairy
Products and the Transit of Cattle
Complaint by Switzerland.  On 11 May 1998, Switz erland requested consultations with the
Slovak Republic concerning measures imposed by  the Slovak Republic (in particular, a decree
of 6 July 1996) with respect to the importati on of dairy products and the transit of cattle.
Switzerland contended that these measures had a negative impact on Swiss exports of cheese
and cattle.  Switzerland alleged that some of these measures are inconsistent with Articles I, III,
V, X and XI of GATT 1994, Article 5 of the SPS Agreement, and Article 5 of the Import
Licensing Agreement.
75. WT/DS131 – France - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies
Complaint by the United States.  On 5 May 1998, the US requested consultations with France in
respect of prohibited subsidies provided by Fr ance.  The United States alleges that, based on
unofficial English translations of the relevant le gislation and descriptions in secondary sources,
it is its understanding that under French income tax law, a French company may deduct
temporarily, certain start-up expenses of its foreign operations through a tax-deductible reserve
account.  The US also believed that a French company may establish a special reserve equal to
ten percent of its receivable position at year e nd for medium-term credit risks in connection with
export sales.  The US contended that each of these measures constitute an export subsidy, andthat the deduction for start-up expenses constitute an import substitution subsidy, and as such
both measures violate Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 30
76. WT/DS130 – Ireland - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies
Complaint by the United States.  On 5 May 1998, th e US requested consultations with Ireland in
respect of prohibited subsidies provided by Ir eland.  The US alleged that, based on unofficial
copies of the relevant legislation and descript ions in secondary sources, it is its understanding
that under Irish income tax law, "special tradin g houses" qualify for a special tax rate in respect
of trading income from the export sale of goods  manufactured in Ireland.  The US contended
that this measure constitutes an export subsidy and as such violates Article 3 of the SCM
Agreement.
77. WT/DS129 – Greece - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies
Complaint by the United States.  On 5 May 1998, the US requested consultations with Greece
in respect of prohibited subsidies provided by Greece.  The US alleged that, based on unofficialEnglish translations of relevant legislation a nd descriptions in secondary sources, it is its
understanding that under Greek income tax law, Greek exporters are entitled to a special annual
tax deduction calculated as a percentage of expor t income. The US contended that this measure
constitutes an export subsidy and as such violates Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.
78. WT/DS128 – Netherlands - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies
Complaint by the United States.  On 5 May 1998, the US requested consultations with the
Netherlands in respect of prohibited subsidies provided by the Netherlands.  The US alleged
that, based on unofficial English translations of  the relevant legislation and descriptions in
secondary sources, it is its understanding that under Dutch income tax law, exporters mayestablish a special "export reserve" for income derived from export sales.  The US contended
that this measure constitutes an export subsidy and as such violates Article 3 of the SCM
Agreement.
79. WT/DS127 – Belgium - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies
Complaint by the United States.  On 5 May 1998, the US requested consultations with Belgium
in respect of prohibited subsidies provided by Belgium.  The US alleged that, based on
unofficial English translations of relevant legisl ation and descriptions in secondary sources, it is
its understanding that under Belgium income tax law, Belgian corporate taxpayers receive a
special BEF 400,000 (index linked) tax exemption for recruiting a departmental head for
exports (known as an "export manager").  The US contended that this measure constitutes an
export subsidy and as such violates  Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.
80. WT/DS123 – Argentina - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear
Complaint by Indonesia.  On 23 April 1998, Indone sia requested consultations with Argentina
in respect of the same provisional and definitive safeguard measures imposed by Argentina in
the dispute WT/DS121.  On 15 April 1999, Indonesia re quested the establishment of a panel.  In
a communication dated 10 May 1999, Indonesia info rmed the DSB that it was not pursuing its
request for a panel at the next DSB meeting, but that this was without prejudice to its rights
under the DSU to resurrect the panel request.
81. WT/DS120 – India - Measures Affectin g Export of Certain Commodities
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 16 March 1998, the EC requested consultations
with India in respect of India's EXIM Polic y (1997-2002), which allegedly sets up a negative
list for the export of several commodities.  The EC alleged that under this policy, raw hides and
skins are listed as products the export of which requires an export licence, and that theseWT/DS/OV/16
Page 31
licences are systematically refused.  The EC conte nded that this is in effect an export embargo
and violates Article XI of GATT 1994. On  12 October 2000, the EC requested the
establishment of a panel. At its meeting of 23 October 2000, the DSB deferred the
establishment of a panel.
82. WT/DS118 – United States - Harbour Maintenance Tax
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 6 February 1998, the EC requested consultations
with the US concerning the US Harbour Ma intenance Tax (HMT), allegedly introduced by
legislation in the US.  The EC contended that the HMT violates Articles I, II, III, VIII and X of
GATT 1994, as well as the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article II:1(B) of GATT
1994.
83. WT/DS117 – Canada - Measures Affecting Film Distribution Services
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 20 January 1998, the EC requested consultations
with Canada in respect of Canada's alleged measures affecting film distribution services,
including the 1987 Policy Decision on film dist ribution and its application to European
companies.  The EC contended that these measures violate Articles II and III of GATS.
84. WT/DS116 – Brazil - Measures Affecting Payment Terms for Imports
Complaint by the European Communities. On 9 January 1998, the EC requested consultations
with Brazil in respect of measures affecting payment terms for imports allegedly introduced by
the Central Bank of Brazil.  The EC contended that these measures violate Articles 3 and 5 of
the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.
85. WT/DS112 – Peru - Countervail ing Duty Investigation against Imports of Buses from
Brazil
Complaint by Brazil.  On 23 December 1997, Br azil requested consultations with Peru in
respect of a countervailing duty investigation bein g carried out by Peru against imports of buses
from Brazil.  Brazil contended that the proced ures followed by the Peruvian authorities to
initiate this investigation are inconsistent with  Articles 11 and 13.1 of the Subsidies Agreement.
86. WT/DS111 – United States - Tariff Rate Quota for Imports of Groundnuts
Complaint by Argentina.  On 19 December 1997, Argentina requested consultations with the
US in respect of the alleged commercial detr iment to Argentina resu lting from a restrictive
interpretation by the US of the tariff rate quot a negotiated by the two countries during the
Uruguay Round, regarding the importation of groundnuts.  Argentina alleged violations of
Articles II, X and XII of GATT 1994, Articles 1, 4 and 15 of the Agreement on Agriculture,
Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Or igin, and Article 1 of the Import Licensing
Agreement.  Nullification and impairment of benefits is also alleged.
87. WT/DS109 – Chile - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages
Complaint by the United States.  On 11 December 1997, the US requested consultations with
Chile in respect of Chile's internal taxes on alcoholic beverages, which allegedly impose a
higher tax on imported spirits than on pisco , a locally brewed spirit.  The US contended that this
differential treatment of imported spirits viol ates Article III:2 of GATT 1994.  Taxes on these
beverages were at the time the subject of a complaint by the EC (WT/DS87), in respect of
which a panel had already been established.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 32
88. WT/DS107 – Pakistan - Export Measures Affecting Hides and Skins
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 7 November 1997, the EC requested
consultations with Pakistan in respect of a No tification enacted by the Ministry of Commerce of
Pakistan prohibiting the export of, inter alia , hides and skins and wet blue leather made from
cow hides and cow calf hides.  The EC cont ended that this measure limits access of EC
industries to competitive sourcing of raw and semi-finished materials.
89. WT/DS105 – European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and
Distribution of Bananas
Complaint by Panama.  On 24 October 1997, Panama requested consultations with the EC in
respect of the EC's regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas as established
through Regulation 404/93, as well as any subseque nt legislation, regulations or administrative
measures adopted by the EC, including those reflecting the Framework Agreement on Bananas.
Panama did not specify the WTO provisions whic h the EC regime violates.  This is the same
regime that was the subject of a successful challenge by the US, Ecuador, Guatemala,
Honduras, and Mexico (WT/DS27).
90. WT/DS104 – European Communities - Measures Affecting the Exportation of Processed
Cheese
Complaint by the United States.  On 8 October 1997, the US requested consultations with the
EC in respect of export subsidies allegedl y granted by the EC on processed cheese without
regard to the export subsidy reduction commitments  of the EC.  The US contended that these
measures by the EC distort markets for dairy pr oducts and adversely affect US sales of dairy
products.  The US alleged violations of Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Agreement on
Agriculture, and Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement.
91. WT/DS100 – United States - Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry Products
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 18 August 1997, the EC requested consultations
with the US in respect of a ban on imports of  poultry and poultry products from the EC by the
US Department of Agriculture's Food Safety Insp ection Service, and any related measures.  The
EC contended that although the ban is allege dly on grounds of product safety, the ban does not
indicate the grounds upon which EC poultry products have suddenly become ineligible for entry
into the US market.  The EC considered that the ba n is inconsistent with Articles I, III, X and XI
of GATT 1994, Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and Annex C of  the SPS Agreement, or Article 2 and 5 of
the TBT Agreement.
92. WT/DS97 – United States - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Imports of Salmon
from Chile
Complaint by Chile.  On 5 August 1997, Chile requested consultations with the US in respect of
a countervailing duty investigation initiated by the US Department of Commerce against
imports of salmon from Chile.  Chile contended that  the decision to initiate an investigation was
taken in the absence of sufficient evidence of injury, in violation of Article 11.2 and 11.3.  Chile
also contended a violation of Ar ticle 11.4, in relation to the representative status of producers of
salmon fillets.
93. WT/DS81 – Brazil - Measures Af fecting Trade and Investment in the Automotive Sector
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 7 May 1997, the EC requested consultations
with Brazil in respect of certain measures in the trade and investment sector implemented byWT/DS/OV/16
Page 33
Brazil, including in partic ular, Law No. 9440 of 14 Marc h 1997, Law No. 9449 of 14 March
1997, and Decree No. 1987 of 20 August 1996.  The EC  contended that these measures violate
Articles I:1 and III:4 of GATT 1994, Articles 3, 5 and 27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement, and
Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement.  The EC al so claimed for nullification and impairment of
benefits under both GATT 1994 and the Subsidie s Agreement.  See also WT/DS51, WT/DS52
and WT/DS65.
94. WT/DS80 – Belgium - Measures Affecting Commercial Telephone Directory Services
Complaint by the United States.  On 2 May 1997, the US requested consultations with Belgium
in respect of certain measures of the Kingdom of Belgium governing the provision of
commercial telephone directory services.  Thes e measures include the imposition of conditions
for obtaining a license to publish commercial dire ctories, and the regulation of the acts, policies,
and practices of BELGACOM N.V. with resp ect to telephone directory services.  The US
alleged violations of Articles II, VI, VIII and XVII of GATS, as well as nullification and
impairment of benefits accruing to it under the specific GATS commitments made by the EC on
behalf of Belgium.
95. WT/DS78 – United States - Safeguard Measure Against Imports of Broom Corn Brooms
Complaint by Colombia.  On 28 April 1997, Colomb ia requested consultations with the US in
respect of US Presidential Proclamation 6961 of 28 November 1996, adopting a safeguard
measure against imports of broom and corn broo ms.  Colombia contended that the adoption of
this safeguard measure is inconsistent with the obligations of the US under Articles 2, 4, 5, 9and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, Artic les II, XIII and XIX of GATT 1994.  Colombia
also claimed for nullification and im pairment of benefits under GATT 1994.
96. WT/DS71 – Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft
Complaint by Brazil.  On 10 March 1997, Brazil requested consultations with Canada in respect
of the same measures complained of in WT/D S70.  However, the request was made pursuant to
Article 7 of the Subsidies Agreement.  In this request, Brazil contended that the measures are
actionable subsidies within the meaning of Part III of the Subsidies Agreement, and cause
adverse effects within the meaning of Article 5 of the Agreement.
97. WT/DS66 – Japan - Measures Affecting Imports of Pork
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 15 January 1997, the EC requested consultations
with Japan in respect of certain measures a ffecting imports of pork and its processed products
imposed by Japan. The EC contended that these m easures are in violation of Japan's obligations
under Articles I, X:3 and XIII of the GATT 1994.  The EC also contended that these measures
nullify or impair benefits accruing to it under the GATT 1994.
98. WT/DS65 – Brazil - Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the
Automotive Sector
Complaint by the United States.  On 10 January 1997, the US requested consultations with
Brazil concerning more or less the same measures as in WT/DS52 above. However, this request
also included measures adopted by Brazil subseque nt to consultations held with the US pursuant
to the request under WT/DS52, which include measures conferring benefits to certain
companies located in Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the EC.  The US alleged violations
under Articles I:1 and III:4 of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement, and Articles 3
and 27.4 of the SCM Agreement. The United States  also made a nullification and impairment of
benefits claim under Article XXIII:1(b) of GATT 1994.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 34
99. WT/DS63 – United States - Anti-Dumping Mea sures on Imports of Solid Urea from the
Former German Democratic Republic
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 28 November 1996, the EC requested
consultations with the US in respect of Anti-Dumping duties imposed on exports of solid urea
from the former German Democratic Republic by the United States. The EC contended that
theses measures violate Articles 9 and 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
100. WT/DS61 – United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products
Complaint by the Philippines.  On 25 October 1996, the Philippines requested consultations
with the US in respect of a complaint by th e Philippines regarding a ban on the importation of
certain shrimp and shrimp products from the Philippines imposed by the US under Section 609
of US Public Law 101-62.  Violations of Articles I, II, III, VIII, XI and XIII of GATT 1994 and
Article 2 of the TBT Agreement are alleged.  A nullification and impairment of benefits under
GATT 1994 is also alleged.  (See WT/DS58).
101. WT/DS53 – Mexico - Customs Valuation of Imports
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 27 August 1996, the EC requested consultations
with Mexico concerning the Mexican Customs La w.  The EC claimed that Mexico applies CIF
value as the basis of customs valuation of im ports originating in non-NAFTA countries, while it
applies FOB value for imports originating in NAFTA countries.  Violation of GATT
Article XXIV:5(b) is alleged.
102. WT/DS52 – Brazil - Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the
Automotive Sector
Complaint by the United States.  On 9 August 1996, the US requested consultations with Brazil
concerning the same measures as identified in Japan's request in WT/DS51.  Violations of the
TRIMs Agreement Article 2, GATT Articles I:1 and III:4 as well as the Subsidies Agreement
Articles 3 and 27.4 are alleged.  In addition, the United States also made a non-violation claim
under GATT Article XXIII:1(b).
103. WT/DS51 – Brazil - Certain Au tomotive Investment Measures
Complaint by Japan.  On 30 July 1996, Japan requested consultations with Brazil concerning
certain automotive investment measures taken by  the Brazilian government.  Violations of the
TRIMs Agreement Article 2, GATT Articles I:1, III:4 and XI:1 as well as the Subsidies
Agreement Articles 3, 27.2 and 27.4 are alleged.  In addition, Japan made a non-violation claim
under GATT Article XXIII:1(b).
104. WT/DS47 – Turkey - Restrictions on Im ports of Textile and Clothing Products
Complaint by Thailand.  On 20 June 1996, Thailand requested consultations with Turkey
concerning Turkey's imposition of quantitative re strictions on imports of textile and clothing
products from Thailand. Violations of GATT Articles I, II, XI and XIII as well as Article 2 of
the Textiles Agreement are alleged.  Earlier, Hong Kong (WT/DS29) and India (WT/DS34)
separately requested consultations with Turkey on the same measure.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 35
105. WT/DS45 – Japan - Measures Affecting Distribution Services
Complaint by the United States.  On 13 June 1996, the US requested consultations with Japan
concerning Japan's measures affecting distributi on services (not limited to the photographic film
and paper sector) through the operation of the Large-Scale Retail Store Law, which regulates
the floor space, business hours and holidays of supe rmarkets and department stores.  Violations
of the GATS Article III (Transparency) and Artic le XVI (Market Access) are alleged.  The US
also alleged that these measures nullify or impa ir benefits accruing to the US (a non-violation
claim).  The US requested further consulta tions with Japan on 20 September 1996, expanding
the factual and legal basis of its claim.
106. WT/DS41 – Korea - Measures Concerning Inspection of Agricultural Products
Complaint by the United States.  On 24 May 1996, the US requested consultations with Korea
concerning testing, inspection and other measures required for the importation of agricultural
products into Korea.  The US claimed that these measures restrict imports and appear to be
inconsistent with the WTO Agreement.  Violations of GATT Articles III and XI, SPS Articles
2, 5 and 8, TBT Articles 2, 5 and 6, and Article  4 of the Agreement on Agriculture are
alleged.  The US requested consultations with Korea on similar issues on 4 April 1995(WT/DS3).
107. WT/DS30 – Brazil - Countervailing Duties on Imports of Desiccated Coconut and
Coconut Milk Powder from Sri Lanka
Complaint by Sri Lanka.  On 23 February 1996, Sri Lanka requested consultations with Brazil
concerning Brazil's imposition of counterva iling duties on Sri Lanka's export of desiccated
coconut and coconut milk powder.  Sri Lanka alle ged that those measures are inconsistent with
GATT Articles I, II and VI and Article 13(a) of the Agriculture Agreement (the so-called peace
clause).  See WT/DS22.
108. WT/DS29 – Turkey - Restrictions on Im ports of Textile and Clothing Products
Complaint by Hong Kong.  On 12 February 1996, Hong Kong requested consultations with
Turkey concerning Turkey's quantitative restricti ons on imports of textile and clothing products.
Hong Kong claimed that those measures are in violation of GATT Articles XI and XIII.  The
background to this dispute is a recently concluded customs union agreement between Turkey
and the European Communities.  Hong Kong claimed that GATT Article XXIV does not entitle
Turkey to impose new quantitative restrictions in the present case.
109. WT/DS16 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and
Distribution of Bananas
Complaint by Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States.  On 28 September 1995,
Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States requested consultations with theEuropean Communities concerning the EC regime for the importation, sale and distribution of
bananas.  The EC measures are alleged to be inconsistent with Articles I, II, III, X and XIII of
GATT 1994, Articles 1 and 3 of the Import Licensi ng Agreement, and Articles II, XVI and
XVII of GATS.
On 3 October 1995, St. Lucia requested to join the consultations.  On 11 October 1995, Costa
Rica requested to join the consultations.  On  12 October 1995, Colombia and the Dominican
Republic requested to join the consultations.  On 13 October 1995, Venezuela and Nicaragua
requested to join the consultations.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 36
110. WT/DS3 – Korea - Measures Concerning the Testing and Inspection of Agricultural
Products
Complaint by the United States.  On 6 April 1995, the US requested consultations with Korea
involving testing and inspection requirements w ith respect to imports of agricultural products
into Korea.  The measures are alleged to be in violation of GATT Articles III or XI, Articles 2and 5 of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), TBT Articles 5 and 6
and Agriculture Article 4.  (See WT/DS41).
II. ACTIVE PANELS
A. A
CTIVE PANELS
1. WT/DS164 – Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear
Complaint by the United States.  On 1 March 1999, the US requested consultations with
Argentina in respect of certain measures implemented by Argentina affecting imports of
footwear.  The US contended that:
• in November 1998, Argentina adopted Resolution 1506 modifying Resolution 987 of 10
September 1997, which had established safeguard duties on imports of footwear from
non-MERCOSUR countries.  Resolution 1506 allegedly imposes a tariff-rate quota(TRQ) on such footwear imports in addition to the safeguard duties previously imposed,
postpones any liberalization of the original safeguard duty until 30 November 1999, and
liberalizes the TRQ only once during the life of the measure;
• Argentina has not notified this measure to the Committee on Safeguards; and
• the United States alleged violations of Articles 5.1, 7.4 and 12 of the Agreement on
Safeguards.
Further to the request of the United States, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of
26 July 1999.  The panel has not yet been composed.  See also complaint by Indonesia
(WT/DS123) and complaint by the EC (WT/DS121).
2. WT/DS174, WT/DS290 – European Communities  – Protection of Trademarks and
Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs
Complaint by the United States (WT/DS174) and Australia (WT/DS290).
On 1 June 1999, the US requested consultations with the EC in respect of the alleged lack of
protection of trademarks and geographical indications (GIs) for agricultural products and
foodstuffs in the EC.  The US contended that EC Regulation 2081/92, as amended, does notprovide national treatment with respect to geographical indications and does not provide
sufficient protection to pre-existing trademarks that are similar or identical to a geographical
indication.  The US considered this situation to be inconsistent with the EC's obligations
under the TRIPS Agreement, including but not necessarily limited to Articles 3, 16, 24, 63
and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement.
On 4 April 2003, the US sent an additional request for consultations concerning the protection
of trademarks and GIs for agricultural products and foodstuffs in the EC.  This request does
not replace but rather supplements the 1999 request.  The measures concerned are EC
Regulation 2081/92, as amended, and its related implementing and enforcement measures (the
“EC Regulation”).  According to the US, the EC Regulation limits the GIs that the EC will
protect and limits the access of nationals of other Members to the EC GI procedures andprotections provided under the Regulation.  The US claims that the EC Regulation appears toWT/DS/OV/16
Page 37
be inconsistent with Articles 2, 3, 4, 16, 22, 24, 63 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement and
Articles I and III:4 of the GATT 1994.
On 17 April 2003, Australia requested consultations with the EC concerning the protection of
trademarks and to the registration and protection of geographical indications for foodstuffsand agricultural products in the EC.  The measures at issue include Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of
origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs  and related measures ("the EC measure").
According to Australia:
• the EC measure seems not to accord immediately and unconditionally to the nationals
and/or products of each WTO Member any advantage, favour, privilege of immunity
granted to the nationals and/or like products of any other WTO Member,
• the EC measure seems not to accord to the nationals and/or products of each WTO
Member treatment no less favourable than that it accords to its own nationals and/or
like products of national origin,
• the EC measure may diminish the legal protection for trademarks,
• the EC measure may not be consistent with the EC's obligation to provide the legal
means for interested parties to prevent misleading use of a geographical indication or
any use which constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article10bis of the Paris Convention (1967),
• the EC may not have met its transparency obligations in respect of the measure, and
• the EC measure may be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate
objective, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would create.
Australia claims that the EC measure appears to be inconsistent with the EC's obligations
pursuant to Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 16, 20, 22, 24, 41, 42, 63 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement,Articles I and III of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the
WTO Agreement.
In dispute WT/DS174,  Sri Lanka Australia, Hungary, India, Argentina, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the
Czech Republic, Malta, Slovenia, Romania, the Slovak Republic and Turkey requested to jointhe additional consultations. The EC informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of
Argentina, Australia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, India, Malta, Mexico,
New Zealand, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sri Lanka and Turkey to join the
consultations.
In dispute WT/DS290,  Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Malta, the United States,
Hungary and Slovenia, New Zealand, Romania,  the Slovak Republic, Chinese Taipei and
Turkey, Argentina, Colombia and Mexico requ ested to join the consultations.  The EC
informed the DSB that it has accepted the requests of Argentina, Bulgaria, Colombia, Cyprus,
the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta, Mexic o, New Zealand, Romania, the Slovak Republic,
Slovenia, Chinese Taipei, Turkey and the United States to join the consultations.
On 18 August 2003, the United States and Australia requested separately the establishment of
a panel.  At its meeting on 29 August 2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of the panels.
Further to second requests to establish a panel from the US and Australia, the DSB
established a single panel at its meeting on 2 October 2003. Australia, Colombia, Guatemala,
India, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Chinese Taipei  and Turkey reserved their third-partyWT/DS/OV/16
Page 38
rights. On 6 October, China reserved its third-party right. On 10 October, Argentina and
Canada reserved their third-party rights.  On 13 October, Brazil reserved its third-party rights.
3. WT/DS188 – Nicaragua – Measures Affecting Imports from Honduras and Colombia (I)
Complaint by Colombia.  On 17 January 2000, Colombia requested consultations with
Nicaragua  in respect of Nicaragua's Law 325 of 1999, which provides for the imposition of
charges on goods and services from Honduras and Colombia, as well as regulatory Decree
129-99.  Colombia claimed that these measures are inconsistent, inter alia , with Articles I and
II of GATT 1994. Further to Colombia's request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of
18 May 2000.  Canada, Costa Rica, the EC, Hondur as and the US reserved their third-party
rights.  This panel has not yet been composed.
4. WT/DS195 – Philippines – Mea sures Affecting Trade and Investment in the Motor
Vehicle Sector
Complaint by the United States. On 23 May 2000, the US requested consultations with the
Philippines in respect of certain measures in the Philippines' Motor Vehicle Development
Program ("MVDP"), including the Car Development Program, the Commercial VehicleDevelopment Program, and the Motorcycle Development Program.  The United States
asserted that:
• the MVDP provided that motor vehicle manufacturers located in the Philippines who
meet certain requirements are entitled to import parts, components and finished vehicles
at a preferential tariff rate;
• foreign manufacturers' import licenses for parts, components and finished vehicles are
conditioned on compliance with these requirements.  Among the requirements referred toby the United States are the requirement that manufacturers use parts and components
produced in the Philippines and that they earn a percentage of the foreign exchange
needed to import those parts and components by exporting finished vehicles; and
• The United States considered that these measures are inconsistent with the obligations of
the Philippines under Articles III:4, III:5 a nd XI:1 of the GATT 1994, Articles 2.1 and 2.2
of the TRIMS Agreement, and Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement.
On 12 October 2000, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 23
October 2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 17 November 2000.India and Japan reserved their third party rights.  This panel has not yet been composed.
5. WT/DS204 – Mexico – Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services
Complaint by the United States.  On 17 August 2000, the US requested consultations with
Mexico in respect of Mexico's commitments and obligations under the GATS with respect to
basic and value-added telecommunications services.  According to the United States, since
the entry into force of the GATS, Mexico has adopted or maintained anti-competitive anddiscriminatory regulatory measures, tolerated certain privately-established market access
barriers, and failed to take needed regulatory action in Mexico's basic and value-added
telecommunications sectors.  The US claimed that Mexico had, for example:
• enacted and maintained laws, regulations, rules, and other measures that deny or limit
market access, national treatment, and additional commitments for service suppliers
seeking to provide basic and value-added telecommunications services into and within
Mexico;WT/DS/OV/16
Page 39
• failed to issue and enact regulations, permits, or other measures to ensure implementation
of Mexico's market access, national treatment, and additional commitments for servicesuppliers seeking to provide basic and value-added telecommunications services into and
within Mexico;
• failed to enforce regulations and other measures to ensure compliance with Mexico's
market access, national treatment, and additional commitments for service suppliers
seeking to provide basic and value-added telecommunications services into and withinMexico;
• failed to regulate, control and prevent its major supplier, Teléfonos de México
("Telmex"), from engaging in activity that denies or limits Mexico's market access,
national treatment, and additional commitments  for service suppliers seeking to provide
basic and value-added telecommunications services into and within Mexico; and
• failed to administer measures of general application governing basic and value-added
telecommunications services in a reasonable, objective, and impartial manner, ensure that
decisions and procedures used by Mexico's telecommunications regulator are impartial
with respect to all market participants, and ensure access to and use of public
telecommunications transport networks and services on reasonable and non-
discriminatory terms and conditions for the supply of basic and value-added
telecommunications services.
The United States considered that the alleged action and inaction on the part of Mexico may
be inconsistent with Mexico's GATS commitments and obligations, including Articles VI,
XVI, and XVII; Mexico's additional commitments under Article XVIII as set forth in the
Reference Paper inscribed in Mexico's Schedule of Specific Commitments, including Sections
1, 2, 3, and 5; and the GATS Annex on Telecommunications, including Sections 4 and 5.
On 10 November 2000, the United States requested the establishment of a panel.  On the
same date, the United States notified to the DSB a request for consultations concerning
several recent measures adopted by Mexico affecting trade in telecommunication services.  At
its meeting on 12 December 2000, the DSB deferred establishment of a panel.  On 13
February 2002, the United States requested the establishment of a panel.  In particular, theUnited States claimed that Mexico's measures had:
• failed to ensure that Telmex provides interconnection to US cross-border basic telecom
suppliers on reasonable rates, terms and conditions;
• failed to ensure US basic telecom suppliers reasonable and non-discriminatory access to
and use of public telecom networks and services;
• did not provide national treatment to US-owned commercial agencies; and
• did not prevent Telmex from engaging in anti-competitive practices.
At its meeting on 8 March 2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a
second request by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 17 April 2002.
Canada, Cuba, the EC, Guatemala, Japan and Nicaragua reserved their third-party rights to
participate in the proceedings.  On 18 April 2002, India joined as a third party to the dispute.
On 19 April 2002, Honduras joined as a third party to the dispute.  On 23 April 2002,Australia joined as a third party.  On 24 April 2002, Brazil joined as a third party. On 16
August 2002, the US requested the Director General to determine the composition of the
panel.  On 26 August 2002, the panel was composed.
On 13 March 2003, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible
to complete its work in six months due to th e time needed for translation into Spanish and
English of all relevant documents and the complexity of the issues involved.  The PanelWT/DS/OV/16
Page 40
expected to complete its work in August 2003.  On 6 August 2003, the Chairman of the Panel
informed the DSB that the Panel expected to complete its work in December 2003.
6. WT/DS214 – United States – Definitive Safe guard Measures on Imports of Steel Wire
Rod and Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 30 November 2000, the EC requested
consultations with the US on US safeguard legislation and its application in two cases
concerning the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of certain steel
wire rod ("wire rod") and certain circular welded carbon quality line pipe ("line pipe").  In
particular, the EC considered as follows:
• Sections 201 and 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 contain provisions relating to the
determination of a causal link between increased imports and injury or threat thereof
which prevented the US from respecting Articles 4 and 5 of the Safeguards Agreement.
• Section 311 of the NAFTA Implementation Act contains provisions concerning imports
originating in NAFTA countries which do not respect the requirement of parallelism
between the imported products subject to the investigation and the imported products
subject to the safeguard measure, contrary to Articles 2, 4 and 5 of the Safeguards
Agreement.
• These provisions are in breach of the Most-Favoured-Nation principle under Article I of
the GATT 1994.
According to the EC, these violations are confirmed by the application of the aforesaid US
provisions in two specific cases where the US imposed definitive safeguard measures, (1) in
the form of a tariff rate quota on imports of wire rod effective as of 1 March 2000; and (2) inthe form of an increase in duty on imports of line pipe effective as of 1 March 2000. In the
EC's view, in both the above mentioned cases the US measures are in breach of the US
obligations under the provisions of GATT 1994 and of the Safeguards Agreement, in
particular, but not necessarily exclusively, of: Article 2 Safeguards Agreement; Articles 3.1
and 3.2 Safeguards Agreement; Articles 4.1 and 4.2 Safeguards Agreement; Article 5.1Safeguards Agreement; Article 8.1 Safeguards Agreement; Articles 12.2, 12.3 and 12.11
Safeguards Agreement; Article I:1 of GATT 1994; Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994.
Further to the request of the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 10 September
2001.  Argentina, Canada, Japan, Korea and Mexico reserved their third-party rights.  ThePanel has not yet been composed.
7. WT/DS246 – European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff
Preferences to Developing Countries
Complaint by India.  On 5 March 2002, India requested consultations with the EC concerning
the conditions under which the EC accords tariff preferences to developing countries under its
current scheme of generalized tariff preferences ("GSP scheme").
India presented this request pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU, Article XXIII:1 of the GATT
1994 and paragraph 4(b) of the so-called Enabling Clause.
India considered that the tariff preferences accorded by the EC under the special
arrangements, (i) for combatting drug production and trafficking and (ii) for the protection of
labour rights and the environment, create undue difficulties for India's exports to the EC,
including for those under the general arrangements of the EC's GSP scheme, and nullify orWT/DS/OV/16
Page 41
impair the benefits accruing to India under the most favoured nation provisions of Article I:1
of the GATT 1994 and paragraphs 2(a), 3(a) and 3(c) of the Enabling Clause.
In India's view, the conditions under which the EC accorded tariff preferences under the
special arrangements could not be reconciled with the requirements provided in paragraphs2(a), 3(a) and 3(c) of the Enabling Clause.
On 20 March 2002, Venezuela requested to be joined in the consultations.  On 21 March
2002, Colombia requested to be joined in the consultations.
On 6 December 2002, India requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting of 19
December 2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 27 January2003, the DSB established a Panel.  During the meeting, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba,
Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, Peru, Sri Lanka, Venezuela and the
US reserved their third-party rights.  On 28 January 2003, Nicaragua reserved its third-party
rights.  On 29 January 2003, Panama reserved its third-party rights.  On 3 February, Mauritius
and Pakistan reserved their third-party rights.  On 6 February, Bolivia reserved its third partyrights.  On 24 February 2003, India requested the Director-General to compose the Panel.  On
6 March 2003, the Director-General composed the Panel.
On 22 September 2003, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be
possible to complete its work in six months due  to the complexity of the matter involved and
that the Panel expected to complete its work at the end of October 2003.
8. WT/DS250 – United States – Equalizing Exci se Tax Imposed by Florida on Processed
Orange and Grapefruit Products
Complaint by Brazil.  On 20 March 2002, Brazil requested consultations with the US
concerning the so-called "Equalizing Excise Tax" imposed by the State of Florida on
processed orange and grapefruit products produced from citrus fruit grown outside the United
States (Section 601.155 Florida Statutes).  Brazil indicated that since 1970, the state of
Florida had imposed, pursuant to section 601.155 of the Florida Statutes, an "equalizing
excise tax" on processed orange and processed grapefruit products, in amounts determined by
the Florida Department of Citrus.  However, the statute by its terms - Section 601.155(5),
Florida Statutes - exempted from the tax products "produced in whole or in part from citrusfruit grown within the United States."  In the view of Brazil the incidence of this tax on
imported processed citrus products and not on domestic products on its face constituted a
violation of Articles II:1(a), III.1 and III:2 of GATT 1994.
Brazil contended that the impact of the Florida equalizing excise tax had been to provide
protection and support to domestic processed citrus products and to restrain the importation of
processed citrus products into Florida.  Since processed citrus products, principally in the
form of frozen concentrated orange juice were  among Brazil's most significant exports to the
United States, Brazil was of the view that the restraint on their importation by the State of
Florida constituted a nullification and impairment of benefits accruing to Brazil under GATT1994.  Brazil reserved the right to raise additional factual or legal points related to the
aforementioned measure during the course of consultations.
On 16 August 2002, Brazil requested the establishment of the panel.  At its meeting on
30 August 2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second requestto establish a panel by Brazil, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 1 October 2002.
The EC, Mexico and Paraguay reserved their third party rights to participate in the panel
proceedings.  On 11 October 2002, Chile reserved its third party rights to participate in the
panel proceedings.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 42
9. WT/DS260 – European Communities – Provisional Safeguard Measures on Imports of
Certain Steel Products
Complaint by the United States.  On 30 May 2002, the US requested consultations with the
EC with regard to the provisional safeguard measures imposed by the EC on imports ofcertain steel products, pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March
2002 (OJ L 85/1, 28 March 2002) as well as any amendments thereto or extensions thereof,
and any related measures.
The US contended that these measures appear to be inconsistent with the EC's obligations
under the provisions of GATT 1994 and of th e Agreement on Safeguards, in particular,
Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4.1, 4.2, 6 and 12.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX:1(a)of the GATT 1994.
On 7 June 2002, Japan requested to join the consultations.
On 19 August 2002, the US requested the establishment of a panel. In particular the US
claimed that the EC safeguard measures are inconsistent with the provisions listed in the
request for consultations. In addition, the US claimed that Article 12.4 of the Safeguards
Agreement was also violated.
At its meeting on 30 August 2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  At its
meeting on 16 September 2002, the DSB established a panel.  Egypt, Japan and Korea
reserved their third party rights.  On 23 September 2002, Turkey reserved its third party
rights.
10. WT/DS261 – Uruguay – Tax Treatment on Certain Products
Complaint by Chile.  On 18 June 2002, Chile requested consultations with Uruguay with
regard to the tax treatment applied by the latter to certain products.
In particular, Chile referred to Uruguay's Internal Specific Tax ("IMESI") which taxes the
first alienation and the importation by non-taxpayers of certain goods which include, inter
alia, beverages (alcoholic beverages, juices, mineral water), tobacco and cigarettes,
automobiles, lubricants and fuel.  The fiscal framework for the IMESI is contained in variouslegal instruments, including Chapter 11 of the 1996 "Texto Ordenado", Decree 96/990 of 21
February 1990 from the Ministry of Economy and Finance, and the bi-monthly Resolutions of
the Direction General for Taxation.  This framework was recently amended as regards
cigarettes by Decree 200/2002 of 3 June 2002.
Chile contended that, in most cases, taxable in come for this tax is determined by using a
fictitious price.  According to Chile, this system would increase the taxable income if
compared to the real sales price, especially in the case of foreign goods.  Chile submits that
the IMESI violates Articles I and III of GATT 1994 because it establishes a tax system based
on the use of fictitious prices in order to determine the taxable income.  Chile considered thatthis system discriminates between national and imported products and, in some cases,
between imported products depending on their origin.  Chile further claimed that this alleged
discrimination constitutes a de facto  import prohibition as regards certain products.
Chile recalled that in the trade policy review for Uruguay in 1998, this system was subject to
some discussion and Uruguay indicated, at the time, that they were in the process of
elaborating norms that ensured an equal treatment  to all products regardless of their origin.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 43
On 4 July 2002, the European Communities requested to join the consultations.  On 5 July
2002, Mexico requested to join the consultations.  On 3 April 2003, Chile requested the DSB
to establish a panel.  At its meeting on 15 April 2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of
the panel.  Further to a second request by Chile, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on19 May 2003.  The EC, Mexico and the US reserved their third-party rights.  On 4 July 2003,
the Panel was composed.  On 15 August 2003, the Chair of the Panel informed the DSB that
both parties had jointly requested the Panel to suspend its work for a period of 60 days, until
12 October 2003.  The Panel has agreed to this request and is suspending its work from
14 August to 12 October 2003.  On 12 October 2003, both parties jointly requested the Panel
to extend the suspension of its work for another 60 days, until 11 December 2003.  The Panel
agreed to this request and is continuing to suspend its work until 11 December 2003.
11. WT/DS264 – United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from
Canada
Complaint by Canada.  On 13 September 2002, Canada requested consultations under Article
4.8 of the DSU (urgency procedure) with the US concerning the final affirmativedetermination of sales at less than fair value (dumping) with respect to certain softwood
lumber products from Canada (Inv. No. A- 122-838) announced by the US Department of
Commerce (DOC) on 21 March 2002 pursuant to section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended on 22 May 2002 (Final Determination).  The measures at issue include the initiation
of the investigation, the conduct of the investigation and the Final Determination.
Canada considered these measures and, in particular, the determinations made and
methodologies adopted therein by the DOC under authority of the United States Tariff Act of
1930 , to violate Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.8, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.9 and 9.3 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Articles VI and X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.
On 6 December 2002, Canada requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting of 19
December 2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request
by Canada, a panel was established by the DSB at its meeting on 8 January 2003.  The EC
and India reserved their third-party rights.  On 15 January 2003, Japan reserved its third-party
rights.  On 25 February 2003, the Panel was composed.
O 25 August 2003, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that due to the complexity of
the matter, the Panel would not be able to complete its work in six months.  The Panel
expected to issue its final report to the parties in December 2003.
12. WT/DS265, WT/DS266, WT /DS283 – European Communities – Export Subsidies on
Sugar
Complaints by Australia (WT/DS265), Brazil (WT/DS266) and Thailand (WT/DS283).  On
27 September 2002, Australia and Brazil requested consultations with the European
Communities concerning the export subsidies provided by the EC in the framework of its
Common Organisation of the Market for the sugar sector.  The requests concerned CouncilRegulation (EC) No. 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the EC's common organization of the
markets in the sugar sector, and all other legislation, regulations, administrative policies and
other instruments relating to the EC regime for sugar and sugar containing products including
the rules adopted pursuant to the procedure refe rred to in Article 42(2) of Council Regulation
(EC) No. 1260/2001, and any other provision related thereto.  On 14 March 2003, Thailandrequested consultations with the European Communities on the same matter.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 44
Australia contended that the EC provides under the above measures export subsidies in excess
of the export subsidy commitments that it has specified in Section II of Part IV of its Schedule
of Concessions, in relation to "C sugar" and an amount of 1.6 million tons of sugar per year
and possibly also sugar in incorporated products.  It further alleges that the EC may also be
paying a higher per unit subsidy on incorporated products than on the primary product.  Inaddition, under the EC sugar regime refiners are paid a subsidy, in the form of the intervention
price, for refining EC sugar which is not available to imported sugar, thus affording less
favourable treatment to imported products.
According to Australia, the regulation and related instruments and measures taken thereunder
appear to be inconsistent with, at least:
(a) Articles 3.3, 8, 9.1, 10.1 and 11 of the Agreement on Agriculture,
(b) Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement; and
(c) Articles III:4 and XVI of GATT 1994.
According to Brazil, the EC provides, under Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/2001, export
subsidies for sugar and sugar containing products above its reduction commitment levels
specified in Section II of Part IV of its Schedule of Concessions.  Brazil explained that the EC
intervention price system for sugar guarantees a high price for the sugar that is produced
within certain production quotas (A and B quotas).  Sugar produced in excess of these quotas
(so-called C sugar) cannot be sold internally in the year in which it is produced: it must beexported or carried over to fulfill the foll owing year's production quotas.  Under the EC's
common organization of the sugar market and its regulatory framework, exporters of C sugar
are able to export C sugar at prices below its total cost of production.
In addition, according to the EC's Schedule for sugar and the agricultural notifications
submitted by the EC to the WTO for marketing years 1995/1996 through 2000/2001, the EC
provides export subsidies in excess of its commitments to approximately 1.6 million tons of
sugar per year.  The export subsidies provided  by the EC (referred to in the EC Council
Regulation (EC) No. 1260/2001 as "export refunds") cover the difference between the world
market price and the high prices in the Community for the products in question, thus enabling
those products to be exported.
Brazil also believed that the EC sugar regime accords less favorable treatment to imported
sugar and is thus in violation of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.
Brazil claimed that, by providing export subsidies for sugar in excess of its reduction
commitment levels the EC is acting inconsistently with at least the requirements of:
(a) Articles 3.3, 8, 9.1(a) and (c), and 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture;
(b) Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement; and
(c) Articles III:4 and XVI of GATT 1994.
According to Thailand:
• The EC sugar regime accords imported sugar a less favourable treatment than that
accorded to domestic sugar and provides for subsidies contingent upon the use of
domestic over imported products;
• The EC sugar regime accords export subsidies above its reduction commitment levels
specified in Section II of Part IV of the EC's Schedule to the sugar produced in excess of
its production quotas (so-called C sugar);WT/DS/OV/16
Page 45
• The EC provides export subsidies (known as "export refunds") that cover the difference
between the world market price and the high  prices in the EC for the products in
question, thus enabling those products to be exported.
Thailand considered that the above subsidies are inconsistent with the EC's obligations under:
(a) Article III:4 of GATT 1994;
(b) Articles 3.1(a), 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement; and
(c) Articles 3.3, 8, 9.1 and 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
In the dispute WT/DS265, Barbados, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire,
Fiji, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, St. Kitts and Nevis,
Swaziland and Zimbabwe requested to join the consultations.  On 24 October 2002, the EC
informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Barbados, Belize, Brazil, Canada,Colombia, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Fiji, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi,
Mauritius, St. Kitts and Nevis, Swaziland and Zimbabwe to join the consultations.
In the dispute WT/DS266, Australia, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Colombia, Congo, Côte
d'Ivoire, Fiji, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, St. Kitts andNevis, Swaziland and Zimbabwe requested to join the consultations.  On 24 October 2002,
the EC informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Australia, Barbados, Belize,
Canada, Colombia, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Fiji, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Madagascar,
Malawi, Mauritius, St. Kitts and Nevis, Swaziland and Zimbabwe to join the consultations.
On 9 July 2003, Australia, Brazil and Thailand each requested the establishment of a panel.
At its meeting on 21 July 2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of the panels.  Further to
second requests to establish a panel from Australia, Brazil and Thailand, the DSB established
a single panel at its meeting on 29 August 2003.  Barbados, Canada, China, Colombia,
Jamaica, Mauritius, New Zealand, Trinidad and Tobago and the US reserved their third-partyrights.  On 1 September 2003, Belize, Cuba, Fiji and Guyana reserved their third-party rights.
On 2 September 2003, Paraguay and Swaziland reserved their third-party rights.  On 5
September 2003, India, Madagascar and Malawi reserved their third-party rights.  On 8
September 2003, Australia, Brazil, St. Kitts and Nevis, Tanzania and Thailand reserved their
third-party rights.  On 26 September 2003, Kenya reserved its third-party right.
13. WT/DS267 – United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton
Complaint by Brazil.  On 27 September 2002 Brazil requested consultations with the US
regarding prohibited and actionable subsidies provided to US producers, users and/or
exporters of upland cotton, as well as legislation, regulations, statutory instruments and
amendments thereto providing such subsidies (including export credits), grants, and any other
assistance to the US producers, users and exporters of upland cotton ("US upland cottonindustry").
Brazil contended that these measures were inconsistent with the obligations of the US under
the following provisions:  Articles 5(c), 6.3(b),  (c) and (d), 3.1(a) (including item (j) of the
Illustrative List of Export Subsidies in An nex I), 3.1(b), and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement;
Articles 3.3, 7.1, 8, 9.1 and 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Article III:4 of GATT
1994.  Brazil was of the view that the US statutes, regulations, and administrative procedures
listed above were inconsistent with these provisions as such and as applied.
On 9 October and 11 October 2002, Zimbabwe and India, respectively, requested to join the
consultations.  On 14 October 2002, Argentina and Canada requested to join theWT/DS/OV/16
Page 46
consultations.  The United States informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of
Argentina and India to join the consultations.
On 6 February 2003, Brazil requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
19 February 2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second requestby Brazil, the DSB established a Panel at its meeting on 18 March 2003.  Argentina, Canada,
China, Chinese Taipei, the EC, India, Pakistan and Venezuela reserved their third-party rights
to participate in the Panel's proceedings.  At that meeting, the Chairman of the DSB
announced that he continued to consult with Brazil and the US on the issue of appointing a
DSB representative to facilitate the information-gathering process, pursuant to the Annex V
procedures under the SCM Agreement, which had been invoked by Brazil in its panel request.
On 24 March 2003, Benin reserved its third-party rights.  On 25 March 2003, Australiareserved its third-party rights.  On 26 March 2003, Paraguay reserved its third-party rights.
On 28 March 2003, New Zealand reserved its third-party rights.  On 4 April 2003, Chad
reserved its third-party rights.  On 9 May 2003, Brazil requested the Director-General to
compose the panel.  On 19 May 2003, the Director-General composed the panel.
14. WT/DS268 – United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country
Tubular Goods from Argentina
Complaint by Argentina.  On 7 October 2002, Argentina requested consultations with the US
regarding the final determinations of the US Department of Commerce ("DOC") and the US
International Trade Commission ("ITC") in the sunset reviews of the anti-dumping duty orderon OCTG from Argentina, issued on 7 November 2000 (65 Federal Register 66701) and June
2001 (USITC Pub. No. 3434), respectively, and the DOC's determination to continue the anti-
dumping duty order on OCTG from Argentina, issued on 25 July 2001 (66 Federal Register
38630).
Argentina considered that general US laws, regulations, policies and procedures related to the
administration of sunset reviews and the application of anti-dumping measures were
inconsistent either on their face or as applied with Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 18 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement; Articles VI and X of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) 1994; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
Furthermore, Argentina claimed that the sunset review conducted by the DOC is inconsistent
with Articles 2, 5, 5.8, 11.3, 11.4, 12.1, and 12.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  It also
claimed that the sunset review conducted by the ITC was inconsistent with Articles 3 and
11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
On 3 April 2003, Argentina requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
15 April 2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of the panel.  Further to a second request
by Argentina, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 19 May 2003.  The EC, Japan,
Korea, Mexico and Chinese Taipei reserved their third-party rights.
On 22 August 2003, Argentina requested the Director-General to compose the panel.  On 4
September 2003, the Director-General composed the panel.
15. WT/DS270 – Australia – Certain Measures Affe cting the Importation of Fresh Fruit and
Vegetables
Complaint by the Philippines.  On 18 October 2002, the Philippines requested consultations
with Australia on certain measures affecting the importation into Australia of fresh fruit and
vegetables, including bananas, which include, but are not limited to:WT/DS/OV/16
Page 47
• Section 64 of Quarantine Proclamation 1998  promulgated under the Quarantine Act
1908;
• regulations, requirements and procedures issued pursuant thereto;
• amendments to any of the foregoing;  and
• their application.
The Philippines considered that these measures are inconsistent with the obligations of
Australia under the GATT 1994, the SPS Agreement and the Agreement on Import Licensing
Procedures.  The relevant provisions of these agreements include, but are not limited toArticles XI and XIII of the GATT 1994;  Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the SPS Agreement;
and Articles 1 and 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.
On 1 November 2002, the EC and Thailand requested to join the consultations.  On 7
November 2002, Australia informed the DSB that it had accepted the request of the EC andThailand to join the consultations.
On 7 July 2003, the Philippines requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
21 July 2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by the Philippines, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 29 August
2003.  China, the EC, Ecuador, India, Thailand and the US reserved their third-party rights.
On 4 September 2003, Chile reserved its third-party rights.
16. WT/DS273 – Korea – Measures Affect ing Trade in Commercial Vessels
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 21 October 2002, the European Communities
requested consultations with Korea on
 certain measures establishing subsidies to its
shipbuilding industry which, according to the European Communities, are inconsistent withKorea's obligations under the SCM Agreement.  These measures are as follows:
• Corporate restructuring subsidies in the form of debt forgiveness, debt and interest relief
and debt-to-equity swaps, provided through government-owned and government-
controlled banks;
• Special taxation on in-kind contribution and the special taxation on spin-off scheme
provided in the Special Tax Treatment Control Law which establishes two tax
programmes limited to companies under corporate restructuring and provided taxconcessions to Daewoo;
• Pre-shipment loans and advance payment refund guarantees provided by the state-owned
Export-Import Bank of Korea ("KEXIM")
 to all Korean shipyards.
The EC indicated that the subsidies in question were granted with respect to the production of
commercial vessels for international commerce, including: bulk carriers, container ships, oil
tankers, product and chemical tankers, LNG/LPG carriers, passenger and RoRo ferries andother non-cargo vessels (including offshore units).
The EC considered that the Korean measures are in breach of Korea's obligations under the
provisions of the SCM Agreement, in particular, but not necessarily exclusively of: Articles 1,
2, 3.1, 5(a), 5(c), 6.3 and 6.5 of the SCM Agreement.
On 12 June 2003, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 24 June
2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request by the EC,
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 21 July 2003.  China, Japan, Mexico, Norway,
Chinese Taipei and the United States reserved their third-party rights.  The DSB also agreed,following the request by the EC, to initiate the Annex V procedures pursuant to paragraph 2WT/DS/OV/16
Page 48
of Annex V of the SCM Agreement with resp ect to developing information concerning
serious prejudice under Annex V of the SCM Agreement.
On 11 August 2003, the EC requested the Director-General to compose the panel.  On xx
August 2003, the panel was composed.
17. WT/DS276 – Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of
Imported Grain
Complaint by the United States.  On 17 December 2002, the United States requested
consultations with Canada as regards matters concerning the export of wheat by the Canadian
Wheat Board and the treatment accorded by Canada to grain imported into Canada.
According to the United States, the actions of the Government of Canada and the Canadian
Wheat Board (entity enjoying exclusive rights to purchase and sell Western Canadian wheat
for human consumption) related to export of wheat appear to be inconsistent with paragraphs
1(a) and 1(b) of Article XVII of GATT 1994.
As regards the treatment of grain imported into Canada, the United States maintains that the
following Canadian measures are inconsistent with Article III of the GATT 1994 and Article2 of TRIMs since they discriminate against imported grain:
• Under the Canadian Grain Act and Canadi an regulations, imported wheat cannot be
mixed with Canadian domestic grain being received into or discharged out of grain
elevators, and
• Canadian Law caps the maximum revenues that railroads may receive on the shipment of
domestic grain but not revenues received on the shipment of imported grain; and Canada
provides a preference for domestic grain over imported grain when allocatinggovernment-owned railcars.
On 20 December 2002, the European Communities, Japan and Mexico requested to join the
consultations.  On 24 December 2002, Australia requested to join the consultations.  On
6 March 2003, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 18 March2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request by the US,
the DSB established a Panel at its meeting on 31 March 2003.  Chile, Chinese Taipei, the EC,
Japan and Mexico reserved their third-party rights.  On 9 and 10 April 2003 respectively,
China and Australia reserved their third-party rights.  On 2 May 2003, Canada requested the
Director-General to compose the panel.  On  12 May 2003, the Director-General composed the
panel.  On 30 June 2003, the United States submitted a new request for the establishment of a
panel.  On 1 July 2003, the Chair of the Panel informed the DSB that it had agreed to the
United States' request to suspend the Panel for three weeks from 1-21 July 2003.  The DSB
established a second panel at its meeting on 11 July 2003.  Australia, Chile, China, the EC,
Japan and Chinese Taipei reserved their third-party rights.  On 25 July 2003, Mexico reserved
its third-party rights.  On 11 July 2003, the second Panel was composed.  Further to a request
by the United States, acceded to by the Panel, the preliminary ruling by the Panel wascirculated to Members for their information on 21 July 2003.
18. WT/DS277 – United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission in
Softwood Lumber from Canada
Complaint by Canada.  On 20 December 2002, Canada requested consultations with the
United States regarding the investigation of the USITC in Softwood Lumber from Canada
(Invs. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928 (Final)) and the final definitive anti-dumping and
countervailing duties applied as a result of the USITC's final determination made on 2 MayWT/DS/OV/16
Page 49
2002, notice of which was published in the United States Federal Register on 22 May 2002
(Volume 67, Number 99 at pp. 36022-36023) that an industry in the United States is
threatened with material injury by reason of imports of softwood lumber from Canada that the
Department of Commerce has determined are subsidized and sold in the United States at less
than fair value.
Canada claimed that, through these measures, the United States has violated its obligations
under Article VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994, Articles 1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 12 and
18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles 10, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4, 15.5, 15.7, 15.8,
22 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.
On 3 April 2003, Canada requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 15 April
2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of the panel.  Further to a second request by
Canada, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 7 May 2003.  The EC and Japan
reserved their third party rights.  On 16 May 2003, Korea reserved its third party rights.  On
12 June 2003, Canada requested the Director-General to compose the panel.  On 19 June
2003, the Director-General composed the panel.
19. WT/DS280 – United States – Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel Plate from
Mexico
Complaint by Mexico.  On 21 January 2003, Mexico requested consultations with the US
regarding the final determination in an admini strative review of countervailing duties imposed
by the US authorities on imports of carbon steel plates in sheets from Mexico (C-201-810) as
well as the basis on which they reached this determination and led to the imposition of
countervailing duties on imports of the said products.
Mexico claims that the administrative review that led to the imposition of countervailing
duties of 11.6% ad valorem  by using the "same person" methodology is incompatible with
Articles 10, 14, 19 and 21 of the SCM Agreement.  In particular, Mexico claims that the US
Department of Commerce did not make a determination of the existence of a benefit as
required in Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement.
On 4August 2003, Mexico requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 18
August 2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request toestablish a panel by Mexico, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 29 August 2003.
China, the EC and Chinese Taipei reserved their third-party rights.  On 5 September 2003,
Canada reserved its third-party rights.
20. WT/DS281 - United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Cement from
Mexico
Complaint by Mexico.  On 3 February 2003, Mexico requested consultations with the US
concerning several antidumping measures imposed by the US on imports of Gray Portland
cement and cement clinker from Mexico, including:
• the final determinations in several administrative and sunset reviews;
• the US authorities' determination regarding the continuation of the antidumping orders;
and
• the US authorities' rejection of a request by Mexican producers to initiate an
administrative review based on changed circumstances as well as.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 50
In addition to the above measures, Mexico's request included a number of laws, regulations
and administrative practices (such as "zeroing") used by the US authorities in the above
determinations.  Mexico considered that the above antidumping measures are incompatible
with Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 18 of the Antidumping Agreement, Articles III,
VI and X of the GATT 1994 and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
On 29 July 2003, Mexico requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 18 August
2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by Mexico, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 29 August 2003.  China, the
EC, Japan and Chinese Taipei reserved their third-party rights. On 5 September 2003, Canada
reserved its third-party rights.
21. WT/DS282 – United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods
(OCTG) from Mexico
Complaint by Mexico.  On 18 February 2003, Mexico requested consultations with the US as
regards several anti-dumping measures imposed by the US on imports of OCTG from
Mexico, including the final determinations in some administrative and sunset reviews; and theUS authorities' determination regarding the continuation of the anti-dumping orders.  In
addition to these measures, Mexico's request includes a number of laws, regulations and
administrative practices (such as "zeroing") used by the US authorities in the above
determinations.  Mexico considers that the above anti-dumping measures are incompatible
with Articles 1, 2, 3, 6, 11 and 18 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Articles VI and X of theGATT 1994 and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
On 29 July 2003, Mexico requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 18 August
2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by Mexico, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 29 August 2003.  Argentina,China, the EC, Japan, Chinese Taipei and Venezuela reserved their third-party rights.  On
5 September 2003, Canada reserved its third-party rights.
22. WT/DS285 – United States – Measures Affecting Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and
Betting Services
Complaint by Antigua and Barbuda.  On 21 March 2003, Antigua and Barbuda requested
consultations with the US regarding measures applied by central, regional and localauthorities in the US which affect the cross-border supply of gambling and betting services.
Antigua and Barbuda considered that the cumulative impact of the US measures is to prevent
the supply of gambling and betting services from another WTO Member to the United States
on a cross-border basis.
According to Antigua and Barbuda, the measures at issue may be inconsistent with the US
obligations under the GATS, and in particular Articles II, VI, VIII, XI, XVI and XVII thereof,
and the US Schedule of Specific Commitments annexed to the GATS.
On 12 June 2003, Antigua and Barbuda requested the establishment of a panel.  At its
meeting on 24 June 2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second
request by Antigua and Barbuda, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 21 July 2003.
Canada, the EC, Mexico and Chinese Taipei reserved their third-party rights.  On 23 July
2003, Japan reserved its third-party rights.
On 15 August 2003, Antigua and Barbuda requested the Director-General to compose the
panel.  On 25 August 2003, the Director-General composed the panel.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 51
23. WT/DS291, WT/DS292, WT /DS293 – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing
of Biotech Products
Complaints by the United States (WT/DS291), Canada (WT/DS292) and Argentina
(WT/DS293).  On 13 May 2003, the United States and Canada requested consultations with
the EC concerning certain measures taken by the EC and its member States affecting importsof agricultural and food imports from the United States and Canada.  Regarding EC-level
measures, the US and Canada asserted that th e moratorium applied by the EC since October
1998 on the approval of biotech products has restricted imports of agricultural and food
products from the US and Canada.  Regarding member State-level measures, the US and
Canada asserted that a number of EC member States maintain national marketing and import
bans on biotech products even though those produ cts have already been approved by the EC
for import and marketing in the EC.  On 14 May 2003, Argentina requested consultationswith the EC on the same matter.
According to the US, the measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with the EC's obligations
under:
(a) Articles 2, 5, 7 and 8, and Annexes B and C of the SPS Agreement;
(b) Articles I, III, X and XI of the GATT 1994;
(c) Article 4 of the Agriculture Agreement;  and
(d) Articles 2 and 5 of the TBT Agreement.
According to Canada, the measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with the EC's
obligations under:
(a) Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.5, 5.6, 7 and 8, and Annexes B and C of the SPS Agreement;
(b) Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.8, 5.1 and 5.2 of the TBT Agreement;(c) Articles I:1, III:4, X:1 and XI:1 of the GATT 1994; and
(d) Article 4.2 of the Agriculture Agreement.
Canada also considered that the measures at issue nullify or impair benefits accruing to
Canada in the sense of Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994.
According to Argentina, the measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with the EC's
obligations under:
(a) Articles 2, 5, 7, 8 and 10, and Annexes B and C of the SPS Agreement;
(b) Article 4 of the Agriculture Agreement;
(c) Articles I, III, X and XI of the GATT 1994;  and(d) Articles 2, 5 and 12 of the TBT Agreement.
In dispute WT/DS291, Australia, Argentina, Braz il, Canada, Chile, Colombia, India, Mexico,
New Zealand and Peru requested to join the consultations,  The EC informed the DSB that
they had accepted the requests of Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia,India, Mexico, New Zealand and Peru to join the consultations.
In dispute WT/DS292, Australia, Argentina, Br azil, India, Mexico, New Zealand and the
United States requested to join the consultati ons.  The EC informed the DSB that they had
accepted the requests of Australia, Argentina, Brazil, India, Mexico, New Zealand and theUnited States to join the consultations.
In dispute WT/DS293, Australia, Brazil, Canada , India, Mexico, New Zealand and the United
States requested to join the consultations.  The EC informed the DSB that they had acceptedWT/DS/OV/16
Page 52
the requests of Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Mexico, New Zealand and the United States
to join the consultations.
On 7 August 2003, the United States, Canada and Argentina each requested the establishment
of a panel. At its meeting on 18 August 2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of thepanels.  Further to second requests to establish a panel from the US, Canada and Argentina,
the DSB established a single panel at its meeting on 29 August 2003.  Australia, Chile, China,
Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, New Zeala nd, Norway, Peru, Chinese Taipei, Thailand and
Uruguay reserved their third-party rights.  On 3 September 2003, Canada reserved its third-
party rights.  On 4 September 2003, Argentina and the US reserved their third-party rights.
On 5 September 2003, Mexico reserved its third-party rights.  On 8 September 2003, Brazil
reserved its third-party rights. On 9 September, Paraguay reserved its third-party rights.
B. A
CTIVE COMPLIANCE PANELS
Nil.
III. REPORTS CIRCULATED
A. PANEL REPORTS
Nil.
B. COMPLIANCE PANEL REPORTS (ARTICLE 21.5)
Nil.
C. APPELLATE BODY REPORTS
Nil.
D. APPELLATE BODY COMPLIANCE REPORTS (ARTICLE 21.5)
Nil.
IV. REPORTS APPEALED
A. PANEL REPORTS
1. WT/DS257 – United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with respect to
Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada
Complaint by Canada.  On 3 May 2002, Canada requested consultations with the US.  The
request concerned the final affirmative countervailing duty determination by the US
Department of Commerce (File No. C-122839) issued on 25 March 2002, with respect to
certain softwood lumber from Canada.  The measures at issue include the initiation and
conduct of the investigation, the final determination, provision of expedited reviews, and
other matters related to these measures.  Canada contended that these measures wereinconsistent with, and violate US' obligations under Articles 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 22
and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement and Articles VI:3 and X:3 of GATT 1994.
On 18 July 2002, Canada requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 29 July
2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  On 19 August 2002, Canada requestedthe withdrawal of its previous request for the establishment of a panel and submitted a newWT/DS/OV/16
Page 53
request .  In particular, Canada claimed that in initiating the Lumber IV investigation, the
United States had violated Articles 10, 11.4 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.  In all the other
claims, the new request corresponded to the previous one (18 July 2002).  At its meeting on
30 August 2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 1 October
2002, the DSB established a panel.  The EC, India and Japan reserved their third-party rightsto participate in the panel proceedings.  On 8 November 2002, the panel was composed.
On 29 August 2003, the Panel report was circulated to Members.  The Panel found that the
USDOC Final Countervailing Duty Determination was inconsistent with Articles 10, 14,
14(d) and 32.1 SCM Agreement and Article VI:3 of GATT 1994.  The Panel decided to apply
judicial economy as regards Canada's claims  under Article 19.4 SCM Agreement and Article
VI:3 of GATT 1994 concerning the methodologies used to calculate the subsidy rate; and itsclaims of violation of the procedural rules of evidence set forth in Article 12 SCM
Agreement.  Further to Canada's statement at the first substantive meeting of the Panel with
the parties that it did not consider it appropriate to press its claims under Articles 10, 11.4 and
32.1 of the SCM Agreement concerning the initiation of the investigation, the Panel also
refrain from addressing and making a ruling on these claims.  Accordingly, the Panelrecommended that the DSB requests the United States to bring its measure into conformity
with its obligations under the SCM Agreement and GATT 1994.
On 2 October 2003, the United States notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body
certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developedby the Panel.  However, on 3 October 2003, the United States withdrew its notice of appeal
for scheduling reasons, although the withdrawal is conditional on the US right to file a new
notice of appeal within the timeframe permitted by the DSU.
2. WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/DS251, WT/DS252, WT /DS253, WT/DS254, WT/DS258
and WT/DS259 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain
Steel Products
Complaints by the European Communities (WT/DS248), Japan (WT/DS249), Korea
(WT/DS251), China (WT/DS252), Switzerl and (WT/DS253), Norway (WT/DS254), New
Zealand (WT/DS258) and Brazil (WT/DS259).
On 7 March 2002, the European Communities requested consultations with the United States
regarding the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US in the form of an increase in
duties on imports of certain flat steel, hot-rolled bar, cold-finished bar, rebar, certain welded
tubular products, carbon and alloy fittings, stainless steel bar, stainless steel rod, tin mill
products and stainless steel wire and in the form of a tariff rate quota on imports of slabs
effective as of 20 March  2002.  The European Communities considered that theaforementioned US measures were in breach of US obligations under the Agreement on
Safeguards and GATT 1994, and in particular Articles 2.1, 2.2 ,3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 7.1
and 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards a nd Articles I:1, XIII and XIX:1 of GATT 1994.
The European Communities also reserved all its rights regarding the pursuit of the remedies
provided for under the Agreement on Safeguards and the DSU.
On 14 March 2002, Japan and Korea requested to join the consultations.  On 15 March 2002,
Switzerland and Canada also requested to join the consultations.  On 20 March 2002,
Venezuela also requested to join the consultations.  On 21 March 2002, Norway and China
requested to join the consultations as well.  On 22 March 2002, Mexico also requested to jointhe consultations.  On 25 March 2002, New Zealand also requested to join the consultations.
The US informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Canada, China, Japan, Korea,
Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and Venezuela to join the consultations.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 54
On 20 March 2002, Japan (WT/DS249) requested consultations with the United States also
with regard to the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on the imports of certain
steel products and claimed violations of Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7.1, 7.4. 8.1,
12.1, 12.2, 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I:1, II, X:3, XIII and XIX:2 of
GATT 1994.  On 27 March, Norway requested to join the consultations.  On 5 April, Mexicorequested to join the consultations.  On 9 April 2002, New Zealand requested to join the
consultations.  The US informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Mexico, New
Zealand and Norway to join the consultations.
On 20 March 2002, Korea (WT/DS251) requested consultations with the United States also
with regard to the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on the imports of certain
steel products and the related laws of the US, including Sections 201 and 202 of the TradeAct of 1974 and Section 311 of the NAFTA Impl ementation Act.  Korea claimed violations
of Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4, 5, 7.1, 7.4, 8.1, 9.1 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, Articles
X:3 and XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement.   On
27 March 2002, Japan and Norway requested to join the consultations.  On 5 April, Mexico
and New Zealand requested to join the consul tations. The US informed the DSB that it had
accepted the requests of Japan, Mexico, New Zealand and Norway to join the consultations.
On 26 March 2002, China (WT/DS252) requested consultations with the United States also
with regard to the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of certain
steel products and claimed violations of Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 7.1, 8.1,9.1 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I:1, II, X:3, XIX:1 and XIX:2 of
GATT 1994.  On 4 April 2002, Japan requested to join the consultations.  On 5 April 2002,
New Zealand also requested to join the consultations. The US informed the DSB that it had
accepted the requests of Japan and New Zealand to join the consultations.
On 3 April 2002, Switzerland (WT/DS253) also requested consultations with the United
States with regard to the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of
certain steel products and claimed violations of Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7.1, 8.1 and
12 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles  I:1 and XIX:1 of GATT 1994.  On 11 April
2002, New Zealand requested to join the consultations.  On 15 April 2002, Japan requested to
join the consultations.  The US informed the DS B that it had accepted the requests of Japan
and New Zealand to join consultations.
On 4 April 2002, Norway (WT/DS254) requested consultations with the United States with
regard to the same safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of certain steel products
and claimed violations of Articles 3, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7, 8.1, 9.1 and 12 of the Agreement on
Safeguards and Articles I:1, II, X:3 and XI X of GATT 1994.  On 11 April 2002, New Zealand
requested to join the consultations.  On 15 April 2002, Japan requested to join the
consultations. The US informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Japan and
New Zealand to join consultations.
On 14 May 2002, New Zealand (WT/DS258) requeste d consultations with the United States
with regard to the same safeguard measures on steel imposed by the US and claimed
violations of Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7, 8.1 and 12 of the Agreement on
Safeguards and Articles I:1, X and XIX:1 of GATT 1994.  On 24 May 2002, the European
Communities requested to join the consultations.  On 27 May 2002, Japan requested to join
the consultations.  On 30 May 2002, Korea requested to join the consultations.  On 31 May2002, Norway, China and Mexico requested to join  the consultations.  The US informed the
DSB that it had accepted the requests of China, the EC, Japan, Korea, Mexico and Norway to
join consultations.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 55
On 21 May 2002, Brazil (WT/DS259) requested consultations with the United States with
regard to the same definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of certain
steel products.  On 24 May 2002, the European Communities requested to join the
consultations.  On 27 May 2002, Japan requested to join the consultations.  On 30 May 2002,
Korea requested to join the consultations.  On 31 May 2002, Norway, China and Mexicorequested to join the consultations.  The US informed the DSB that it had accepted the
requests of China, the EC, Japan, Korea, Mexico and Norway to join consultations.
Further to individual requests for the establishment of a panel submitted by the eight
complainants at the following DSB meetings:
– 3 June 2002 – the EC claimed that the US  measures violated Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.2(a),
4.2(b), 4.2(c) and 5.1 of the Agreement on  Safeguards and Article XIX:1 of GATT
1994;
– 14 June 2002 – Japan claimed that the US measures violated Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of
the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I:1, X:3 and XIX:1 of GATT 1994.  Koreaclaimed that the US measures violated Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1 and 12 of the
Agreement on Safeguards and Articl es X:3, XIII and XIX of GATT 1994;
– 24 June 2002 – China claimed that the US measures violated Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1,
4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 8.1, 9.1 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I:1, II andXIX of GATT 1994.  Switzerland claimed that the US measures violated Articles 2.1,
2.2, 3.1, 4, 5.1 and 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX:1 of GATT
1994.  Norway claimed that the US measures violated Articles 2, 3, 4, 5.1, 7.1 and 9.1
of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I:1, X:3(a) and XIX of GATT 1994;
– 8 July 2002 – New Zealand claimed that th e US measures violated Articles 2.1, 2.2,
3.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7 and 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles X:3(a) and
XIX:1 of GATT 1994;
– 29 July 2002 – Brazil claimed that the US measures violated Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4
and 5 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I:1, X:3 and XIX:1 of GATT
1994;
the DSB established a single Panel, pursuant to an agreement between the parties and in
accordance with Article 9.1 of the DSU.
The Members which had reserved their third-party rights in the Panels established at the
request of these parties were also considered as third parties in the single Panel.  Canada,
Chinese Taipei, Cuba, Malaysia, Mexico, Thailand, Turkey and Venezuela have reserved
their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as a third party.
On 15 July 2002, the DSB was notified of a procedural agreement between the United States
and the European Communities, Japan, Korea, China, Switzerland, Norway and
New Zealand.  On 18 July 2002, the DSB was notified of a procedural agreement between the
United States and Brazil.
On 15 July 2002, the European Communities, Japan, Korea, China, Switzerland, Norway and
New Zealand requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel.  On
25 July 2002, the Panel was composed.
On 23 October 2002, Malaysia decided to withdraw as a third party from the panel
proceedings.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 56
On 20 February 2003, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that the Panel would not
be able to complete its work in six months due to the volume, complexities and sensitivity of
the legal and factual questions that had been raised.  The Panel hoped to complete its work by
the end of April 2003.
The Panel circulated its Reports2 to Members on 11 July 2003.  The Panel concluded that all
the United States' safeguard measures at issue were inconsistent with at least one of the
following WTO pre-requisites for the imposition of a safeguard measure: lack of
demonstration of (i) unforeseen developments;  (ii) increased imports;  (iii) causation;  and
(iv) parallelism.  The Panel thus requested the United States to bring the relevant safeguard
measures into conformity with its obligations under the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT1994..
On 11 August 2003, the US notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain
issues of law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the
Panel.
3. WT/DS245 – Japan – Measures Affect ing the Importation of Apples
Complaint by the United States.  On 1 March 2002, the United States requested consultations
with Japan regarding restrictions allegedly imposed by Japan on imports of apples from the
United States.
The United States' complaint arose from the maintenance by Japan of quarantine restrictions
on apples imported into Japan, which restrictions were said to be necessary to protect against
introduction of fire blight.  Among the measures the United States complained of were the
prohibition of imported apples from orchards in which any fire blight was detected, therequirement that export orchards be inspected three times yearly for the presence of fire blight
and the disqualification of any orchard from exporting to Japan should fire blight be detected
within a 500 meter buffer zone surrounding such orchard.
The United States claimed that these measures might be inconsistent with the obligations of
Japan under:
• Article XI of GATT 1994,
• Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6, 6.1, 6.2 and 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement, and
• Article 14 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
On 7 May 2002, the United States requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
22 May 2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request toby the United States, at its meeting on 3 June 2002, the DSB established a panel.  Australia,
                                                     
2 Although all complaints made by the eight co-complainants were considered in a single panel
process, the United States requested the issuance of eight separate panel reports, claiming that to do otherwise
would prejudice its WTO rights, including its right to settle the matter with individual complainants.  Thecomplainants vigorously opposed this request, stating that to grant it would only delay the panel process.  ThePanel decided to issue its decisions in the form of "one document constituting eight Panel Reports".  Thus, forWTO purposes, this document is deemed to be eight separate reports, relating to each of the eight complainantsin this dispute.  The document comprises a common cover page, a common descriptive part and a common set
of findings.  However, the document also contains conclusions and recommendations that are "particularized"
for each of the complainants, with a separate number (symbol) for each individual complainant.  In the Panel'sview, this approach respected the rights of all parties while ensuring the prompt and effective settlement of the
disputes.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 57
Brazil and the EC reserved their third-party rights.  On 10 June 2002, New Zealand reserved
its third party rights.  On 12 June 2002, Chinese Taipei reserved its third party rights.
On 9 July 2002, the US requested the Director-General to compose the panel.  On 17 July
2002, the panel was composed.  On 16 January 2003, the Chairman of the Panel informed theDSB that the Panel could not complete its work within 6 months from its composition.  The
Panel expected to issue its final report to the parties by the end of May 2003.
The Panel circulated its Report to Members on 15 July 2003.  The Panel found that Japan's
phytosanitary measure imposed on imports of apples from the United States was contrary to
Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement and was not justified under Article 5.7 of the SPS
Agreement and that Japan's 1999 Pest Risk A ssessment did not meet the requirements of
Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement.
On 28 August 2003, Japan notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues
of law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel.
4. WT/DS244 – United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan
Complaint by Japan.  On 30 January 2002, Japan requested consultations with the United
States in respect of the final determinations of both the United States Department of
Commerce (DOC) and the United States International Trade Commission in the full sunsetreview of the anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat
products from Japan.  These determinations were issued on 2 August 2000 and 21 November
2000, respectively.
• Japan claimed that these determinations were erroneous and based on deficient rulings,
procedures and provisions pertaining to the United States Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
("the Act") and related regulations.
• Japan further claimed that the procedures and provisions of the Act and related
regulations as well as the above determinations were inconsistent with, inter alia , Articles
VI and X of GATT 1994; Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 (including Annex II), 11, 12, and 18.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
On 13 February 2002, the EC requested to join the consultations.  On 14 February 2002, India
requested to join the consultations.
On 4 April 2002, Japan requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 17 April
2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. .  Further to a second request from
Japan, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 22 May 2002.  Brazil, Canada, Chile,
EC, India. Korea, Norway and Venezuela reserved third-party rights to participate in the
Panel proceedings.
On 9 July 2002, Japan requested the Director-General to compose the panel.  On 17 July
2002, the panel was composed.
On 5 August 2002 Venezuela decided to withdraw as a third party from the panel
proceedings.
On 9 January 2003, the Chair of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible to
complete its work within six months due to the timetable adopted after having heard the
parties' views and based on the time periods prescribed in Appendix 3 of the DSU.  The PanelWT/DS/OV/16
Page 58
expected to complete its work by April 2003.  On 22 May 2003, the Panel issued its report to
the parties to the dispute. On 14 August 2003, the Panel circulated its Report to the Members.
The Panel rejected all of Japan's claims challenging various aspects of the US laws and
regulations regarding the conduct of "sunset" reviews of anti-dumping duties under US law.
The Panel found, inter alia , that the obligations pertaining to evidentiary standards for self-
initiation and de minimis  standards in investigations do not apply to sunset reviews.  The
Panel also rejected Japan's argument that the US Sunset Policy Bulletin  – which, by its own
terms, provides guidance on methodological or analytical issues not explicitly addressed by
the US statute and regulations -- was a mandatory instrument that could be challenged as such
in WTO dispute settlement.  Rather, the Panel found that the Bulletin  may be challenged only
in respect of its application by the US Department of Commerce ("USDOC") in a particular
case.  The Panel further found that the USDOC's determination of likelihood of continuationor recurrence of dumping in this particular case was not WTO-inconsistent.  Accordingly, the
Panel made no recommendation.
On 15 September 2003, Japan sent its notification of an appeal to the DSB and filed the
Notice of Appeal with the Appellate Body.
B. COMPLIANCE PANEL REPORTS (ARTICLE 21.5)
Nil
V. COMPLETED PANEL AND APPELLATE BODY REVIEW
A. APPELLATE BODY AND PANEL REPORTS ADOPTED
1. WT/DS2 and WT/DS4 – United States - St andards for Reformulated and Conventional
Gasoline
Complaints by Venezuela and Brazil.  Venezuela requested consultations on 24 January 1995
and Brazil on 10 April 1995.  Complainants alleged that a US gasoline regulation discriminated
against complainants' gasoline in violation of  GATT Articles I and III and Article 2 of the
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT).
Further to Venezuela's request, the DSB established a Panel at its meeting on 10 April 1995.
On 26 April 1995 the Panel was composed.  Further to Brazil's request, the DSB established a
Panel at its meeting on 19 June 1995.  On 31 May 1995, in accordance with Article 9 of the
DSU, it was agreed that a single panel would consider the complaints of Venezuela and Brazil.
The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 29 January 1996.  The report of the panelfound the regulation to be inconsistent with GATT Article III:4 and not to benefit from an
Article XX exception.
The US appealed on 21 February 1996.  On 22 Apr il, the Appellate Body  issued its report,
modifying the panel report on the interpretati on of GATT Article XX(g) , but concluding that
Article XX(g) was not applicable in this case.  The Appellate Report, together with the panel
report as modified by the Appellate Re port, was adopted by the DSB on 20 May 1996.
2. WT/DS8, WT/DS10 and WT/DS11 – Japa n - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages
Complaints by the European Communities, Canada and the United States.  The EC requested
consultations on 21 June 1995, and Canada and the US on 7 July 1995.  The complainants
claimed that spirits exported to Japan were discriminated against under the Japanese liquor taxWT/DS/OV/16
Page 59
system which, in their view, levies a substantially lower tax on "shochu" than on whisky,
cognac and white spirits.
A joint panel was established at the DSB meeting on 27 September 1995.  On 30 October 1995,
the Panel was composed.  The report of the panel, which found the Japanese tax system to beinconsistent with GATT Article III:2, wa s circulated to Members on 11 July 1996.
On 8 August 1996 Japan filed an appeal. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 4 October 1996. The Appellate Body's Report affirmed the Panel's conclusion that
the Japanese Liquor Tax Law is inconsistent with GATT Article III:2, but pointed out several
areas where the Panel had erred in its legal reas oning. The Appellate Report, together with the
panel report as modified by the Appellate Report, was adopted on 1 November 1996.
3. WT/DS18 – Australia - Measures Affe cting the Importation of Salmon
Complaint by Canada.  On 5 October 1995, Canada  requested consultations with Australia in
respect of Australia's prohibition of imports  of salmon from Canada based on a quarantine
regulation.  Canada alleged that the prohibition is inconsistent with GATT Articles XI and X III,
and also inconsistent with the SPS Agreement.
On 7 march 1997, Canada requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 20 March
1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a
panel by Canada, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 10 April 1997.  The EC, India,Norway and the US reserved their third-party rights.  On 28 May 1997, the Panel was
composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 12 June 1998.  The Panel
found that Australia's measures complained ag ainst were inconsistent with Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1,
5.5, and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement, and also nullifi ed or impaired benefits accruing to Canada
under the SPS Agreement.
On 22 July 1998, Australia notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 20 October 1998.  The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's reasoning with respect
to Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement but nevertheless found that:
• Australia had acted inconsistently with Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement;
• broadened the Panel's finding that Australia had acted inconsistently with Articles 5.5 and
2.3 of the SPS Agreement;
• reversed the Panel's finding that Australia ha d acted inconsistently with Article 5.6 of the
SPS Agreement but was unable to come to a conclusion whether or not Australia's measurewas consistent with Article 5.6 due to insufficient factual findings by the Panel.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report a nd the Panel Report, as modified by the
Appellate Body Report, on 6 November 1998.
4. WT/DS22 – Brazil - Measures Affecting Desiccated Coconut
Complaint by the Philippines.  On 27 November 1995, the Philippines requested consultations
with Brazil in respect of a countervailing duty imposed by Brazil on the Philippine's exports of
desiccated coconut.  The Philippines claimed th at this duty was inconsistent with WTO and
GATT rules.
On 5 February 1996, the Philippines requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
21 February 1996, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second requestWT/DS/OV/16
Page 60
to establish a panel by the Philippines, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 5 March
1996.  Canada, the EC, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri La nka and the US reserved their third-party
rights.  On 16 April 1996, the Panel was composed.  The report was circulated to Members on
17 October 1996.  The report of the Panel concluded that the provisions of the agreements relied
on by the claimant were inapplicable to the dispute.
On 16 December 1996, the Philippines notified its decision to appeal against certain issues of
law and legal interpretations developed by the panel. The report of the Appellate Body was
circulated to Members on 21 February 1997.  The Appellate Body upheld the findings and legal
interpretations of the Panel.
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as  modified by the Appellate Body report, were
adopted by the DSB on 20 March 1997.
5. WT/DS24 – United States - Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man-Made Fibre
Underwear
Complaint by Costa Rica.  On 22 December 1995, Costa Rica requested consultations with the
United States concerning US restrictions on textile imports from Costa Rica.  Costa Rica
alleged that these restrictions were in violation of the ATC agreement.
Further to Costa Rica's request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 5 March 1996.
India reserved its third-party rights.  On 4 April 1996, the Panel was composed.  The report ofthe panel was circulated to members on 8 November 1996.  The Panel found that the US
restraints were not valid.
On 11 November 1996, Costa Rica notified its deci sion to appeal against one aspect of the
Panel report. The report of the Appellate Body  was circulated to Members on 10 February 1997.
The Appellate Body upheld the appeal by Cost a Rica on that particular point. The Appellate
Body report and the Panel report as modified by the Appellate Body report, were adopted by the
DSB on 25 February 1997.
6. WT/DS26 – European Communities - Measu res Affecting Meat and Meat Products
(Hormones)
Complaint by the United States.  On 26 January 1996, the United States requested consultations
with the European Communities claiming that measures taken by the EC under the Council
Directive Prohibiting the Use in Livestock Farm ing of Certain Substances Having a Hormonal
Action restrict or prohibit imports of meat a nd meat products from the United States, and are
apparently inconsistent with GATT Articles III or XI, SPS Agreement Articles 2, 3 and 5, TBT
Agreement Article 2 and the Agreement on Agriculture Article 4.
On 25 April 1996, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meetings on 8 May
1996, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a
panel by the US, a panel was established at the DSB meeting on 20 May 1996.  On 2 July 1996,
the Panel was composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 18 August1997.  The Panel found that the EC ban on imports of meat and meat products from cattle
treated with any of six specific hormones for gr owth promotion purposes was inconsistent with
Articles 3.1, 5.1 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.
On 24 September 1997, the EC notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel.  The Appe llate Body examined this appeal with that of
WT/DS48.  The report of the A ppellate Body was circulated to Members on 16 January 1998.
The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that the EC import prohibition was inconsistentWT/DS/OV/16
Page 61
with Articles 3.3 and 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, but reversed the Panel's finding that the EC
import prohibition was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.  On the
general and procedural issues, the Appellate B ody upheld most of the findings and conclusions
of the Panel, except with respect to the burden of proof in proceedings under the SPS
Agreement.
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report,  as modified by the Appellate Body, were
adopted by the DSB on 13 February 1998.
7. WT/DS27 – European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution
of Bananas
Complaints by Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras , Mexico and the United States.  The
complainants in this case other than Ecuador had requested consultations with the EC on the
same issue on 28 September 1995 (WT/DS16).  After Ecuador's accession to the WTO, the
current complainants again requested consu ltations with the EC on 5 February 1996.  The
complainants alleged that the EC's regime for importation, sale and distribution of bananas is
inconsistent with GATT Articles I, II, III, X, XI and XIII as well as provisions of the ImportLicensing Agreement, the Agreement on Agri culture, the TRIMs Agreement and the GATS.
On 11 April 1996, the five complainants requested th e establishment of a panel.  At its meeting
on 24 April 1996, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request by
the five complainants, a panel was established at the DSB meeting on 8 May 1996.  On 29 May1996, the five complainants requested the Director -General to determine the composition of the
Panel.  On 7 June 1996, the Panel was composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated to
Members on 22 May 1997.  The Panel found that the EC's banana import regime, and the
licensing procedures for the importation of banana s in this regime, are inconsistent with the
GATT.  The Panel further found that the Lomé waiver waives the inconsistency with GATT
Article XIII, but not inconsistencies arising from the licensing system.
On 11 June 1997, the European Communities notified its intention to appeal certain issues of
law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel.  The report of the Appellate Body was
circulated to Members on 9 September 1997.  The Appellate Body mostly upheld the Panel's
findings, but reversed the Panel's findings that  the inconsistency with GATT Article XIII is
waived by the Lomé waiver, and that certain aspects of the licensing regime violated Article Xof GATT and the Import Licensing Agreement.
At its meeting on 25 September 1997, the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as
modified by the Appellate Body, were adopted by the DSB.
8. WT/DS31 – Canada - Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals
Complaint by the United States. On 11 March 1996, the United States requested consultations
with Canada concerning certain measures prohi biting or restricting the importation into Canada
of certain periodicals.  The US claimed that  the measures are in contravention of GATT
Article XI.  The US further alleged that the tax treatment of so-called "split-run" periodicals and
the application of favourable postage rates to cer tain Canadian periodicals are inconsistent with
GATT Article III.
On 24 May 1996, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 6 June 1996,
the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panelby the US, the DSB established a panel on 19 June 1996.  On 25 July 1996, the Panel was
composed.  The report of the Panel  was circulated to Members on 14 March 1997.  The Panel
found the measures applied by Canada to be in violation of GATT rules.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 62
On 29 April 1997, Canada notified its intention to  appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 30 June 1997.  The Appellate Body uphe ld the Panel's findings and conclusions on
the applicability of GATT 1994 to Part V.1 of Canada's Excise Tax Act, but reversed the Panel'sfinding that Part V.1 of the Excise Act is inconsistent with the first sentence of Article III:2 of
GATT 1994.  The Appellate Body further concl uded that Part V.1 of the Excise Act is
inconsistent with the second sentence of Artic le III:2 of GATT 1994.  The Appellate Body also
reversed the Panel's conclusion that Canada's "funded" postal rate scheme is justified by Article
III:8(b) of GATT 1994.
At its meeting on 30 July 1997, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel
report, as modified by the Appellate Body.
9. WT/DS33 – United States - Measure A ffecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and
Blouses
Complaint by India.  On 30 December 1994, I ndia requested consultations with the United
States concerning the transitional safeguard measure imposed by the United States.  India
claimed that the safeguard measure is incons istent with Articles 2, 6 and 8 of the ATC.
On 14 March 1996, India requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 27 March
1996, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establisha panel by India, the DSB meeting established a panel at its meeting on 17 April 1996.  Canada,
the EC, Norway, Pakistan and Turkey reserved their third party rights.  On 24 June 1996, the
Panel was composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 6 January 1997.
The Panel found that the safeguard measure im posed by the United States violated the
provisions of the ATC.
On 24 February 1997, India notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 25 April 1997.  The Appellate Body uphe ld the Panel's decisions on those issues of
law and legal interpretations that were appealed against.
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body, were adopted
by the DSB on 23 May 1997.
10. WT/DS34 – Turkey - Restrictions on Im ports of Textile and Clothing Products
Complaint by India.  On 21 March 1996, India requested consultations with Turkey
concerning Turkey's imposition of quantitative restrictions on imports of a broad range oftextile and clothing products.  India claimed that those measures are inconsistent with
Articles XI and XIII of GATT 1994, as well as ATC Article 2.  Earlier, India had requested to
be joined in the consultations between Hong  Kong and Turkey on the same subject matter
(WT/DS29).
On 2 February 1998, India requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 13
February 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by India, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 13 March 1998.
Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, the US and H ong Kong, China reserved their third-party
rights. On 11 June 1998, the Panel was composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated toMembers on 31 May 1999.  The Panel found that Turkey's measures are inconsistent with
Articles XI and XIII of GATT 1994, and consequently inconsistent also with Article 2.4 ofWT/DS/OV/16
Page 63
the ATC.  The Panel also rejected Turkey's assertion that its measures are justified by Article
XXIV of GATT 1994.
On 26 July 1999, Turkey notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel.  The report of the Appellate Body was circulated on21 October 1999.  The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's conclusion that Article XXIV of
GATT 1994 does not allow Turkey to adopt, upon the formation of a customs union with the
EC, quantitative restrictions which were found to be inconsistent with Articles XI and XIII of
GATT 1994 and Article 2.4 of the ATC.  However, the Appellate Body concluded that the
Panel erred in its legal reasoning in interpreting Article XXIV of GATT 1994.
At its meeting on 19 November 1999, the DSB adopt ed the Appellate Body report and the Panel
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.
11. WT/DS44 – Japan - Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and Paper
Complaint by the United States.  On 13 June  1996, the United States requested consultations
with Japan concerning Japan's laws, regulati ons and requirements affecting the distribution,
offering for sale and internal sale of importe d consumer photographic film and paper.  The US
alleged that:
• the Japanese Government treated imported film and paper less favourably through these
measures, in violation of GATT Articles III and X.
• these measures nullify or impair benefits accruing to the US (a non-violation claim).
On 20 September 1996, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 3
October 1996, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 16 October 1996.
The EC and Mexico reserved their third part y rights.  On 12 December 1996, the US requested
the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel.  On 17 December 1996, thePanel was composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 31 March 1998.
The Panel found:
• that the US had not demonstrated that the Japanese 'measures' cited by the US nullified or
impaired, either individually or collectively, be nefits accruing to the US within the meaning
of GATT Article XXIII:1(b);
• that the US had not demonstrated that the Ja panese distribution 'measures' cited by the US
accord less favourable treatment to imported photographic film and paper within themeaning of GATT Article III:4;  and
• that the US did not demonstrate that Japan failed to publish administrative rulings of
general application in violation of GATT Article X:1.
The Panel report was adopted by the DSB on 22 April 1998.
12. WT/DS46 – Brazil - Export Financing Programme for Aircraft
Complaint by Canada.  On 19 June 1996, Canada requested consultations with Brazil based on
Article 4 of the Subsidies Agreement, which provides for special procedures for export
subsidies. Canada claimed that export subsidies granted under the Brazilian Programa de
Financiamento às Exportações (PROEX) , to foreign purchasers of Brazil's Embraer aircraft are
inconsistent with the Subsidies Agreement Articles 3, 27.4 and 27.5.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 64
Canada requested the establishment of a panel on 16 September 1996, alleging violations of
both the Subsidies Agreement and GATT 1994.  The DSB considered this request at its meeting
on 27 September 1996.  Due to Brazil's objection to the establishment of a panel, Canada agreed
to modify its request, limiting the scope of th e request to the Subsidies Agreement.  The
modified request was submitted by Canada on 3 October 1996 but was subsequently withdrawn
prior to a DSB meeting at which it was to be considered.
On 10 July 1998, Canada again requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
23 July 1998, the DSB established a Panel.  The EC and the US reserved their third-party rights.
On 16 October 1998, Canada requested the Director-General to determine the composition of
the Panel.  On 22 October 1998, the Panel was composed.  The report of the Panel was
circulated to Members on 14 April 1999.  Th e Panel found that Brazil's measures were
inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) and 27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement.
On 3 May 1999, Brazil notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 2 August 1999.  The Appellate Body upheld all the findings of the panel, butreversed and modified the panel's interpretation of  the "material advantage" clause in item (k) of
the Illustrative List of Export Subsid ies in Annex I of the SCM Agreement.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report a nd the Panel Report, as modified by the
Appellate Body Report, on 20 August 1999.
13. WT/DS48 – European Communities - Measures Affecting Livestock and Meat
(Hormones)
Complaint by Canada.  On 28 June 1996, Canada requested consultations with the EC regarding
the importation of livestock and meat from live stock that have been treated with certain
substances having a hormonal action unde r GATT Article XXII and the corresponding
provisions in the SPS, TBT and Agriculture Agreements.  Violations SPS Articles 2, 3 and 5;
GATT Article III or XI; TBT Article 2; and Agriculture Article 4 are alleged.  The Canadian
claim was essentially the same as the US claim (WT/DS26), for which a panel was established
earlier.
On 16 September 1996, Canada requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 27
September 1996, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request
to establish a panel by Canada, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 16 October 1996.
On 4 November 1996, the Panel was composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated to
Members on 18 August 1997.  The Panel found that  the EC ban on imports of meat and meat
products from cattle treated with any of six specific hormones for growth promotion purposeswas inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 5.1 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.
On 24 September 1997, the EC notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel.  The Appe llate Body examined this appeal with that of
WT/DS26.  The report of the A ppellate Body was circulated to Members on 16 January 1998.
The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that the EC import prohibition was inconsistent
with Articles 3.3 and 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, but reversed the Panel's finding that the EC
import prohibition was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.  On the
general and procedural issues, the Appellate B ody upheld most of the findings and conclusions
of the Panel, except with respect to the burden of proof in proceedings under the SPS
Agreement.
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report,  as modified by the Appellate Body, were
adopted by the DSB on 13 February 1998.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 65
14. WT/DS50 – India - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical
Products
Complaint by the United States.  On 2 July 1996, the US requested consultations with India
concerning the alleged absence of patent protection for pharmaceutical and agricultural
chemical products in India. Violations of  the TRIPS Agreement Articles 27, 65 and 70 are
claimed.
The DSB established a panel at its meeting on 20 November 1996.  The EC reserved their third
party rights.  On 29 January 1997, the Panel was composed.  The report of the Panel was
circulated on 5 September 1997.  The Panel found that India has not complied with its
obligations under Article 70.8(a) or Article 63(1) and (2) of the TRIPS Agreement by failing toestablish a mechanism that adequately preserves novelty and priority in respect of applications
for product patents for pharmaceutical and agricultu ral chemical inventions, and was also not in
compliance with Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreem ent by failing to establish a system for the
grant of exclusive marketing rights.
On 15 October 1997, India notified its intention to  appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 19 December 1997.  The Appellate B ody upheld, with modifications, the Panel's
findings on Articles 70.8 and 70.9, but ruled that Arti cle 63(1) was not within the Panel's terms
of reference.
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report,  as modified by the Appellate Body, were
adopted by the DSB on 16 January 1998.
15. WT/DS54, WT/DS55, WT/DS 59 and WT/DS64 – Indonesia – Certain Measures
Affecting the Automobile Industry
Complaints by the European Communities (WT/DS54), Japan (WT/DS55 and WT/DS64), and
the United States (WT/DS59).  On 3 Octobe r 1996, the EC requested consultations with
Indonesia, on 4 October 1996 and 29 November  1996, Japan requested consultations with
Indonesia, and on 8 October 1996, the US request ed consultations with Indonesia concerning
Indonesia's National Car Programme.  The EC alleged that the exemption from customs duties
and luxury taxes on imports of "national vehicles" and components thereof, and relatedmeasures were in violation of Indonesia's obligations under Articles I and III of GATT 1994,
Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement and Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.  Japan contended that
these measures were in violation of Indonesi a's obligations under Articles I:1, III:2, III:4 and
X:3(a) of GATT 1994, as well as Articles 2 and 5.4 of the TRIMs Agreement.  The US
contended that the measures were in violati on of Indonesia's obligations under Article I and III
of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement,  Article 3, 6 and 28 of the SCM Agreement
and Articles 3, 20 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement.
On 17 April 1997, Japan requested the establishment of a panel with respect to complaints
WT/DS55 and WT/DS64.  At its meetin g on 30 April 1997, the DSB deferred the
establishment of a panel. On 12 May 1997, the EC requested the establishment of a panel
with respect to WT/DS54.  At its m eeting on 23 May 1997, the DSB deferred the
establishment of a panel.  Further to the EC's and Japan's second requests, the DSB established
a panel at its meeting on 12 June 1997.  In accordance with Article 9.1 of the DSU, the DSB
decided that a single panel will examine the disputes WT/DS54, WT/DS55 and WT/DS64.
India, Korea and the US reserved their third party rights.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 66
On 12 June 1997, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 25 June
1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by the US, the DSB established a Panel at its meeting on 30 July 1997.  In accordance
with Article 9.1 of the DSU, the DSB decided that a single panel will examine this dispute
together with WT/DS54, WT/DS55 and WT/DS64.  India and Ko rea reserved their third party
rights.
On 25 July 1997, the EC and Japan requested the Director-General to determine the
composition of the Panel.  On 29 July 1997, the Panel was composed.
The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 2 July 1998.  The Panel found that
Indonesia was in violation of Articles I a nd II:2 of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMs
Agreement, Article 5(c) of the SCM Agreement, but was not in violati on of Article 28.2 of the
SCM Agreement.  The Panel however, found that the complainants had not demonstrated that
Indonesia was in violation of Ar ticles 3 and 65.5 of the TRIPS Agreement. At its meeting on 23
July 1998, the DSB adopted the Panel report.
16. WT/DS56 – Argentina - Certai n Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles,
Apparel and Other Items
Complaint by the United States.  On 4 October 1996, the US requested consultations with
Argentina concerning the imposition of specific duties on these items in excess of the bound
rate and other measures by Argentina. The US c ontended that these measures violate Articles II,
VII, VIII and X of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, Article 1 to 8 of the
Agreement on the Implementation of Articl e  VII of GATT 1994, and Article 7 of the
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.
On 9 January 1997, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 22
January 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 25 February 1997.
The EC and India reserved their third-party ri ghts.  On 4 April 1997, the Panel was composed.
The report of the Panel was circulated on 25 November 1997.  The Panel found that the
minimum specific duties imposed by Argentina on textiles and apparel are inconsistent with the
requirements of Article II of GATT, and that  the statistical tax of three per cent ad valorem
imposed by Argentina on imports is inconsistent with the requirements of Article VIII ofGATT.
On 21 January 1998, Argentina notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 27 March 1998.  The Appellate Body upheld, with some modification, the Panel's
findings and conclusions.
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report,  as modified by the Appellate Body, were
adopted by the DSB on 22 April 1998.
17. WT/DS58 – United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products
Complaint by India, Malaysia, Pakistan a nd Thailand. On 8 October 1996, India, Malaysia,
Pakistan and Thailand requested consultations with the US concerning a ban on importation of
shrimp and shrimp products from these complainants imposed by the US under Section 609 of
US Public Law 101-162. Viola tions of Articles I, XI and XIII of GATT 1994, as well
nullification and impairment of benefits, were alleged.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 67
On 9 January 1997, Malaysia and Thailand requested the establishment of a panel.  At its
meeting on 22 January 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  On 30 January
1997, Pakistan also requested the establishment of a panel.  Further to Malaysia's, Pakistan's and
Thailand's requests, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 25 February 1997.  Australia,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, the EC, Guatemal a, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria,
the Philippines, Senegal, Singapore and Sri Lanka reserved their third-party rights.
On 25 February 1997, India also requested the establishment of a panel on the same matter.  At
its meeting on 20 March 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a
second request to establish a panel by India, the DSB agreed to establish a panel at its meeting
on 10 April 1997.  It was also agreed to incorporat e this panel with that already established in
respect of the other complainants. El Salvador a nd Venezuela reserved their third party rights, in
addition to those delegations who had reserved thei r third-party rights to the panel established at
the requests of Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand.
On 15 April 1997, the Panel was composed.
The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 15 May 1998.  The Panel found that the
import ban in shrimp and shrimp products as applied by the United States is inconsistent with
Article XI:1 of GATT 1994, and cannot be justified under Article XX of GATT 1994.
On 13 July 1998, the US notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 12 October 1998.  The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding that the US
measure at issue is not within the scope of measures permitted under the chapeau of Article XX
of GATT 1994, but concluded that the US m easure, while qualifying for provisional
justification under Article XX(g), fails to meet  the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report a nd the Panel Report, as modified by the
Appellate Body Report, on 6 November 1998.
18. WT/DS60 – Guatemala - Anti-D umping Investigation Regarding Imports of Portland
Cement from Mexico
Complaint by Mexico.  On 15 October 1996, Mexico  requested consultations with Guatemala in
respect of an anti-dumping investigation commen ced by Guatemala with regard to imports of
portland cement from Mexico. Mexico alleged that this investigation was in violation of
Guatemala's obligations under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 7.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
On 4 February 1997, Mexico requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 25
February 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by Mexico, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 20 March 1997.
The US, Canada, Honduras and El Salvador rese rved their third-party rights. On 21 April 1997,
Mexico requested the Director-General to dete rmine the composition of the Panel.  On 1 May
1997, the Panel was composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 19 June1998.  The Panel found that Guatemala had failed to comply with the requirements of Article
5.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by initiating the investigation on the basis of evidence of
dumping, injury and casual link that was not "s ufficient" as a justification for initiation.
On 4 August 1998, Guatemala notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 2 November 1998.  The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding that the
dispute was properly before the Panel, on the ground that Mexico did not comply with Article
6.2 of the DSU in its request for a panel since it did not identify the measure it was complainingWT/DS/OV/16
Page 68
against.  Having found that the dispute was no t properly before the Panel, the Appellate Body
could not make any conclusions on the findings by  the Panel on the substantive issues that were
also the subject of the appeal.  The Appell ate Body stressed that its decision was without
prejudice to Mexico's right to pursue new di spute settlement proceedings on this matter.
At the DSB meeting on 25 November 1998, the DS B adopted the Appellate Body Report and
the Panel Report, as reversed by the Appellate Body Report.
19. WT/DS62, WT/DS67 and WT/DS 68 – European Communities - Customs Classification
of Certain Computer Equipment
Complaints by the United States.  These are in respect of the alleged reclassification by the
European Communities, for tariff purposes, of certain Local Area Network (LAN) adapterequipment and personal computers with multim edia capability. The US alleged that these
measures violate Article II of GATT 1994.
At its meeting on 25 February 1997, the DSB established a panel in respect of the complaint
WT/DS62.  Japan, Korea, India and Singapore reserv ed their third-party rights.  At its meeting
on 20 March 1997, the DSB established a panel in respect of the complaints WT/DS67 and
WT/DS68.  In accordance with Article 9.1 of the DSU, the DSB agreed to establish a single
panel to examine the complaints  WT/DS62, WT/DS 67 and WT/DS68.
The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 5 February 1998.  The Panel found that
the EC failed to accord imports of LAN equi pment from the US treatment no less favourable
than that provided for in the EC Schedule of commitments, thereby acting inconsistently with
Article II:1 of GATT 1994.
On 24 March 1998, the EC notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 5 June 1998.  The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's conclusion that the EC
tariff treatment of LAN equipment is in consistent with Article II:1 of GATT 1994.
At its meeting on 22 June 1998, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.
20. WT/DS69 – European Communities - Measures Affecting Importation of Certain
Poultry Products
Complaint by Brazil.  On 24 February 1997, Br azil requested consulta tions with the EC in
respect of the EC regime for the importation of  certain poultry products and the implementation
by the EC of the Tariff Rate Quota for these products.  Brazil contended that the EC measures
are inconsistent with Articles X and XXV II of GATT 1994 and Articles 1 and 3 of the
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  Brazil also contended that the measures nullify or
impair benefits accruing to it directly or indirectly under GATT 1994.
On 12 June 1997, Brazil requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 25 June
1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by Brazil, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 30 July 1997.  Thailand and the
US reserved their third-party rights. On 11 August 1997, the Panel was composed.  The report
of the Panel was circulated to Members on 12 March 1998.  The panel found that Brazil had not
demonstrated that the EC had failed to implemen t and administer the tariff rate quota for poultry
in line with its obligations under the cited agreements.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 69
On 29 April 1998, Brazil notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 13 July 1998.  The Appellate Body upheld most of the Panel's findings and
conclusions, but reversed the Panel's finding that  the EC had acted inconsistently with Article
5.1(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture.  The A ppellate Body, however, concluded that the EC
had acted inconsistently with Article 5.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
At its meeting on 23 July 1998, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.
21. WT/DS70 – Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft
Complaint by Brazil.  On 10 March 1997, Brazil requested consultations with Canada in respect
of certain subsidies granted by the Government of Canada or its provinces intended to support
the export of civilian aircraft.  The request wa s made pursuant to Article 4 of the Subsidies
Agreement.  Brazil contended that these measures are inconsistent with Article 3 of the
Subsidies Agreement.
At its meeting on 23 July 1998, the DSB established a panel.  The US reserved its third party
rights.  On 16 October 1998, Brazil requested the Director-General to determine the
composition of the Panel.  On 22 October 1998, the Panel was composed. The report of the
panel was circulated to Members on 14 April 1999. The Panel found that certain of Canada's
measures were inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the Subsidies Agreement, but
rejected Brazil's claim that EDC assistance to th e Canadian regional aircraft industry constitutes
export subsidies.
On 3 May 1999, Canada notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 2 August 1999.  The Appellate Body upheld the findings of the panel.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body  and Panel Reports on 20 August 1999.
22. WT/DS75 and WT/DS84 – Korea - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages
Complaints by the European Communities and the United States.  On 4 April 1997, the EC
requested consultations with Korea in respect of internal taxes imposed by Korea on certain
alcoholic beverages pursuant to its Liquor Tax Law and Education Tax Law.  The EC
contended that the Korean Liquor Tax Law and Education Tax Law appear to be inconsistent
with Korea's obligations under Article III:2 of GATT 1994.  On 23 May 1997, the US requested
consultations with Korea in respect of the same  measures complained of by the EC.  The US
also alleged violations of Article III:2.
On 10 September 1997, the EC and the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its
meeting on 25 September 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a
second request to establish a panel by the EC and the US, the DSB established a panel at its
meeting on 16 October 1997.  Canada and Mexico reserved their third-party rights.  On 26
November 1997, the EC and the US requested the Director-General to determine the
composition of the Panel.  On 5 December 1997, the Panel was composed.  The report of the
Panel was circulated to Members on 17 September 1998.  The Panel found that:
• soju (both diluted and distilled), is directly competitive and substitutable with the imported
distilled alcoholic beverages that were in issue, namely, whisky, brandy, rum, gin, vodka,
tequila, liqueurs and ad-mixtures.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 70
• Korea has taxed the imported products in a dissimilar manner and that the tax differential
was more than de minimis , and is applied so as to afford protection to domestic production.
• The Panel therefore concluded that Kor ea had violated Article III:2 of GATT 1994.
On 20 October 1998, Korea notified its intention to  appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 18 January 1999.  The Appellate Body upheld the panel's findings on all points.
The DSB adopted the Panel and Appella te Body Reports on 17 February 1999.
23. WT/DS76 – Japan - Measures Affecting Agricultural Products
Complaint by the United States.  On 7 April 1997, the US requested consultations with Japan in
respect of the latter's prohibition, under quarantine measures, of imports of certain agricultural
products.  The US alleged that Japan prohibits  the importation of each variety of a product
requiring quarantine treatment until the quarantine treatment has been tested for that variety,
even if the treatment has proved to be effectiv e for other varieties of the same product.  The US
alleged violations of Articles 2, 5 and 8 of  the SPS Agreement, Article XI of GATT 1994, and
Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  In addition, the US made a claim for nullification
and impairment of benefits.
On 3 October 1997, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 16
October 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 18 November 1997.
The EC, Hungary and Brazil reserved their third-party rights. The report of the Panel wascirculated to Members on 27 October 1998.  The Panel found that Japan acted inconsistently
with Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement, and Annex B and, consequently, Article 7 of
the SPS Agreement.
On 24 November 1998, Japan notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 22 February 1999.  The Appellate B ody upheld the basic finding that Japan's
varietal testing of apples, cherries, nectarines and walnuts is inconsistent with the requirements
of the SPS Agreement.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report a nd the Panel Report, as modified by the
Appellate Body Report, on 19 March 1999.
24. WT/DS79 – India - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical
Products
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 28 April 1997, the EC requested consultations
with India in respect of the alleged absence in  India of patent protection for pharmaceutical and
agricultural chemical products, and the absence of formal systems that permit the filing of
patent applications of and provide exclusiv e marketing rights for such products.  The EC
contended that this is inconsistent with India's obligations under Article 70, paragraphs 8 and 9,
of the TRIPS Agreement (see similar US co mplaint in WT/DS50, where the Panel and
Appellate Body reports were adopted on 16 January 1998).
On 9 September 1997, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 25
September 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request
to establish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 16 October 1997.
The US reserved its third-party rights. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 24August 1998.  The Panel found that India has not  complied with its obligations under ArticleWT/DS/OV/16
Page 71
70.8(a) of the TRIPS Agreement by failing to establish a legal basis that adequately preserves
novelty and priority in respect of applica tions for product patents for pharmaceutical and
agricultural chemical inventions, and was also not in compliance with Article 70.9 of the TRIPS
Agreement by failing to establish a system for the grant of exclusive marketing rights. At its
meeting on 22 September 1998, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.
25. WT/DS87 and WT/DS110 – Chile - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages
Complaints by the European Communities.  On 4 June 1997 and 15 December 1997, the EC
requested consultations with Chile in respect of Chile's Special Sales Tax on spirits, which
allegedly imposes a higher tax on imported spirits than on Pisco , a locally brewed spirit.  The
EC's second request (WT/DS110), takes issue wi th the modification to the law on taxation on
alcoholic beverages passed by Chile to address the concerns of the EC in WT/DS87.  The EC
contended that this differential treatment of imported spirits violates Article III:2 of GATT
1994.
On 3 October 1997, the EC requested the establishment of a panel in respect of the complaint
WT/DS87.  At its meeting on 16 October 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of apanel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel
at its meeting on 18 November 1997. Canada, Mexi co, Peru and the US reserved their third-
party rights.
Further to the EC's complaint with respect to WT /DS110, the DSB established a panel at its
meeting on 25 March 1998.  The DSB also agreed that  a single panel be established to examine
the two complaints.  Peru, Canada and the US re served their third-party rights.  On 10 and 11
June 1998, the EC and Chile, respectively, request ed the Director-General to determine the
composition of the Panel.  On 1 July 1998, the Panel was composed. The report of the panel
was circulated to Members on 15 June 1999.  The panel found that Chile's Transitional Systemand its New System for taxation of distille d alcoholic beverages was inconsistent with
Article III:2 of GATT 1994.
On 13 September 1999, Chile notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 13 December 1999.  The Appellate B ody upheld the panel's interpretation and
application of Article III:2 of GATT 1994, subject to exclusion of certain considerations relied
upon by the panel.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report a nd the Panel Report, as modified by the
Appellate Body Report, on 12 January 2000.
26. WT/DS90 – India - Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Products
Complaint by the United States.  On 15 July 1997, the US requested consultations with India in
respect of quantitative restrictions maintained by India on importation of a large number of
agricultural, textile and industrial products.  The US contended that these quantitativerestrictions, including the more than 2,700 agricultural and industrial product tariff lines notified
to the WTO, are inconsistent with India's obligations under Articles XI:1 and XVIII:11 of
GATT 1994, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agricu lture, and Article 3 of the Agreement on
Import Licensing Procedures.
On 3 October 1997, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 16
October 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 18 November 1997.  On 10WT/DS/OV/16
Page 72
February 1998, the US requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the
Panel.  On 20 February 1998, the Panel was com posed.  The report of the Panel was circulated
to Members on 6 April 1999.  The panel found that th e measures at issue were inconsistent with
India's obligations under Articles XI and XVIII11 of GATT 1994, and to the extent that the
measures apply to products subject to the Ag reement on Agriculture, are inconsistent with
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  The panel also found the measures to be
nullifying or impairing benefits accruing to the United States under GATT 1994, and the
Agreement on Agriculture.
On 26 May 1999, India notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel.  The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 23 August 1999.  The Appellate Body upheld all of the findings of the panel thatwere appealed from.
The DSB adopted the Panel and Appellate Body  reports at its meeting on 22 September 1999.
27. WT/DS98 – Korea - Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy
Products
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 12 August 1997, the EC requested consultations
with Korea in respect of a definitive safeguard measure imposed by Korea on imports of certain
dairy products.  The EC contended that under the provisions of different governmental
measures, Korea has imposed a safeguard measure in the form of an import quota on imports ofcertain dairy products.  The EC considered that th is measure is in violation of Articles 2, 4, 5
and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguard Measures , as well as a violation of Article XIX of
GATT 1994.
On 9 January 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At the DSB meeting on
22 January 1998, the EC informed the DSB that it was, for the time being, not pursuing the
panel request.  On 10 June 1998, the EC made a another request to establish a panel.  At its
meeting on 22 June 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to another
request to establish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 23 July
1998. The US reserved its third party rights.  On 20 August 1998, the Panel was composed.  The
report of the panel was circulated to Member s on 21 June 1999.  The panel found that Korea's
measure is inconsistent with Articles 4.2(a), and 5 of the Agreement on Safeguards, but rejected
the EC claims under Article XIX of GAT T 1994, Articles 2.1, 12.1 (although it found that
Korea's notifications to the Committee on Safeguar ds were not timely, and to that extent were
inconsistent with Article 12.1), 12.2 a nd 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards.
On 15 September 1999, Korea notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 14 December 1999.  The Appellate Body  reversed one of the panel's conclusions
on the interpretation of Article XIX of GATT 1994 and its relationship with the Agreement on
Safeguards; upheld one, but reversed another of the panel's interpretations of Article 5.1 of the
Agreement on Safeguards; and concluded that Ko rea violated Article 12.2 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, thereby reversing in part the panel's finding.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report a nd the Panel Report, as modified by the
Appellate Body Report, on 12 January 2000.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 73
28. WT/DS99 – United States - Anti-Dumping  Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory
Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea
Complaint by Korea.  On 14 August 1997, Korea requested consultations with the US in respect
of a decision of the US Depart ment of Commerce (DoC) not to revoke the anti-dumping duty
on dynamic random access memory semi-conductors (DRAMS) of one megabyte or aboveoriginating from Korea.  Korea contended that the DoC's decision was made despite the finding
that the Korean DRAM producers have not dump ed their products for a period of more than
three and a half consecutive years, and despite the existence of evidence demonstrating
conclusively that Korean DRAM producers will not engage in dumping DRAMS in the future.
Korea considered that these measures are in vi olation of Articles 6 and 11 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement.
On 6 November 1997, Korea requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 18
November 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by Korea, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 16 January 1998. On
10 March 1998, Korea requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the
Panel.  On 19 March 1998, the Panel was composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated on29 January 1999.  The Panel found the measures compla ined of to be in violation of Article 11.2
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. At its meeting on 19 March 1999, the DSB adopted the Panel
Report.
29. WT/DS103 and WT/DS113 – Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and
the Exportation of Dairy Products
Complaints by the United States and New Zealand.
On 8 October 1997, the US requested consultations with Canada in respect of export subsidies
allegedly granted by Canada on dairy products a nd the administration by Canada of the tariff-
rate quota on milk.  The US contended that these export subsidies by Canada distort markets for
dairy products and adversely affect US sales of  dairy products.  The US alleged violations of
Article II, X and X1 of GATT 1994, Articles 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10 of the Agreement on Agriculture,
Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement, a nd Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Import Licensing
Agreement.
On 29 December 1997, New Zealand requested cons ultations with Canada in respect of an
alleged dairy export subsidy scheme commonly referred to as the "special milk classes" scheme.
New Zealand contended that the Canadian "special  milk classes" scheme is inconsistent with
Article XI of GATT, and Articles 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
On 2 February 1998, the US requested the estab lishment of a panel in respect of WT/DS103.
At its meeting on 13 February 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  On 25
March 1998, further to requests from the US and New Zealand, the DSB established, pursuant
to Article 9.1 of the DSU, a single panel to  examine the disputes WT/DS103 and WT/DS113.
Australia and Japan reserved their third-pa rty rights. On 12 August 1998, the Panel was
composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 17 May 1999.  The Panelfound that the measures complained against were  inconsistent with Canada's obligations under
Article II:1(b) of GATT 1994, and Articles 3.3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture by
providing export subsidies as listed in Ar ticle 9.1(a) and 9.1(c) of the Agreement on
Agriculture.
On 15 July 1999, Canada notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel.  The report of the Appellate Body was circulated on
13 October 1999.  The Appellate Body ruled as follows:WT/DS/OV/16
Page 74
• it reversed the Panel's interpretation of Article 9.1(a) and, in consequence, reversed the
Panel's finding that Canada acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 3.3 and 8
of the Agreement on Agriculture.
• it upheld the Panel's finding that Canada wa s in violation of Article 3.3 and 8 of the
Agreement on Agriculture in respect of export  subsidies listed in Article 9.1(c) of the
Agreement on Agriculture.
• it partly reversed the Panel's finding that Ca nada acted inconsistently with its obligations
under Article II:1(b) of GATT 1994.
At its meeting on 27 October 1999, the DSB adopted  the Appellate Body report and the Panel
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.
30. WT/DS108 – United States - Tax Treatm ent for "Foreign Sales Corporations"
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 18 November 1997, the EC requested
consultations with the US in re spect of Sections 921-927 of the US Internal Revenue Code and
related measures, establishing special tax trea tment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" (FSC).
The EC contended that these provisions we re inconsistent with US obligations under
Articles III:4 and XVI of the GATT 1994, Articles 3.1(a) and (b) of the Subsidies Agreement,
and Articles 3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
On 1 July 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a Panel.  In the request for a panel, the
EC invoked Article 3.1(a) and (b) of the Subsidies Agreement, and Articles 3 and 8, 9 and 10 of
the Agreement on Agriculture, and did not pursue the claims under the GATT 1994.  At its
meeting on 23 July 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a secondrequest to establish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 22
September 1998.  Barbados, Canada and Japan reserved their third-parties rights.  On 9
November 1998, the Panel was composed.  The report of the panel was circulated to Members
on 8 October 1999.  The panel found that, through the FSC scheme, the United States had acted
inconsistently with its obligations under Article  3.1(a) of the Subsidies Agreement as well as
with its obligations under Article 3.3 of the Ag reement on Agriculture (and consequently with
its obligations under Article 8 of that Agreement).
On 28 October 1999, the US notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the panel.  On  2 November 1999, the US withdrew its notice of
appeal pursuant to Rule 30 of the Working Pro cedures for Appellate Review, stating that the
withdrawal was conditional on its right to file a new notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 20 of the
Working Procedures.  On 26 November 1999, the US  notified its intention to appeal certain
issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the panel.  The report of the Appellate Body
was circulated to Members on 24 February 2000.  The Appellate Body ruled as follows:
• it upheld the panel's finding that the FSC measure constituted a prohibited subsidy under
Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement.
• it reversed the panel's finding that the FSC m easure involved "the provision of subsidies to
reduce the costs of marketing exports" of agricultural products under Article 9.1(d) of theAgriculture Agreement and, in consequence, reversed the panel's findings that the US had
acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 3.3 of the Agriculture Agreement.
• it found that the US acted inconsistently with  its obligations under Articles 10.1 and 8 of the
Agriculture Agreement by applying export subsidies, through the FSC measure, in a
manner which results in, or threatens to l ead to, circumvention of its export subsidy
commitments with respect to agricultural products.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 75
• it also emphasized that it was not ruling that a Member must choose one kind of tax system
over another so as to be consistent with that Member's WTO obligations.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and th e panel report, as modified by the Appellate
Body report, at its meeting on 20 March 2000.
31. WT/DS114 – Canada - Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products
Complaint by the European Communities and their member States.  On 19 December 1997, the
EC requested consultations with Canada in respect of the alleged lack of protection of
inventions by Canada in the area of pharmaceuticals under the relevant provisions of the
Canadian implementing legislation, in particular the Patent Act.  The EC alleged that Canada's
legislation is not compatible with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, because it does
not provide for the full protection of patented pharmaceutical inventions for the entire duration
of the term of protection envisaged by Ar ticles 27.1, 28 and 33 of the TRIPS Agreement.
On 11 November 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 25
November 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 1 February 1999.Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, India, Is rael, Japan, Poland, Switzerland, Thailand and the
United States reserved their third-party rights.  On 15 March 1999, the EC and their member
States requested the Director-General to determ ine the composition of the Panel.  On 25 March
1999, the Panel was composed.  The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 17
March 2000.  The panel found that:
• the so-called regulatory review exception provided for in Canada's Patent Act
(Section 55.2(1)) – the first aspect of the Patent Act challenged by the EC - was not
inconsistent with Article 27.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and was covered by the exception
in Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement and therefore not inconsistent with Article 28.1 of
the TRIPS Agreement.  Under the regulatory review exception, potential competitors of a
patent owner are permitted to use the patented invention, without the authorization of the
patent owner during the term of the patent, for the purposes of obtaining government
marketing approval, so that they will have re gulatory permission to sell in competition with
the patent owner by the date on which the patent expires.
• the so-called stockpiling exception (Section 55.2(2)) –the second aspect of the Patent Act
challenged by the EC, was inconsistent with Article 28.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and was
not covered by the exception in Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement.  Under the stockpiling
exception, competitors are allowed to manufacture and stockpile patented goods during a
certain period before the patent expires, but the goods cannot be sold until after the patent
expires.  The panel considered that, unlike the regulatory review exception, the stockpiling
exception constituted a substantial curtailment of the exclusionary rights required to be
granted to patent owners under Article 28.1 to such an extent that it could not be
considered to be a limited exception within  the meaning of Article 30 of the TRIPS
Agreement.
The DSB adopted the panel report at its meeting on 7 April 2000.
32. WT/DS121 - Argentina - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 3 April 1998, the EC requested consultations
with Argentina in respect of provisional and definitive safeguard measures imposed by
Argentina on imports of footwear.  The EC a sserted that by Resolution 226/97 of 24 February
1997, Argentina imposed a provisional safeguard measure in the form of specific duties onWT/DS/OV/16
Page 76
imports of footwear effective from 25 Fe bruary 1997, which was followed by Resolution
987/97, which imposed a definitive safeguard measure on these imports effective from
13 September 1997.  The EC alleged that the abov e measures violate Articles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 12
of the Agreement on Safeguards, and Article XIX of GATT 1994.
On 10 June 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 22 June
1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a
panel, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 23 July 1998.  Brazil, Indonesia, Paraguay,
the US and Uruguay reserved their third-par ties rights. On 15 September 1998, the Panel was
composed.  The report of the panel was circulated on 25 June 1999.  The panel found that
Argentina's measure is inconsistent with Ar ticles 2 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards.
On 15 September 1999, Argentina notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 14 December 1999.  The Appellate  Body upheld the panel's finding that
Argentina's measure is inconsistent with Artic les 2 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards, but
reversed certain findings and conclusions of the panel in respect of the relationship between the
Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX of GATT 1994 and the justification of imposing
safeguard measures only on non-MERCOSU R third country sources of supply.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report a nd the Panel Report, as modified by the
Appellate Body Report, on 12 January 2000.
33. WT/DS122 – Thailand - Anti-Dumping Duties on  Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or
Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland
Complaint by Poland. On 6 April 1998, Poland requested consultations with Thailand
concerning the imposition of final anti-dumping duties on imports of angles, shapes andsections of iron or non-alloy steel and H-beams.  Poland asserted that provisional
anti-dumping duties were imposed by Thailand on 27 December 1996, and a final
anti-dumping duty of 27.78% of CIF value for these products, produced or exported by any
Polish producer or exporter, was imposed on 26 May 1997.  Poland further asserted that
Thailand refused two requests by Poland for disclosure of findings.  Poland contended that
these actions by Thailand violate Articles 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
On 13 October 1999, Poland requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 27
October 1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by Poland, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 19 November 1999.
The EC, Japan and the US reserved their third-party rights. On 20 December 1999, the Panel
was composed.  The report was circulated to Members on 28 September 2000.  The Panelconcluded that:
(i) Poland failed to establish that Thailand had acted inconsistently with its obligations
under Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement or Article VI of the GATT 1994 in
the calculation of the amount for profit in constructing normal value.
(ii) Thailand's imposition of the definitive anti-dumping measure on imports of H-beams
from Poland was inconsistent with the requirements of Article 3 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement in that:
• inconsistently with the second sentence of Article 3.2 and Article 3.1, the Thai
authorities did not consider, on the basis of an "objective examination" of"positive evidence" in the disclosed factual basis, the price effects of dumped
imports;WT/DS/OV/16
Page 77
• inconsistently with Articles 3.4 and 3.1, the Thai investigating authorities failed
to consider certain factors listed in Article 3.4, and failed to provide an adequateexplanation of how the determination of injury could be reached on the basis of
an "unbiased or objective evaluation" or an "objective examination" of "positive
evidence" in the disclosed factual basis; and
• inconsistently with Articles 3.5 and 3.1, the Thai authorities made a
determination of a causal relationship between dumped imports and any possible
injury on the basis of (a) their findings concerning the price effects of dumped
imports, which the Panel had already found to be inconsistent with the second
sentence of Article 3.2 and Article 3.1; and (b) their findings concerning injury,
which the Panel had already found to be inconsistent with Article 3.4 and 3.1.
(iii) under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is infringement of the obligations
assumed under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie  to constitute
a case of nullification or impairment of benefits under that agreement, and that,
accordingly, to the extent Thailand has acted inconsistently with the provisions of the
AD Agreement, it has nullified or impaired benefits accruing to Poland under that
Agreement.
On 23 October 2000, Thailand notified the DSB of its decision to appeal certain issues of law
covered in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate
Body circulated its report on 12 March 2001.  The Appellate Body:
• upheld the Panel's conclusion that with respect to the claims under Articles 2, 3 and 5 of
the AD Agreement, the request for the establishment of a panel submitted by Poland in
this case was sufficient to meet the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU;
• reversed the finding of the Panel that the AD Agreement requires a panel reviewing the
imposition of an anti-dumping duty to consider only the facts, evidence and reasoning
that were disclosed to, or discernible by, Polish firms at the time of the final
determination of dumping.  The Appellate Body was of the view that there was no basis
for the Panel's reasoning, either in Article 3.1 of the AD Agreement, which lays down theobligations of Members with respect to the determination of injury, or in Article 17.6 of
the AD Agreement, which sets out the standard of review for panels.
• Although having reversed the reasoning of the Panel on this issue, it left undisturbed the
Panel's main findings of violation;
• upheld the Panel's conclusion under Article 3.4 of the AD Agreement.  The Appellate
Body agreed with the Panel that Article 3.4 requires a mandatory evaluation of all the
factors listed in that provision,
• concluded that the Panel did not err in its application of the burden of proof, or in the
application of the standard of review under Article 17.6(i) of the AD Agreement.
At its meeting of 5 April 2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.
34. WT/DS126 – Australia - Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive
Leather
Complaint by the United States.  On 4 May 1998, the US requested consultations with Australia
in respect of prohibited subsidies allegedly pr ovided to Australian producers and exporters of
automotive leather, including subsidies provid ed to Howe and Company Proprietary Ltd. (or
any of its affiliated and/or parent companies), which allegedly involve preferential government
loans of about A$25 million and non-commercial terms and grants of about A$30 million.  TheWT/DS/OV/16
Page 78
US contended that these measures violate the obligations of Australia under Article 3 of the
Subsidies Agreement.
Further to the US's request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 22 June 1998 (see also
WT/DS106).  On 27 October 1998, the US requested  the Director-General to determine the
composition of the Panel.  On 2 November 1998, the Panel was composed.  The report of the
Panel was circulated to Members on 25 May 1999.  The Panel found that the loan from the
Australian Government to Howe/ALH is not  a subsidy contingent upon export performance
within the meaning of Article 3.1(a) of the SC M Agreement, but that the payments under the
grant contract are subsidies within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement, which are
contingent upon export performance within the mean ing of Article 3.1(a) of that Agreement. At
its meeting on 16 June 1999, the DSB adopted the Panel report.
35. WT/DS132 – Mexico - Anti-Dum ping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup
(HFCS) from the United States
Complaint by the United States.  On 8 May 1998, the US requested consultations with Mexico
in respect of an anti-dumping investigation of  high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) grades 42 and
55 from the US, conducted by Mexico.  The US alleged that on 27 February 1997, the
Government of Mexico published a notice initiating this anti-dumping investigation on the basis
of an application dated 14 January 1997 from the Mexican National Chamber of Sugar and
Alcohol Producers.  The US further alleged th at on 23 January 1998, Mexico issued  a notice of
final determination of dumping and injury in that investigation, and consequently imposeddefinitive anti-dumping measures on these imports from the United States.  The US contended
that the manner in which the application for an  anti-dumping investigation was made, as well as
the manner in which a determination of threat of injury was made, is inconsistent with
Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
On 8 October 1998, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 21
October 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 25 November 1998.
Jamaica and Mauritius reserved their third-party rights.  On 13 January 1999, the Panel was
composed.  The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 28 January 2000.  The Panel
found that:
• Mexico's initiation of the anti-dumping investigation on imports of HFCS from the US was
consistent with the requirements of  Articles 5.2, 5.3, 5.8, 12.1 and 12.1.1(iv) of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.
• Mexico's imposition of the definitive anti-dumping measure on imports of HFCS from the
US was inconsistent with the following provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement:Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.7(i); Article 7.4; Ar ticle 10.2; Article 10.4; and Articles 12.2
and 12.2.2.
The DSB adopted the panel report at its meeting on 24 February 2000.
36. WT/DS135 – European Communities - Measure s Affecting the Prohibition of Asbestos
and Asbestos Products
Complaint by Canada.  On 28 May 1998, Canada requested consultations with the EC in respect
of measures imposed by France, in particular Decree of 24 December 1996, with respect to the
prohibition of asbestos and produc ts containing asbestos, incl uding a ban on imports of such
goods.  Canada alleged that these measures violate Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the SPS Agreement,
Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, and Articles III, XI and XIII of GATT 1994.  Canada alsoWT/DS/OV/16
Page 79
alleged nullification and impairment of benef its accruing to it under the various agreements
cited.
On 8 October 1998, Canada requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meetings on 21
October 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request toestablish a panel by Canada, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 25 November 1998.
The US reserved its third-party rights.  The report of the panel was circulated to Members on
18 September 2000. The Panel found that:
• the "prohibition" part of the Decree of 24 December 1996 does not fall within the scope
of the TBT Agreement;
• the part of the Decree relating to "exceptions" does fall within the scope of the TBT
Agreement.  However, as Canada had not made any claim concerning the compatibility
with the TBT Agreement of the part of the Decree relating to exceptions, the Panel
refrained from reaching any conclusion with regard to the latter;
• chrysotile asbestos fibres as such and fibres that can be substituted for them as such are
like products within the meaning of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994;
• the asbestos-cement products and the fibro-cement products for which sufficient
information had been submitted to the Panel are like products within the meaning ofArticle III:4 of the GATT 1994;
• with respect to the products found to be like,  the Decree violates Article III:4 of the
GATT 1994;
• insofar as it introduces a treatment of these products that is discriminatory under
Article III:4, the Decree is justified as such and in its implementation by the provisionsof paragraph (b) and the introductory clause of Article XX of the GATT 1994;
• Canada has not established that it suffered non-violation nullification or impairment of a
benefit within the meaning of Ar ticle XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994.
On 23 October 2000, Canada notified the Dispute Settlement Body of its decision to appeal
certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the
Panel. The Appellate Body circulated it s report on 12 March 2001. The Appellate Body:
• ruled that the French Decree, prohibiting asbestos and asbestos-containing products had
not been shown to be inconsistent with the European Communities' obligations under the
WTO agreements;
• reversed the Panel's finding that the TBT Agreement does not apply to the prohibitions in
the measure concerning asbestos and asbestos-containing products and found that theTBT Agreement applies to the measure viewed as an integrated whole.  The Appellate
Body concluded that it was unable to examine Canada's claims that the measure was
inconsistent with the TBT Agreement;
• reversed the Panel's findings with respect to "like products", under Article III:4 of the
GATT 1994.  The Appellate Body ruled, in particular, that the Panel erred in excluding
the health risks associated with asbestos from its examination of "likeness".
• reversed the Panel's conclusion that the measure is inconsistent with Article III:4 of the
GATT 1994.  The Appellate Body itself examined Canada's claims under Article III:4 of
the GATT 1994 and ruled that Canada has not satisfied its burden of proving the
existence of "like products" under that provision; and
• upheld the Panel's conclusion, under Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994, that the French
Decree is "necessary to protect human … life or health".
In this appeal, the Appellate Body adopted an additional procedure "for the purposes of this
appeal only" to deal with amicus curiae  submissions.  The Appellate Body received, and
refused, 17 applications to file such a submission.  The Appellate Body also refused to acceptWT/DS/OV/16
Page 80
14 unsolicited submissions from non-governmental organizations that were not submitted
under the additional procedure.
At its meeting of 5 April 2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.
37. WT/DS136 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 9 June 1988, the EC requested consultations
with the US in respect of the alleged failure of the US to repeal its Anti-Dumping Act of 1916.
The EC contended that the US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 is still in force and is applicable to
the import and internal sale of any foreign pr oduct irrespective of its origin, including products
originating in countries which are WTO Members.   The EC also alleged that the 1916 Act exists
in the US statute books in parallel with the Ta riff Act of 1930, as amended, which includes the
US implementing legislation of multilateral Anti-Dumping provisions.  The EC alleged
violations of Articles III: 4, VI:1, and VI:2 of GATT 1994, Article XVI:4 of the WTO
Agreement, and Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
On 1 November 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 25
November 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 1 February 1999.
India, Japan and Mexico reserved their thir d-party rights.  On 1 April 1999, the Panel was
composed.  The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 31 March 2000.  The panelconsidered that:
• Article VI:1 of GATT 1994 applies to any situation where a Member addresses the type of
transnational price discrimina tion defined in that Article.
• on the basis of the terms of the 1916 Act, its legislative history and its interpretation by US
courts, the transnational price discrimination test found in the 1916 Act met the definition of
Article VI:1 of GATT 1994.
• by not providing exclusively for the injury te st set out in Article VI, the 1916 Act violated
Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994;
• by providing for the imposition of treble dama ges, fines or imprisonment, instead of anti-
dumping duties, the 1916 Act violated Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994;
• by not providing for a number of proce dural requirements found in the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, the 1916 Act violated Articles 1, 4 and 5.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;and
• by violating Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of th e GATT 1994, the 1916 Act violated Article XVI:4
of the WTO Agreement.
On 29 May 2000, the US notified its intention to  appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the panel. The Appe llate Body examined this appeal with that of
WT/DS162.  The Appella te Body report was circulated to Members on 28 May 2000.  The
Appellate Body upheld all of the findings and conclusions of the panel that were appealed.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate
Body report, on 26 September 2000.
38. WT/DS138 – United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled
Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Produc ts Originating in the United Kingdom
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 30 June 1998, the EC requested consultations
with the US in respect of th e alleged imposition of countervailing duties on certain hot-rolledWT/DS/OV/16
Page 81
lead and bismuth carbon steel (leaded bars) from th e UK. The EC asserted that  the US imposed
countervailing duties of 1.69 per cent on United Engineering Steels Ltd (UES) for the review
period 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1994, and of 2.4 per cent for the review period 1 January
1995 to 20 March 1995, on the basis of subsidies which had been granted to British Steel
Corporation (BSC).  The EC also contende d that the US imposed countervailing duties on
British Steel plc (BSplc) / British Steel Engineering Steels LTD (BSES) for the review period
1 January 1996 to 31 December 1996 on the basis of subsidies granted to BSC before its
privatization in 1988.  The EC alleged that these impositions of countervailing duties constitute
a violation of Articles 1.1(b), 10, 14 and 19.4 of the Subsidies Agreement.
On 14 January 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 1
February 1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request toestablish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 17 February 1999.
Brazil and Mexico reserved their third-party rights.  On 16 March 1999, the Panel was
composed.  The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 23 December 1999.  The
panel found that by imposing countervailin g duties on 1994, 1995 and 1996 imports of leaded
bars produced by UES and BSES respectively, the US violated Article 10 of the Subsidies
Agreement.  In reaching this conclusion, the pa nel noted that the presumption of "benefit"
flowing from untied, non-recurring "financial cont ributions" even after changes in ownership
was rebutted in the circumstances surrounding the changes in ownership leading to the creation
of UES and BSplc/BSES respectively, inter alia , because the change in ownership involved the
payment of consideration for the productive assets etc. acquired by those entities from BSC.According to the panel, the US should ther efore have examined whether the production of
leaded bars by UES and BSplc/BSES resp ectively, and not BSC, was subsidised.
On 27 January 2000, the US notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the panel.  The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 10 May 2000.  The Appellate Body upheld all of the findings of the panel that
were appealed but on one point corrected the reasoning of the panel.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as upheld by the Appellate
Body report, on 7 June 2000.
39. WT/DS139 and WT/DS142 – Canada – Cert ain Measures Affecting the Automotive
Industry
Complaints by Japan and the European Communities.
On 3 July 1998, Japan requested consultations with  Canada in respect of measures being taken
by Canada in the automotive industry.  Japan contended that under Canadian legislationimplementing an automotive products agreement (Auto Pact) between the US and Canada, only
a limited number of motor vehicle manufacturers ar e eligible to import vehicles into Canada
duty free and to distribute the motor vehicles in Canada at the wholesale and retail distribution
levels.  Japan further contended that this duty- free treatment is contingent on two requirements:
(i) a Canadian value-added (CVA) content re quirement that applies to both goods and
services; and
(ii) a manufacturing and sales requirement.  Japan alleges that these measures are
inconsistent with Articles I:1, III:4 and XXIV of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMs
Agreement, Article 3 of the SCM Agreemen t, and Articles II, VI and XVII of GATS.
On 17 August 1998, the EC requested consultati ons with Canada in respect of the same
measures raised by Japan in WT/DS139 and cites the same provisions alleged to be in violation,
except for Article XXIV of GATT 1994, which was cited by Japan but is not cited by the EC.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 82
On 12 November 1998, Japan requested the establishment of a panel in respect of WT/DS139.
At is meeting on 25 November 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to
requests to establish a panel by Japan and the EC, at its meeting on 1 February 1999, the DSB
established a single panel, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, to examine the complaintsWT/DS139 and WT/DS142.  India, Korea, and the US  reserved their third-party rights.  On 15
March 1999, the EC and Japan requested the Director-General to determine the composition of
the Panel.  On 25 March 1999, the Panel was composed.  The report of the panel was circulated
to Members on 11 February 2000.  The panel found that:
• the conditions under which Canada granted its import duty exemption were inconsistent
with Article I of GATT 1994 and not ju stified under Article XXIV of GATT 1994.
• the application of the CVA requirements to be inconsistent with Article III:4 of GATT
1994.
• the import duty exemption constitutes a prohi bited export subsidy in violation of
Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement.
• the manner in which Canada conditioned access to the import duty exemption is
inconsistent with Article II of GATS and could not justified unde r Article V of GATS.
• the application of the CVA requirements constitutes a violation of Article XVII of the
GATS.
On 2 March 2000, Canada notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the panel.  The A ppellate Body report was circulated to Members
on 31 May 2000.  The Appellate Body:
• reversed the panel's conclusion that Article 3.1(b) of the Subsidies Agreement did not
extend to contingency "in fact".
• considered that the panel had failed to examin e whether the measure at issue affected trade
in services as required under Article I:1 of the GATS.
• reversed the panel's conclusion that the impor t duty exemption was inconsistent with the
requirements of Article II:1 of the GATS as well as the panel's findings leading to that
conclusion.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and th e Panel report, as modified by the Appellate
Body report, on 19 June 2000.
40. WT/DS141 – European Communities – Anti-D umping Duties on Imports of Cotton-
Type Bed-Linen from India
Complaint by India.  On 3 August 1998, India requested consultations with the EC in respect
of Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997 on imports of cotton-type bed-linen from India.  India asserted that the EC initiated anti-dumping proceedings against
imports of cotton- type bed-linen from India by publishing a notice of initiation in September
1996. Provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed by EC Council Regulation No 1069/97
of 12 June 1997.  This was followed by the imposition of definitive duties in accordance with
the above-mentioned EC Council Regulation No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997.  Indiacontended that:
• the determination of standing, the initiation, the determination of dumping and injury as
well as the explanations of the EC authorities' findings are inconsistent with WTO law.
• the EC authorities' establishment of the facts was not proper and that the EC's evaluation
of facts was not unbiased and objective.
• the EC has not taken into account the special situation of India as a developing country.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 83
• there were violations of Articles 2.2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.8, 6, 12.2.2, and
15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Articles I and VI of the GATT 1994.
On 7 September 1999, India requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 22
September 1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request
to establish a panel by India, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 27 October 1999.Egypt, Japan and the US reserved their third-party rights.  On 12 January 2000, India
requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel.  On 24 January
2000, the Panel was composed.  The panel report was circulated on 30 October 2000.  The
panel concluded that:
(i) the EC did not act inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 2.2, 2.2.2, 3.1,
3.4, 3.5, 5.3, 5.4, and 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement in:
• calculating the amount for profit in constructing normal value;
• considering all imports from India (and Egypt and Pakistan) as dumped in the
analysis of injury caused by dumped imports;
• considering information for producers comprising the domestic industry but not
among the sampled producers in analyzing the state of the industry;
• examining the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence prior to initiation;
• establishing industry support for the application; and
• providing public notice of its final determination.
(ii) The panel, however, also concluded th at the EC acted inconsistently with its
obligations under Articles 2.4.2, 3.4, and 15 of the AD Agreement in:
• determining the existence of margins of dumping on the basis of a methodology
incorporating the practice of zeroing;
• failing to evaluate all relevant factors having a bearing on the state of the
domestic industry, and specifically all the factors set forth in Article 3.4;
• considering information for producers not part of the domestic industry as
defined by the investigating authority in analyzing the state of the industry; and
• failing to explore possibilities of constructive remedies before applying anti-
dumping duties.
On 1 December 2000, the EC notified the DSB of its intention to appeal certain issues of law
covered in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate
Body circulated its report on 1 March 2001. The Appellate Body:
(i) upheld the finding of the Panel that the practice of "zeroing" when establishing "the
existence of margins of dumping", as applied by the EC in the anti-dumping
investigation at issue in this dispute, is inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement;
(ii) reversed the findings of the Panel that:
• the method for calculating amounts for administrative, selling and general costs
and profits provided for in Article 2.2.2(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement maybe applied where there is data on administrative, selling and general costs and
profits for only one other exporter or producer; and
• in calculating the amount for profits under Article 2.2.2(ii) of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, a Member may exclude sales by other exporters or producers that are
not made in the ordinary course of trade; andWT/DS/OV/16
Page 84
(iii) as a consequence, concluded that the EC, in calculating amounts for administrative,
selling and general costs and profits in the anti-dumping investigation at issue in this
dispute, acted inconsistently with Article 2.2.2(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the
Appellate Body report, on 12 March 2001.
41. WT/DS146 and WT/DS175 – In dia - Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector
Complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS146).  On 6 October 1998, the EC
requested consultations with India concerning certain measures affecting the automotive
sector being applied by India.  The EC stated that the measures include the documents entitled
"Export and Import Policy, 1997-2002", "ITC (HS Classification) Export and Import Policy
1997-2002" ("Classification"), and "Public Notice No. 60 (PN/97-02) of 12 December 1997,
Export and Import Policy April 1997-March 2002", and any other legislative or
administrative provision implemented or consolidated by these policies, as well as MoUs
signed by the Indian Government with ce rtain manufacturers of automobiles.  The EC
contended that:
• under these measures, imports of complete automobiles and of certain parts and
components were subject to a system of non-automatic import licenses.
• in accordance with Public Notice No. 60, import licenses might be granted only to local
joint venture manufacturers that had signed an MoU with the Indian Government,whereby they undertook, inter alia , to comply with certain local content and export
balancing requirements.
• The EC alleged violations of Articles III and XI of GATT 1994, and Article 2 of the
TRIMs Agreement.
On 1 May 1999, the United States requested consultations (WT/DS175) with India in respect
of certain Indian measures affecting trade and investment in the motor vehicle sector.  The
United States contended that the measures in question required manufacturing firms in themotor vehicle sector to:
(i) achieve specified levels of local content;
(ii) achieve a neutralization of foreign exchange by balancing the value of certain imports
with the value of exports of cars and components over a stated period; and
(iii) limit imports to a value based on the previous year's exports.
According to the United States, these measures were enforceable under Indian law and
rulings, and manufacturing firms in the motor vehicle sector must comply with these
requirements in order to obtain Indian import licenses for certain motor vehicle parts and
components.  The United States considered that these measures violate the obligations of
India under Articles III and XI of GATT 1994, and Article 2 of the TRIMS Agreement.
On 15 May 2000, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 19 June
2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a Panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 27 July 2000.  The EC, Japan
and Korea reserved their third-party rights.
On 12 October 2000, the EC also requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
23 October 2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a Panel.  Further to a second request
by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 17 November 2000.  Since a panel
had already been established with a similar mandate in the framework of the abovementionedWT/DS/OV/16
Page 85
case WT/DS175 , the DSB decided to join the panel with the already established panel in that
case pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU.  Japan reserved its third-party rights.  On 14
November 2000, the US requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the
Panel.  On 24 November 2000, the Panel was composed.
On 21 December 2001, the Panel circulated its report to the Members.  The Panel concluded
that:
• India had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994
by imposing on automotive manufacturers an obligation to use a certain proportion of
local parts and components in the manufacture of cars and automotive vehicles
("indigenization" condition);
• India had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article XI of the GATT 1994 by
imposing on automotive manufacturers an obligation to balance any importation of
certain kits and components with exports of equivalent value ("trade balancing"
condition); and,
• India had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994
by imposing, in the context of the trade balancing condition, an obligation to offset theamount of any purchases of previously imported restricted kits and components on the
Indian market, by exports of equivalent value.
The Panel recommended that the DSB requests India to bring its measures into conformity
with its obligations under the WTO Agreements.
On 31 January 2002, India appealed the above Pa nel Report.  In particular, India sought
review of the following Panel's conclusion on the grounds that they are in error and basedupon erroneous findings on issues of law and related legal instruments:
• Articles 11 and 19.1 of the DSU required it to address the question of whether the
measures found to be inconsistent with Articles III:4 and XI:1 of the GATT had beenbrought into conformity with the GATT as a result of measures taken by India during the
course of the proceedings, and
• the enforcement of the export obligations that automobile manufacturers incurred until
1 April 2001 under India's former import licensing scheme is inconsistent with ArticlesIII:4 and XI:1 of the GATT.
On 14 March 2002, India withdrew its appeal. Furt her to India's withdrawal of its appeal, the
Appellate Body issued a short Report outlining the procedural history of the case.  At the
DSB meeting on 5 April 2002, the US commended India's decision to withdraw its appeal and
shared some of India's reservations with regard to Section VIII of the Panel Report.  The EC
considered that the Panel's findings were justified.  Despite its decision to withdraw its appeal
as a result of the introduction of its new auto policy, India indicated that the findings
contained in Section VIII were outside of the Panel's terms of reference and were bothfactually and legally incorrect.  India requested that the DSB adopt only a part of the Panel
Report and consider the adoption of Section VIII only at its next meeting.  The EC responded
that the Reports should be adopted unconditionally by the parties, thus there was no
justification for India's request.  The DSB proceeded with the adoption in full of the Appellate
Body and Panel reports.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 86
42. WT/DS152 – United States – Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 25 November 1998, the EC requested
consultations with the US in respect of Title III, chapter 1 (sections 301-310) of the US Trade
Act of 1974 (the Trade Act), as amended, and in particular sections 306 and 305 of this Act.
The EC alleged that:
• by imposing strict time limits within which unilateral determinations must be made and
trade sanctions taken, sections 306 and 305 of the Trade Act do not allow the US to
comply with the rules of the DSU in situati ons where a prior multilateral ruling under the
DSU on conformity of measures taken pursuant to implementation of DSB
recommendations has not been adopted by the DSB.
• the DSU procedure resulting in a multilateral finding, even if initiated immediately after
the end of the reasonable period of time for implementation, cannot be finalised, nor can
subsequent DSU procedure for seeking compensation or suspension of concessions becomplied with, within the time limits of sections 306 and 305.
• Title III, chapter 1(sections 301-310) of th e Trade Act, as amended, and in particular
sections 306 and 305 of the Act, are inconsistent with Articles 3, 21, 22 and 23 of the
DSU; Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement; and Articles I, II, III, VIII and XI of GATT
1994.
• the Trade Act nullifies and impairs benefits accruing, directly or indirectly, to it under
GATT 1994, and also impedes the objectives of GATT 1994 and of the WTO.
On 26 January 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 17
February 1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 2 March 1999.
Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Hong
Kong, India, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Korea, St. Lucia and Thailand reserved their third-party
rights. On 24 March 1999, the EC requested the Director-General to determine the
composition of the Panel.  On 31 March 1999, the Panel was composed. The report of the
panel was circulated to Members on 22 December 1999.  The Panel found that Sections
304(a)(2)(A), 305(a) and 306(b) of the US Trade Act of 1974 were not inconsistent withArticle 23.2(a) or (c) of the DSU or with any of the GATT 1994 provisions cited.  The panel
noted that its findings were based in full or in part on US undertakings articulated in the
Statement of Administrative Action approved by the US Congress at the time it implemented
the Uruguay Round agreements and confirmed in the statements by the US to the panel.  The
panel stated therefore that should those undertakings be repudiated or in any other wayremoved, its findings of conformity would no longer be warranted. The DSB adopted the
panel report at its meeting on 27 January 2000.
43. WT/DS155 – Argentina - Measures on the Ex port of Bovine Hides and the Import of
Finished Leather
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 24 December 1998, the EC requested
consultations with Argentina concerning certai n measures taken by Argentina on the export of
bovine hides and the import of finished leather.  The EC alleged that the de facto  export
prohibition on raw and semi-tanned bovine hides (which is implemented in part through the
authorization granted by the Argentinian authorities to the Argentinian tanning industry to
participate in customs control procedures of hides before export) is in violation of GATT
Articles; XI:1 (which outlaws de jure  export prohibitions and measures of equivalent effect);
and X:3(a) (which requires uniform and impartial administration of laws and regulations) to
the extent that personnel of the Argentinian Chamber for the tanning industry are authorized
to assist Argentinian customs authorities. Th e EC also claimed that the "additional valueWT/DS/OV/16
Page 87
added tax" of 9 per cent on imports of products into Argentina and the "advance turnover tax"
of 3 per cent based on the price of imported goods imposed on operators when importing
goods into Argentina are in violation of  GATT Article III:2 (which prohibits tax
discrimination of foreign products which are like, directly competitive or substitutable to
domestic products).
On 31 May 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 16 June
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 26 July 1999.  On 31 January
2000, the Panel was composed.  The Panel circulated its report on 19 December 2000.  The
Panel concluded that:
• it has not been proved that Resolution (ANA) No. 2235/96 is inconsistent with
Argentina's obligations under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994;
• Resolution (ANA) No. 2235/96 is inconsistent with Argentina's obligations under
Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994;
• General Resolution (DGI) No. 3431/91 is inconsis tent with Article III:2, first sentence, of
the GATT 1994;
• General Resolution (DGI) No. 3543/92 is inconsis tent with Article III:2, first sentence, of
the GATT 1994;
• General Resolutions (DGI) No. 3431/91 and 3543/92, although they fall within the terms
of paragraph (d) of Article XX of the GATT 1994, fail to meet the requirements of the
chapeau of Article XX and are therefore not justified under Article XX as a whole;
• there is nullification or impairment of the benefits accruing to the European Communities
under the GATT 1994.
The DSB adopted the Panel Report on 16 February 2001.
44. WT/DS156 – Guatemala - Definitive Anti- dumping Measure regarding Grey Portland
Cement from Mexico
Complaint by Mexico.  On 5 January 1999, Mexico requested consultations with Guatemala
concerning definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by the authorities of Guatemala on
imports of grey Portland cement from Mexico and the proceedings leading thereto.  Mexicoalleged that the definitive anti-dumping measure is inconsistent with Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,
12 and 18 of the Antidumping Agreement and its Annexes I and II, as well as with Article VI
of GATT 1994.  See also WT/DS60.
On 15 July 1999, Mexico requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 26 July
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by Mexico, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 22 September 1999.
Ecuador, El Salvador, the EC, Honduras and the US reserved their third-party rights. On 12
October 1999, Mexico requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the
panel.  On 2 November 1999, the Panel was composed.  The panel report was circulated on24 October 2000. The panel concluded that Guatemala's initiation of an investigation, the
conduct of the investigation and imposition of a definitive measure on imports of grey
Portland cement from Mexico's Cruz Azul is inconsistent with the requirements in the AD
Agreement in that:
• Guatemala's determination that there was sufficient evidence of dumping and threat of
injury to initiate an investigation, is inconsistent with Article 5.3 of the AD Agreement;
• Guatemala's determination that there was sufficient evidence of dumping and threat of
injury to initiate an investigation and consequent failure to reject the application for anti-WT/DS/OV/16
Page 88
dumping duties by Cementos Progreso is inconsistent with Article 5.8 of the AD
Agreement;
• Guatemala's failure to timely notify Mexico under Article 5.5 of the AD Agreement is
inconsistent with that provision;
• Guatemala's failure to meet the requirements for a public notice of the initiation of an
investigation is inconsistent with Article 12.1.1 of the AD Agreement;
• Guatemala's failure to timely provide the full text of the application to Mexico and Cruz
Azul is inconsistent with Article 6.1.3 of the AD Agreement;
• Guatemala's failure to grant Mexico access to the file of the investigation is inconsistent
with Articles 6.1.2 and 6.4 of the AD Agreement;
• Guatemala's failure to timely make Cementos Progreso's 19 December 1996 submission
available to Cruz Azul until 8 January 1997 is inconsistent with Article 6.1.2 of the AD
Agreement;
• Guatemala's failure to provide two copies of the file of the investigation as requested by
Cruz Azul is inconsistent with Article 6.1.2 of the AD Agreement;
• Guatemala's extension of the period of investigation requested by Cementos Progreso
without providing Cruz Azul with a full oppo rtunity for the defence of its interest is
inconsistent with Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement;
• Guatemala's failure to inform Mexico of the inclusion of non–governmental experts in the
verification team is inconsistent with paragraph 2 of Annex I of the AD Agreement;
• Guatemala's failure to require Cementos Progreso's to provide a statement of the reasons
why summarization of the information submitted during verification was not possible isinconsistent with Article 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement;
• Guatemala's decision to grant Cementos Progreso's 19 December submission confidential
treatment on its own initiative is inconsistent with Article 6.5 of the AD Agreement;
• Guatemala's failure to "inform all interested parties of the essential facts under
consideration which form the basis for the decision whether to apply definitive measures"is inconsistent with Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement;
• Guatemala's recourse to "best information available" for the purpose of making its final
dumping determination is inconsistent with Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement;
• Guatemala's failure to take into account imports by MATINSA in its determination of
injury and causality is inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement;
and
• Guatemala's failure to evaluate all relevant factors for the examination of the impact of
the allegedly dumped imports on the domestic industry is inconsistent with Article 3.4.
The DSB adopted the Panel Report on 17 November 2000.
45. WT/DS160 – United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act
Complaint by the European Communities and their member States.  On 26 January 1999, the
EC requested consultations with the US in resp ect of Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act,
as amended by the Fairness in Music Licensing Act, which was enacted on 27 October 1998.
The EC contended that Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act permits, under certain
conditions, the playing of radio and television music in public places (bars, shops, restaurants,
etc.) without the payment of a royalty fee.  The EC considered that this statute is inconsistent
with US obligations under Article 9(1) of the TRIPS Agreement, which requires Members tocomply with Articles 1-21 of the Berne Convention.
The dispute centered on the compatibility of two exemptions provided for in Section 110(5)
of the US Copyright Act with Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement, which allows certain
limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights of copyright holders, subject to the condition thatsuch limitations are confined to certain special cases, do not conflict with a normalWT/DS/OV/16
Page 89
exploitation of the work in question and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests
of the right holder:
• The so-called "business" exemption, provided for in sub-paragraph (B) of Section 110(5),
essentially allows the amplification of music broadcasts, without an authorization and a
payment of a fee, by food service and drinking establishments and by retailestablishments, provided that their size does not exceed a certain square footage limit.  It
also allows such amplification of music broadcasts by establishments above this square
footage limit, provided that certain equipment limitations are met.
• The so-called "homestyle" exemption, provided for in sub-paragraph (A) of Section
110(5), allows small restaurants and retail outlets to amplify music broadcasts without an
authorization of the right holders and without the payment of a fee, provided that they use
only homestyle equipment (i.e. equipment of a kind commonly used in private homes).
On 15 April 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 28 April
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 26 May 1999.  Brazil,
Australia, Canada, Japan and Switzerland reserved their third-party rights.  On 27 July 1999,
the EC made a request to the Director-in-Charge to determine the composition of the Panel.On 6 August 1999, the Panel was composed.  The report of the panel was circulated to
Members on 15 June 2000.  The panel found that:
• the "business" exemption provided for in sub-paragraph (B) of Section 110(5) of the US
Copyright Act did not meet the requirements of Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement and
was thus inconsistent with Articles 11 bis(1)(iii) and 11(1)(ii) of the Berne Convention
(1971) as incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement by Article 9.1 of that Agreement.  The
panel noted, inter alia , that a substantial majority of eating and drinking establishments
and close to half of retail establishments were covered by the business exemption.
• the "homestyle" exemption provided for in sub-paragraph (A) of Section 110(5) of the US
Copyright Act met the requirements of Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement and was thus
consistent with Articles 11 bis(1)(iii) and 11(1)(ii) of the Berne Convention (1971) as
incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement by Article 9.1 of that Agreement.  Here, the
panel noted certain limits imposed on the beneficiaries of the exemption, permissible
equipment and categories of works as well as the practice by US courts.
The DSB adopted the Panel Report at its meeting on 27 July 2000.
46. WT/DS161 and WT/DS169 – Korea – Measures A ffecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled, and
Frozen Beef
Complaints by the United States and Australia.  On 1 February 1999, the US requested
consultations with Korea in respect of a Korean regulatory scheme that allegedly
discriminates against imported beef by inter alia , confining sales of imported beef to
specialised stores (dual retail system), limiting the manner of its display, and otherwise
constraining the opportunities for the sale of imported beef.  The US alleged that Korea
imposes a markup on sales of imported beef, limits import authority to certain so-called
"super-groups" and the Livestock Producers Ma rketing Organization ("LPMO"), and provides
domestic support to the cattle industry in Korea in amounts which cause Korea to exceed its
aggregate measure of support as reflected in Korea's schedule.  The US contended that theserestrictions apply only to imported beef, thereby denying national treatment to beef imports,
and that the support to the domestic industry amounts to domestic subsidies that contravene
the Agreement on Agriculture.  The US alleged violations of Articles II, III, XI, and XVII ofWT/DS/OV/16
Page 90
GATT 1994; Articles 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Articles 1 and 3 of
the Import Licensing Agreement.
On 13 April 1999, Australia requested consultations with Korea on the same basis as the US
request.
On 15 April 1999, the US requested the establishment of a panel in respect of WT/DS161.  At
its meeting on 28 April 1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a
second request to establish a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on
26 May 1999.  Australia, Canada and New Zealand reserved their third-party rights.  Further
to Australia's request to establish a panel in respect of WT/DS169, the DSB established a
panel at its meeting on 26 July 1999.   Canada, New Zealand and the US reserved their third-party rights.  At the request of Korea, the DSB agreed that, pursuant to DSU Article 9.1, this
complaint would be examined by the same pane l established in respect of WT/DS161.  On 4
August 1999, the Panel was composed.  The report of the panel was circulated to Members on
31 July 2000.  The panel found that:
• a number of the contested Korean measures benefited, by virtue of a Note in Korea's
Schedule of Concessions, from a transitional period until 1 January 2001, by which datethey had to be eliminated or otherwis e brought into conformity with the WTO
Agreement.
• the requirement that the supply of beef from the LPMO's wholesale market be limited to
specialised imported beef stores and that those stores bear a special sign "Specialized
Imported Beef Store" was in violation of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, which
violation could not be justified und er Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994.
• the more stringent record-keeping requirements imposed on purchasers of imported beef
were also inconsistent with Article III:4.  Certain other regulations dealing with the
importation and distribution of imported beef were likewise found to violate
Article III:4.
• the LPMO's lack of and delays in calling for tenders and its discharge practices between
November 1997 and the end of May 1998 constituted import restrictions contrary to
Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
Moreover, the LPMO's calls for tenders that were made subject to distinctions between
grass-fed and grain-fed cattle, constituted, in the view of the panel, a restriction
inconsistent with Article XI:1. They also treated imports of beef from grass-fed cattle
less favourably than provided for in Korea's Schedule, which was in breach ofArticle II:1(a) of the GATT 1994.
• in addition, Korea's domestic support for beef for 1997 and 1998 was not correctly
calculated and exceeded the de minimis  level, contrary to Article 6 of the Agreement on
Agriculture, and was not included in Korea's Current Total AMS, contrary to Article
7.2(a) of the Agreement on Agriculture.
• Korea's total domestic support (Current Total AMS) for 1997 and 1998 exceeded
Korea's commitment levels, as specified in Section 1, Part IV of its Schedule, contrary to
Article 3.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
On 11 September 2000, Korea notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the panel.  On 11 December 2000, the report of the Appellate Body
was circulated.  The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding on recalculated amounts of
Korea's domestic support for beef in 1997 and 1998, as the Panel used, for these
recalculations, a methodology inconsistent with Article 1(a)(ii) and Annex 3 of theAgreement on Agriculture; and reversed, therefore, the Panel's following conclusions, based
on these recalculated amounts:WT/DS/OV/16
Page 91
• that Korea's domestic support for beef in 1997 and 1998 exceeded the de minimis  level
contrary to Article 6 of the Agreement on Agriculture;
• that Korea's failure to include Current AMS for beef in Korea's Current Total AMS was
contrary to Article 7.2(a) of that Agreement; and
• that Korea's total domestic support for 1997 and 1998 exceeded Korea's commitment
levels contrary to Article 3.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
The Appellate Body was unable, in view of the insufficient factual findings made by the
Panel, to complete the legal analysis of:
• whether Korea's domestic support for beef exceeds the de minimis  level contrary to
Article 6 of the Agreement on Agriculture;
• whether the failure to include Current AMS for beef in Korea's Current Total AMS was
contrary to Article 7.2(a) of that Agreement; and
• whether Korea's total domestic support for 1997 and 1998 exceeded Korea's
commitment levels contrary to Article 3.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
At its meeting of 10 January 2001, the DSB a dopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.
47. WT/DS162 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916
Complaint by Japan.  On 10 February 1999, Japan requested consultations with the US in
respect of the US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, 15 USC. 72 (1994), ("US 1916 Act").  Japan
alleged that the US 1916 Act stipulates that the importation or sale of imported goods within
the US market in certain circumstances is unlawful, constituting a criminal offence and
inviting civil liability.  Japan further alleged that judicial decisions under the US 1916 Act are
made without the procedural safeguards provided for in the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Japan
stated that a court action had been brought under the US 1916 Act against affiliates ofJapanese companies.  Japan contended that the US 1916 Act is inconsistent with Articles III,
VI and XI of GATT 1994, and the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
On 3 June 1999, Japan requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 16 June
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establisha panel by Japan, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 26 July 1999.  The EC and
India reserved their third-party rights.  On 11 August 1999, the Panel was composed.  The
report of the panel was circulated to Members on 29 May 2000.  The panel considered that
Article VI:1 of GATT 1994 applies to any situation where a Member addresses the type of
transnational price discrimination defined in th at Article.  The panel then found that, on the
basis of the terms of the 1916 Act, its legislative history and its interpretation by US courts, the
transnational price discrimination test found in  the 1916 Act met the definition of Article VI:1
of GATT 1994.  The panel next went on to find that:
• by providing for the imposition of treble dama ges, fines or imprisonment, instead of anti-
dumping duties, the 1916 Act violated Artic le VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 18.1 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
• by not providing for a number of procedural  requirements found in Article VI:1 of the
GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the 1916 Act violated Articles VI:1 of the
GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and
• by violating Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, and Articles 1, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4 and
18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the 1916 Act violated Article XVI:4 of the WTO
Agreement and Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 92
On 29 May 2000, the US notified its intention to  appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the panel. The Appe llate Body examined this appeal with that of
WT/DS136.   The Appellate B ody report was circulated to Members on 28 May 2000.  The
Appellate Body upheld all of the findings and conclusions of the panel that were appealed.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate
Body report, on 26 September 2000.
48. WT/DS163 – Korea – Measures Affecting Government Procurement
Complaint by the United States.  On 16 February 1999, the US requested consultations with
Korea in respect of certain procurement practices of the Korean Airport Construction
Authority (KOACA), and other entities concerned with the procurement of airportconstruction in Korea.  The US claimed that such practices were inconsistent with Korea's
obligations under the Agreement on Governme nt Procurement (GPA). These include
practices relating to qualification for bidding as a prime contractor, domestic partnering, and
the absence of access to challenge procedures that are in breach of the GPA.  The US
contended that KOACA and the other entities are within the scope of Korea's list of centralgovernment entities as specified in Annex 1 of Korea's obligations in Appendix I of the GPA,
and pursuant to Article I(1) of the GPA, apply to the procurement of airport construction.
On 11 May 1999, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 26 May
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establisha panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 16 June 1999.  The EC and
Japan reserved their third party rights.  On 30 August 1999, the Panel was composed.  The
report of the panel was circulated to Members on 1 May 2000.  The panel found that:
• the entities conducting procurement for the project at issue were not covered entities
under Korea's Appendix I of the GPA and were not otherwise covered by Korea's
obligations under the GPA.
• based on less than complete Korean answers to certain US questions during negotiations
for Korea's accession to the GPA, there had initially been an error on the part of the US
as to which Korean authority was in charge of  the project at issue.  However, in light of
all the facts the panel considered that there was notice of the error and the US should at
least have conducted further inquiries in this regard before the negotiations were ended.
• the US had not demonstrated that benefits reasonably expected to accrue under the GPA,
or in the negotiations resulting in Korea's accession to the GPA, were nullified orimpaired by measures taken by Korea (whether or not in conflict with the provisions of
the GPA), within the meaning of Article XXII:2 of the GPA.
The DSB adopted the Panel Report at its meeting on 19 June 2000.
49. WT/DS165 – United States – Import Measures  on Certain Products from the European
Communities
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 4 March 1999, the EC requested consultations
with the US in respect of the US decisio n, effective as of 3 March 1999, to withhold
liquidation on imports from the EC of a series of products together valued at over $500
million on an annual basis, and to impose a contingent liability for 100% duties on eachindividual importation of affected products.  On 2 March 1999, the arbitrators charged with
determining the level of suspension of concessions, requested by the United States in
response to the failure by the EC to implemen t the recommendations of the DSB in respect of
the EC's banana regime (WT/DS27), had asked for additional data from the parties andWT/DS/OV/16
Page 93
informed the parties that they were unable to issue their report within the 60-day period
envisaged by the DSU.  The EC contends that the measure made effective by the US as of
3 March 1999 deprives EC imports into the United States, of the products in question, of the
right to a duty not in excess of the rate bound in the US Schedule.  The EC further contended
that, by requiring the deposit of a bond to cover the contingent liability for 100% duties, USCustoms effectively impose 100% duties on each individual importation.  The EC alleged
violations of Articles 3, 21, 22 and 23 of the DS U, and Articles I, II, VIII and XI of GATT
1994.  The EC also alleged nullification and impairment of benefits under GATT 1994, as
well as the impediment of the objectives of the DSU and GATT 1994.  The EC had requested
urgent consultations pursuant to Article 4.8 of the DSU.
On 11 May 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 26 May
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 16 June 1999. Dominica,
Ecuador, India, Jamaica, Japan and St. Lucia reserved their third party rights.  On 29
September 1999, the EC requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the
Panel.  On 8 October 1999, the Panel was composed.  The report of the panel was circulatedto Members on 17 July 2000.  The panel found that:
• the US measure of 3 March 1999 was seeking to redress a WTO violation and was thus
covered by Article 23.1 of the DSU;
• by putting into place that measure prior to the time authorized by the DSB, the US made
a unilateral determination that the revised EC bananas regime in respect of its bananas
import, sales and distribution regime violated WTO rules, contrary to Articles 23.2(a)and 21.5, first sentence, of the DSU.  In doing so, the United States did not abide by the
DSU and thus also violated Article 23.1 together with Article 23.2(a) and 21.5 of the
DSU;
• the increased bonding requirements of the measure of 3 March 1999 as such led to
violations of Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b), first sentence (one panelist dissented,
considering that those requirements rather violated Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994);
• the increased interest charges, costs and fees resulting from the 3 March Measure
violated Article II:1(b), last sentence;
• the measure in question also violated Article I of the GATT 1994;
• in light of these conclusions, the measure of 3 March 1999 constituted a suspension of
concessions or other obligations within the meaning of Articles 3.7, 22.6 and 23.2(c) of
the DSU imposed without DSB authorization and during the ongoing Article 22.6
arbitration process; and
• in suspending concessions in those circumstances, the US did not abide by the DSU and
thus violated Article 23.1 together with Articles 3.7, 22.6 and 23.2(c) of the DSU.
On 12 September 2000, the EC notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated on
11 December 2000.  The Appellate Body:
• concluded that the Panel erred by stating that the WTO-consistency of a measure taken
by a Member to comply with recommendations and rulings of the DSB can bedetermined by arbitrators appointed under Article 22.6 of the DSU, and, thus, concluded
that the Panel's statements on this issue have no legal effect.
• concluded that the Panel erred by stating that "[o]nce a Member imposes DSB authorised
suspensions of concessions or obligations, that Member's measure is WTO compatible
(it was explicitly authorised by the DSB)", and, thus, concluded that this statement has
no legal effect.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 94
• reversed the Panel's findings that the increased bonding requirements are inconsistent
with Articles II:1(a) and II:2(b), first sentence, of the GATT 1994, and
• reversed the Panel's finding that, by adopting the 3 March Measure, the US acted
inconsistently with Article 23.2(a) of the DSU.
As it upheld the Panel's finding that the 3 March Measure, the measure at issue in this dispute,
is no longer in existence, the Appellate Body did not make any recommendation to the DSBpursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU.
At its meeting of 10 January 2001, the DSB a dopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.
50. WT/DS166 – United States – Definitive Safe guard Measure on Imports of Wheat Gluten
from the European Communities
Complaint by the European Communities. On 17 March 1999, the EC requested consultations
with the US in respect of definitive safegu ard measures imposed by the US on imports of
wheat gluten from the European Communities.  The EC contended that by a Proclamation of
30 May 1998, and a Memorandum of the same date, by the US President, under which the US
imposed definitive safeguard measures in the form of a quantitative limitation on imports ofwheat gluten from the EC, effective as of 1 June 1998.  The EC considered these measures to
be in violation of Articles 2, 4, 5 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards; Article 4.2 of the
Agreement on Agriculture; and Ar ticles I and XIX of GATT 1994.
On 3 June 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 16 June
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 26 July 1999.  Australia, Canada and
New Zealand reserved their third-party rights.  On 11 October 1999, the Panel was composed.
The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 31 July 2000.  The panel found that:
(i) the United States had not acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4 of the
Safeguards Agreement or with Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 in
• redacting certain confidential information from the published USITC Report or
• determining the existence of imports in "increased quantities" and serious injury.
(ii) the definitive safeguard measure imposed by the US on certain imports of wheat
gluten based on the US investigation and determination was inconsistent with
Articles 2.1 and 4 of the Safeguards Agreement in that
• the causation analysis applied by the USITC did not ensure that injury caused by
other factors was not attributed to imports and
• imports from Canada (a NAFTA partner) were excluded from the application of
the measure after imports from all sources were included in the investigation for
the purposes of determining serious injury caused by increased imports
(following a separate inquiry concerning whether imports from Canada accounted
for a "substantial share" of total imports and whether they "contributed
importantly" to the "serious injury" caused by total imports).
(iii) The panel further concluded that the US failed to notify immediately the initiation of
the investigation under Article 12.1(a) and the finding of serious injury under Article12.1(b) of the Safeguards Agreement.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 95
(iv) in notifying its decision to take the measure only after the measure was implemented,
the US did not make timely notification under Article 12.1(c).  For the same reason,
the US violated the obligation of Article 12.3 to provide adequate opportunity for
prior consultations on the measure.
(v) the US therefore also violated its obligation under Article 8.1 of the Safeguards
Agreement to endeavour to maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions
and other obligations to that existing under the GATT 1994 between it and the
exporting Members which would be affected by such measures, in accordance with
Article 12.3 of the Safeguards Agreement.
On 26 September 2000, the US notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain
issues of law and legal interpretation covered in the Panel Report and certain legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body circulated its report on
22 December 2000.  The Appellate Body:
• upheld the Panel's conclusion that the US had not acted inconsistently with its obligations
under Articles 4.2(a) and 4.2(b) of the Safeguards Agreement, but, in so doing, reversed
the Panel's interpretation of Article 4.2(a) of the Safeguards Agreement that the
competent authorities are required to evalua te only the "relevant factors" listed in
Article 4.2(a) of that Agreement as well as an y other "factors" which were clearly  raised
before the competent authorities as relevant by the interested parties in the domestic
investigation;
• reversed the Panel's interpretation of Article 4.2(b) of the Safeguards Agreement that
increased imports "alone", "in and of themselves", or " per se ", must be capable of causing
"serious injury", as well as the Panel's conclusions on the issue of causation;
• found, nonetheless, that the US had acted inconsistently with its obligations under
Article 4.2(b) of the Safeguards Agreement;
• upheld the Panel's finding that the US had acte d inconsistently with its obligations under
Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Safeguards Agreement;
• upheld the Panel's findings that the US had ac ted inconsistently with its obligations under
Articles 12.1(a) and 12.1(b) of the Safeguards Agreement;
• reversed the Panel's finding that the US had acted inconsistently with its obligations under
Article 12.1(c) of the Safeguards Agreement; found that the US had acted consistentlywith its obligations under Article 12.1(c) of that Agreement to notify "immediately" its
decision to apply a safeguard measure;
• upheld the Panel's finding that the US had acte d inconsistently with its obligations under
Article 12.3 of the Safeguards Agreement, and, in consequence, upheld the Panel's
finding that the US had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 8.1 of theSafeguards Agreement;
• the Panel did not act inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in concluding that the
USITC had "considered industry productivity as required by Article 4.2(a)" of the
Safeguards Agreement;
• the Panel did not act inconsistently in finding that the USITC was not required to evaluate
the overall relationship between the protein c ontent of wheat and the price of wheat gluten
as a "relevant factor", under Article 4.2(a) of the Safeguards Agreement, during the post-1994 period of investigation;  and,
• the Panel did not act inconsistently in declining to draw "adverse" inferences from the
refusal of the US to provide certain allegedly confidential information requested from it
by the Panel under Article 13.1 of the DSU;
• the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in finding that "the USITC
Report  provides an adequate, reasoned and reasonable explanation with respect to 'profits
and losses'" and, therefore, reversed this finding;  and found no error in the Panel'sWT/DS/OV/16
Page 96
exercise of judicial economy in not examining the claims of the EC under
Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994, and also under Article 5 of the Safeguards
Agreement and Article I of the GATT 1994.
At its meeting of 19 January 2001, the DSB a dopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.
51. WT/DS170 – Canada – Patent Protection Term
Complaint by the United States.  On 6 May 1999, the US requested consultations with Canada
in respect of the term of protection granted to patents that were filed in Canada before
1 October 1989.  The US contended that the TRIPS Agreement obligates Members to grant a
term of protection for patents that runs at least until twenty years after the filing date of theunderlying protection, and requires each Member to grant this minimum term to all patents
existing as of the date of the application of the Agreement to that Member.  The US alleged
that under the Canadian Patent Act, the term granted to patents issued on the basis of
applications filed before 1 October 1989 is 17 years from the date on which the patent is
issued.  The US contended that this situation is  inconsistent with Articles 33, 65 and 70 of the
TRIPS Agreement.
On 15 July 1999, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 26 July
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 22 September 1999.  On 13October 1999, the US requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the
Panel.  On 22 October 1999, the Panel was composed.  The report of the panel was circulated
to Members on 5 May 2000.  The panel found that:
• pursuant to Article 70.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, Canada was required to apply the
relevant obligations of the TRIPS Agreement to  inventions protected by patents that were
in force on 1 January 1996, i.e. the date of entry into force for Canada of the TRIPS
Agreement.
• Section 45 of Canada's Patent Act does not make available a term of protection that does
not end before 20 years from the date of filing as mandated by Article 33 of the TRIPSAgreement, thus rejecting, inter alia , Canada's argument that the 17-year statutory
protection under its Patent Act was effectively equivalent to the 20-year term prescribedby the TRIPS Agreement because of average pendency periods for patents, informal and
statutory delays etc.
On 19 June 2000, Canada notified its intention to  appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the panel. The A ppellate Body report was circulated to Members
on 18 September 2000. The Appellate Body upheld all of the findings and conclusions of the
panel that were appealed.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate
Body report, on 12 October 2000.
52. WT/DS176 – United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act
Complaint by the European Communities and its Member States.  On 8 July 1999, the EC
requested consultations with the US in respect of Section 211 of the US Omnibus
Appropriations Act.  The EC and its member States alleged as follows:WT/DS/OV/16
Page 97
• Section 211, which was signed into la w on 21 October 1998, did not allow the
registration or renewal in the United States of a trademark, if it was previously abandonedby a trademark owner whose business and asse ts have been confiscated under Cuban law.
• This law provided that no US court shall recognize or enforce any assertion of such
rights.
• Section 211 US Omnibus Appropriations Ac t was not in conformity with the US'
obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, notably its Article 2 in conjunction with the
Paris Convention, Article 3, Article 4, Articles 15 to 21, Article 41, Article 42 andArticle 62.
Further to the request of the EC and its member States, the DSB established a panel at its
meeting on 26 September 2000.  Canada, Japan and Nicaragua reserved their third-party
rights. On 17 October 2000, the EC and its member States requested the Director-General todetermine the composition of the Panel.  On 26 October 2000, the Panel was composed.
The Panel circulated its Report on 6 August 2001.  The Panel rejected most of the claims by
the EC and their Member States except that relating to the inconsistency of Section 211(a)(2)
of the Omnibus Appropriations Act with Article 42 of the TRIPS Agreement.  In this regard,
the panel concluded that this Section is inconsistent with the relevant TRIPs Article on the
grounds that it limits, under certain circumstances, right holders' effective access to andavailability of civil judicial procedures.
On 4 October 2001, the EC and its Member States notified their decision to appeal certain
issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the panel report.  The Appellate Body
report was circulated to Members on 12 January 2002.  The Appellate Body:
• found, in respect of the protection of trademarks, that Sections 211(a)(2) and (b) of the
Omnibus Appropriations Act violated the national treatment and most-favoured nation
obligations under the  TRIPS Agreement  a nd the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property, thereby reversing the Panel's findings to the contrary;
• reversed the Panel's finding that Section 211(a)(2) is inconsistent with Article 42 of the
TRIPS Agreement and concluded that Article 42 contains procedural  obligations, while
Section 211 affects  substantive  trademark rights;
• upheld the Panel's findings that Section 211 does not violate the US' obligations under
Article 2.1 of the  TRIPS Agreement  in conj unction with Article 6quinquies A(1) of the
Paris Convention, and Articles 15 and 16 of the  TRIPS Agreement.  It also upheld the
Panel's finding under Article 42 of the  TRIPS Agreement  in respect of Section 211(b);
and
• reversed the Panel's conclusion that trade names are not a category of intellectual property
protected under the  TRIPS Agreement and then completed the analysis reaching thesame conclusions for trade names as with respect to trademarks.  It also found that
Sections 211(a)(2) and (b) are not inconsistent  with Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement
in conjunction with Article 8 of the Paris Convention (1967).
At its meeting on 2 January 2002, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel
report, as upheld by the Appellate Body report.
53. WT/DS177 and WT/DS178 – United States – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Fresh,
Chilled or Frozen Lamb from New Zealand
Complaints by New Zealand and Australi a.  On 16 July 1999, New Zealand requested
consultations with the US in respect of a safeguard measure imposed by the US on imports of
lamb meat from New Zealand (WT/DS177).  New Zealand alleged that by PresidentialWT/DS/OV/16
Page 98
Proclamation under Section 203 of the US Trade Act 1974, the US imposed a definitive
safeguard measure in the form of a tariff-rate quota on imports fresh, chilled, or frozen lamb
meat effective from 22 July 1999.  New Zealand contended that this measure is inconsistent
with Articles 2, 4, 5, 11 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, and Articles I and XIX of
GATT 1994.
On 23 July 1999, Australia requested consultations with the US in respect of a definitive
safeguard measure imposed by the US on imports of lamb (WT/DS178).  Australia alleged
that by Presidential Proclamation under Section 203 of the US Trade Act 1974, the US
imposed a definitive safeguard measure in the form of a tariff-rate quota on imports of fresh,
chilled, or frozen lamb meat from Australia effective from 22 July 1999.  Australia contended
that this measure is inconsistent with Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 12 of the Agreement onSafeguards, and Articles I, II and XIX of GATT 1994.
On 14 October 1999, New Zealand and Australia requested the establishment of a panel.  At
its meeting on 27 October 1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of the panels.  Further to
the second requests to establish a panel by New Zealand and Australia, at its meeting on 19November 1999, the DSB established, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, a single panel to
examine the complaints WT/DS177 and WT/D S178.  Canada, the EC, Iceland and Japan
reserved their third-party rights.  Australia reserved its third-party rights in relation to the
complaint by New Zealand, while New Zealand reserved its third-party rights in relation to
the complaint by Australia. On 21 March 2000, the Panel was composed.  The Panelcirculated its report on 21 December 2000.  The Panel concluded that:
• the US has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 by failing to
demonstrate as a matter of fact the existence of "unforeseen developments";
• the US has acted inconsistently with Article 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards
because the USITC, in the lamb meat investigation, defined the domestic industry as
including input producers as producers of the like product at issue (i.e. lamb meat);
• the complainants failed to establish that th e USITC's analytical approach to determining
the existence of a threat of serious injury, in particular with respect to the prospectiveanalysis and the time-period used, is inconsistent with Article 4.1(b) of the Agreement on
Safeguards;
• the complainants failed to establish that the USITC's analytical approach to evaluating all
of the factors listed in Article 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards when determining
whether increased imports threatened to cause serious injury with respect to the domesticindustry as defined in the investigation is inconsistent with that provision;
• the US has acted inconsistently with Article 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards
because the USITC failed to obtain data in respect of producers representing a major
proportion of the total domestic production by the domestic industry as defined in the
investigation;
• the US has acted inconsistently with Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards
because the USITC's determination in the lamb meat investigation in respect of causation
did not demonstrate the required causal link between increased imports and threat of
serious injury, in that the determination did not establish that increased imports were by
themselves a necessary and sufficient cause of threat of serious injury, and in that the
determination did not ensure that threat of serious injury caused by "other factors" was
not attributed to increased imports;
• by virtue of the above violations of Article 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards, the US
also has acted inconsistently with Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 99
On 31 January 2001, the US notified the DSB of its intention to appeal certain issues of law
covered in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate
Body circulated its report on 1 May 2001. The Appellate Body:
• upheld the Panel's finding that the US acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of the
GATT 1994 by failing to demonstrate, as a matter of fact, the existence of "unforeseen
developments";
• upheld the Panel's finding that the United States acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and
4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards  because the USITC defined the relevant "domestic
industry" to include growers and feeders of live lambs;
• upheld the Panel's finding that the USITC made a determination regarding the "domestic
industry" on the basis of data that was not sufficiently representative of that industry;  but
modified the Panel's ultimate finding that the US thereby acted inconsistently with
Articles 2.1 and 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards  by finding, instead, that the
United States thereby acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of that Agreement;
• found that the Panel correctly interpreted the standard of review, set forth in Article 11 of
the DSU, which is appropriate to its examination of claims made under Article 4.2 of theAgreement on Safeguards ;  but concluded that the Panel erred in applying that standard in
examining the claims made concerning the USITC's determination that there existed a
threat of serious injury; and found, moreover, that the US acted inconsistently with
Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards  because the USITC Report did
not explain adequately the determination that there existed a threat of serious injury to the
domestic industry;
• reversed the Panel's interpretation of the causation requirements in the Agreement on
Safeguards  but, for different reasons, upheld the Panel's ultimate finding that the US
acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4.2(b) of the Agreement because the USITC's
determination that there existed a causal link between increased imports and a threat ofserious injury did not ensure that injury caused to the domestic industry, by factors other
than increased imports, was not attributed to those imports;
• upheld the Panel's exercise of judicial economy in declining to rule on the claim of
New Zealand under Article 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards ;  and
• declined to rule on the respective conditional appeals of Australia and New Zealand
relating to Articles I, II and XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994, and to Articles 2.2, 3.1, 5.1, 8.1,
11.1(a) and 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards .
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the
Appellate Body Report, on 16 May 2001.
54. WT/DS179 – United States – Anti-Dumping Mea sures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils
and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea
Complaint by Korea.  On 30 July 1999, Korea requested consultations with the US in respect
of Preliminary and Final Determinations of the US's Department of Commerce (DOC) on
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Korea dated 4 November 1998 and 31 March 1999
respectively, and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea dated 20 January 1999 and8 June 1999 respectively.  Korea considered that several errors were made by the US in those
determinations which resulted in erroneous findings and deficient conclusions as well as the
imposition, calculation and collection of anti-dumping margins which are incompatible with
the obligation of the US under the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI
of GATT 1994 and in particular, but not necessa rily exclusively, Article 2, Article 6 and
Article 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Korea believed that the US did not act in
conformity with the cited provisions, among others , in its treatment of the following:  certainWT/DS/OV/16
Page 100
US sales made to a bankrupt company;  the calculation of two distinct exchange rate periods
for export sales;  and currency conversion for certain normal value sales made in US dollars.
On 14 October 1999, Korea requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 27
October 1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request toestablish a panel by Korea, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 19 November 1999.
The EC and Japan reserved their third-party rights.  On 24 March 2000, the Panel was
composed.  The panel circulated its report on 22 December 2000. The panel concluded that:
(i) with respect to  "local sales":
• the US in the Plate  investigation did not act inconsistently with its obligations
under Article 2.4.1, Article 2.4 chapeau ("fair comparison"), and Article 12.2 of
the AD Agreement  nor with its obligations under Article X:3(a) of GATT 1994;
• the US in the Sheet  investigation acted inconsistently with Article 2.4.1 of the
AD Agreement  by performing a currency conversion that was not required.
(ii) with respect to the treatment of unpaid sales, the US:
• acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 2.4 chapeau of the
AD Agreement  in both the Plate  and Sheet  investigations by making allowances
in respect of sales through unaffiliated importers which were not permissibleallowances for differences affecting price comparability;
• acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 2.4 chapeau of the
AD Agreement  in both the Plate and Sheet investigations by making allowances
in respect of sales through an affiliated importer which were not permissible
allowances in the construction of the export price for costs incurred between
importation and resale.
(iii) with respect to multiple averaging, the panel concluded that:
• the US's use of multiple averaging periods in the Plate  and Sheet investigations
was inconsistent with the requirement of Article 2.4.2 to compare "a weightedaverage normal value with a weighted average of all comparable export
transactions";
• the US's use of multiple averaging periods in the Plate  and Sheet investigations
was not inconsistent with Article 2.4.1 of the AD Agreement ;
• the US's use of multiple averaging periods in the Plate  and Sheet  investigations
was not inconsistent with the first sentence of the chapeau of Article 2.4 of the
AD Agreement ("fair comparison").
(iv) to the extent that the US has acted inconsistently with the provisions of the AD
Agreement, it has nullified or impaired benefits accruing to Korea under that
Agreement.
At its meeting of 1 February 2001, the DSB adopted the panel report.
55. WT/DS184 – United States – Anti-Dumping  Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel
Products from Japan
Complaint by Japan.  On 18 November 1999, Japan requested consultations with the US in
respect of the preliminary and final determinations of the US Department of Commerce and
the US International Trade Commission on the anti-dumping investigation of CertainHot Rolled Steel Products from Japan issued on 25 and 30 November 1998, 12 February
1999, 28 April 1999 and 23 June 1999.  Japan considered that these determinations are
erroneous and based on deficient procedures under the US Tariff Act of 1930 and relatedWT/DS/OV/16
Page 101
regulations.  The Japanese complaint also concerned certain provisions of the Tariff Act of
1930 and related regulations.  Japan claimed violations of Articles VI and X of the GATT
1994 and Articles 2, 3, 6 (including Annex II), 9 and 10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
On 11 February 2000, Japan requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 24
February 2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by Japan, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 20 March 2000.
Brazil, Canada, Chile, the EC and Korea reserved their third-party rights.  On 9 May 2000,
Japan requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel.  On 24 May
2000, the Panel was composed.  The Panel circulated its report on 28 February 2001.  The
Panel concluded as follows:
• The US acted inconsistently with Articles 6.8 and Annex II of the AD Agreement in its
application of "facts available" to Kawasaki Steel Corporation (KSC), Nippon SteelCorporation (NSC) and NKK Corporation;
• Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, which mandates that
USDOC exclude only margins based entirely on facts available in determining an allothers rate, is inconsistent with Article 9.4 of the AD Agreement, and that therefore the
US has acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 18.4 of the AD Agreementand Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement by failing to bring that provision into
conformity with its obligations under the AD Agreement; and
• The US acted inconsistently with Article 2.1 of the AD Agreement in excluding certain
home-market sales to affiliated parties from the calculation of normal value on the basisof the "arm's length" test. In addition, in light of the findings above, the panel concluded
that the replacement of those sales with sales to unaffiliated downstream purchasers wasinconsistent with Article 2.1 of the AD Agreement.
• With respect to those of Japan's claims not addressed above the panel concluded: (1) that
the claim was not within its terms of reference ("general practice" concerning adverse
facts available; "general practice" of excluding certain home-market sales from the
calculation of normal value), or (2) that, in light of considerations of judicial economy, it
is neither necessary nor appropriate to make findings.
On 25 April 2001, the US notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues
of law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel.
The Appellate Body circulated its Report on 24 July 2001.  In this regard, the Appellate Body
upheld the Panel's findings except for the following:
• It reversed the Panel's finding regarding th e inconsistency with Article 2.1 of the Anti-
dumping Agreement of the US's methodology for calculating the normal value as regards
the using of certain downstream sales made by an investigated exporters' affiliates to
dependent purchasers;
• It found that there was insufficient factual record to allow completion of the analysis of
Japan's claim under Article 2.4 of the Anti-dumping Agreement that the US did not make
a fair comparison in its use of downstream sales when calculating normal value;
• It reversed the Panel's finding that the US did not act inconsistently with the Anti-
dumping Agreement in its application of the captive production provision in its
determination of injury sustained by the US hot-rolled steel industry;
• It reversed the Panel's finding that the USITC demonstrated the existence of a causal
relationship, under Article 3.5 of the said agreement, between dumped imports and
material injury to that industry; but found that there was insufficient factual record toallow completion of the analysis of Japan's claim on causation;WT/DS/OV/16
Page 102
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the
Appellate Body Report, on 23 August 2001.
56. WT/DS189 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dum ping Measures on Imports of Ceramic
Floor Tiles from Italy
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 26 January 2000, the EC requested
consultations with Argentina in respect of Argentina's definitive anti-dumping measures on
imports of ceramic floor tiles from Italy imposed on 12 November 1999.  The EC claimed
that the Argentinian investigating authority without justification disregarded all the
information on normal value and on export prices provided by the exporters included in the
sample; failed to calculate an individual dumping margin for each of the exporters included in
the sample; failed to make due allowance for the differences in physical characteristicsbetween the models exported to Argentina and those sold in Italy; and failed to inform the
Italian exporters of the essential facts concerning the existence of dumping which formed the
basis for the decision whether to apply definitive measures.  The EC considered that the anti-
dumping measures in question were inconsis tent with Articles 2.4, 6.8 in conjunction with
Annex II, 6.9 and 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
On 7 November 2000, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 26
September 2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request
to establish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 17 November
2000 on the basis of the EC's reduced complaint which relates only to definitive anti-dumpingmeasures on imports of ceramic floor tiles from Italy.  Japan, Turkey and the US reserved
their third-party rights.  On 12 January 2001, the Panel was composed.
The Panel circulated its report to Members on 28 September 2001.  The Panel found that:
• Argentina acted inconsistently with Arti cle 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement by disregarding in large part the information provided by the exporter for thedetermination of the normal value and export price, and this without informing the
exporters of the reasons for such a rejection;
• Argentina acted inconsistently with Article 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by not
determining an individual dumping margin for each sampled exporter;
• Argentina acted inconsistently with Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by
failing to make due allowance for difference in physical characteristics affecting price
comparability;
• Argentina acted inconsistently with Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by not
disclosing to the exporters the essential facts under consideration which form the basis for
the decision whether to apply definitive measures.
On 5 November 2001, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.
57. WT/DS192 – United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn
from Pakistan
Complaint by Pakistan.  On 3 April 2000, Pakistan requested consultations with the US in
respect of a transitional safeguard measure applied by the United States, as of 17 March 1999,
on combed cotton yarn (United States category 301) from Pakistan (see US Federal Register
of 12 March 1999, document 99-6098).  In accordance with Article 6.10 of the Agreement onTextiles and Clothing (ATC), the United States had notified the TMB on 5 March 1999 that it
had decided to unilaterally impose a restraint, after consultations as to whether the situation
called for a restraint had failed to produce a mutually satisfactory solution.  In April 1999, theWT/DS/OV/16
Page 103
TMB examined the US restraint pursuant to Article 6.10 of the ATC and recommended that
the US restraint should be rescinded.  On 28 May 1999, in accordance with Article 8.10 of the
ATC, the United States notified the TMB that it considered itself unable to conform to the
recommendations issued by the TMB.  Despite a further recommendation of the TMB
pursuant to Article 8.10 of the ATC that the United States reconsider its position, the UnitedStates continued to maintain its unilateral restraint and thus the matter remained unresolved.
Pakistan claimed as follows:
• the transitional safeguards applied by the United States are inconsistent with the United
States' obligations under Articles 2.4 of the ATC and not justified by Article 6 of the
ATC;
• the US restraint does not meet the requirements for transitional safeguards set out in
paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 7 of Article 6 of the ATC.
On 3 April 2000, Pakistan requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 18 May
2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by Pakistan, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 19 June 2000.  India and
the EC reserved their third-party rights.  On 30 August 2000, the Panel was composed.
The panel circulated its report on 31 May 2001.  The Panel concluded that the transitional
safeguard measure (quantitative restriction) imposed by the US on imports of combed cotton
yarn from Pakistan as of 17 March 1999, and extended as of 17 March 2000 for a further year
is inconsistent with the provisions of Article 6 of the ATC.  Specifically, the Panel found that:
• Inconsistently with its obligations under 6.2, the US excluded the production of combed
cotton yarn by vertically integrated producers for their own use from the scope of the"domestic industry producing like and/or directly competitive products" with imported
combed cotton yarn;
• Inconsistently with its obligations under Article 6.4, the US did not examine the effect of
imports from Mexico (and possibly other appropriate Members) individually;
• Inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 6.2 and 6.4, the US did not demonstrate
that the subject imports caused an "actual threat" of serious damage to the domestic
industry.
With respect to the other claims, the Panel found that Pakistan did not establish that the
measure at issue was inconsistent with the US obligations under Article 6 of the ATC.
Specifically, the Panel found that: (a)  Pakistan did not establish that the US determination ofserious damage was not justified based on the data used by the US investigating authority; (b)
Pakistan did not establish that the US determ ination of serious damage was not justified
regarding the evaluation by the US investigating authority of establishments that ceased
producing combed cotton yarn; (c) Pakistan did not establish that the US determinations of
serious damage and causation thereof were not justified based upon an inappropriately chosenperiod of investigation and period of incidence of serious damage and causation thereof.
The Panel recommended that the DSB request that the US bring the measure at issue into
conformity with its obligations under the ATC, and  suggested that this can best be achieved
by prompt removal of the import restriction.
On 9 July 2001, the US notified its decision to a ppeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of
law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel.  On
5 September 2001, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that it would not be able to
circulate its report within the 7 September deadline.  The Report was circulated to Members
on 8 October 2001.  The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's overall conclusion that theWT/DS/OV/16
Page 104
transitional safeguard measure taken by the United States with respect to imports of combed
cotton yarn from Pakistan was inconsistent with the ATC.  In particular, the Appellate Body
upheld the Panel's findings that, in taking safeguard action with respect to imports of yarn
from Pakistan, the US: (a) failed to define properly the relevant "domestic industry"
producing yarn; and (b) failed to examine the effect of imports of yarn from other majorsuppliers individually when attributing serious damage to imports from Pakistan.
Furthermore, the Appellate Body concluded that  the Panel should not have considered data
which were not in existence at the time when the US determined that serious damage had
been caused to the domestic industry.  It declined to rule on the broader issue of whether an
importing Member must attribute serious damage to all Members whose exports contributed
to that damage and concluded therefore that the Panel's interpretation of this broader issue
was of no legal effect.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the
Appellate Body Report, on 5 November 2001.
At the DSB meeting on 21 November 2001, the US stated that it had implemented the DSB's
recommendations and rulings.  Specifically, on 8 November 2001, the Committee for the
Implementation of Textile Agreements, chai red by the Department of Commerce, had
directed the US Customs Service to eliminate the limit on imports of combed cotton yarn
from Pakistan.  This action was effective from 9 November 2001.
58. WT/DS194 – United States – Measures Tr eating Export Restraints As Subsidies
Request by Canada.  On 19 May 2000, Canada requested consultations with the US regarding
certain US measures that treat a restraint on exports of a product as a subsidy to other
products made using or incorporating the restricted product if the domestic price of the
restricted product is affected by the restraint.  The measures at issue included provisions ofthe Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (URAA) (H.R. 5110, H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., 656, in
particular at 925-926 (1994)) and the Explanati on of the Final Rules, US Department of
Commerce, Countervailing Duties, Final Rule (63 Federal Register 65,348 at 65,349-51
(Nov. 25, 1998)) interpreting section 771(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 USC. § 1677(5)), as
amended by the URAA.  Canada's claims were as follows:
• Canada considered that these measures were inconsistent with US obligations under
Articles 1.1, 10, (as well as Articles 11, 17 and 19, as they relate to the requirements ofArticle 10), and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement because these measures provide that the US
will impose countervailing duties against practices that are not subsidies within the
meaning of Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement.
• Canada also considered that the US has fail ed to ensure that its laws, regulations and
administrative procedures are in conformity with its WTO obligations as required by
Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
On 24 July 2000, Canada requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 4 August
2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by Canada, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 11 September 2000.Australia, the EC and India reserved their th ird-party rights.  On 23 October 2000, the Panel
was composed.  The Panel circulated its report on 29 June 2001.  The Panel concluded that:
• an export restraint as defined in this dispute cannot constitute government-entrusted or
government-directed provision of goods in the sense of subparagraph (iv) and hence doesWT/DS/OV/16
Page 105
not constitute a financial contribution in the sense of Article 1.1(a) of the
SCM Agreement; and
• Section 771(5)(B)(iii) read in light of the SAA and the Preamble to the US CVD
Regulations is not inconsistent with Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement by "requir[ing]the imposition of countervailing duties against practices that are not subsidies within the
meaning of Article 1.1".
• with respect to those of Canada's claims not addressed above, the Panel concluded that in
light of considerations of judicial economy, it was neither necessary nor appropriate tomake findings thereon.  The Panel therefore made no recommendations with respect to
the US' obligations under the SCM and WTO Agreements.
The DSB adopted the Panel Report on 23 August 2001.
59. WT/DS202 – United States – Definitive Sa feguard Measures on Imports of Circular
Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe
Complaint by Korea.  On 13 June 2000, Korea requested consultations with the United States
in respect of concerns the definitive safeguard measure imposed by the United States on
imports of circular welded carbon quality line pipe (line pipe).  Korea noted that on
18 February 2000 the United States proclaimed a definitive safeguard measure on imports ofline pipe (subheadings 7306.10.10 and 7306.10.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States).  In that proclamation, the United States announced that the proposed date of
introduction of the measure was 1 March 2000 and that the measure was expected to remain
in effect for 3 years and 1 day.  Korea considered that the US procedures and determinations
that led to the imposition of the safeguard measure as well as the measure itself contravenedvarious provisions contained in the Safeguards  Agreement and the GATT 1994.  In particular,
Korea considers that the measure is inconsistent with the United States' obligations under
Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 11 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement; and Articles I, XIII and XIX of
the GATT 1994.
Further to Korea's request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 23 October 2000.
Australia, Canada, EC, Japan and Mexico reserved their third-party rights.  On 12 January
2001, Korea requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel.  On
22 January 2001, the Panel was composed.
On 29 October 2001, the Panel circulated its report to the Members.  The Panel concluded
that the US line pipe measure was imposed inconsistently with certain provisions of GATT
1994 and/or the Safeguards Agreement, in particular:
• the line pipe measure is not consistent with the general rule contained in the chapeau of
Article XIII:2 because it has been applied without respecting traditional trade patterns;
• the line pipe measure is not consistent with Article XIII2:(a) because it has been applied
without fixing the total amount of imports permitted at the lower tariff rate;
• the US acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) by failing to include in its
published report a finding or reasoned conclusion either (i) that increased imports have
caused serious injury, or (ii) that increased imports are threatening to cause serious injury;
• the US acted inconsistently with Article 4.2(b) by failing to establish a causal link
between the increased imports and the serious injury, or threat thereof;
• the US has not complied with its obligations under Article 9.1 by applying the measure to
developing countries whose imports do not exceed the individual and collective
thresholds in that provision;WT/DS/OV/16
Page 106
• the US acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article XIX by failing to
demonstrate the existence of unforeseen developments prior to the application of the linepipe measure;
• the US has acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 12.3 by failing to
provide an adequate opportunity for prior consultations with Members having asubstantial interest as exporters of line pipe;
• the US has acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 8.1 to endeavour to
maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligations;
All other claims by Korea were rejected by the Panel.  The Panel also declined Korea's
request for the Panel to find that the US safeguard measure should be lifted immediately and
the ITC safeguard investigation on line pipe terminated.
On 6 November 2001, the US notified its decision to appeal certain findings of law and legal
interpretations contained in the Panel Report.  However, on 13 November 2001, it withdrew
its notice of appeal.  Later, on 19 November 2001, the US notified its decision to re-file its
appeal to the Appellate Body.  On 18 January 2002, the Appellate Body informed the DSB
that there would be a delay in the circulation of the report.  Accordingly, the Appellate Body
informed that the report would be circulated to the Members no later than 15 February 2002.
On 15 February 2002, the Appellate Body circulated its report to the Members.  TheAppellate Body:
• upheld, albeit for different reasons, the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.1(7) of the Panel
Report, that the United States acted inconsistently with its obligation under Article 12.3of the Agreement on Safeguards  by failing to provide an adequate opportunity for prior
consultations with Korea, a Member having a substantial interest in exports of line pipe;
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.1(8) of the Panel Report, that the United States
acted inconsistently with its obligation under Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards
to endeavour to maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other
obligations;
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.1(5) of the Panel Report, that the United States
did not comply with its obligation under Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards  that
safeguard measures shall not be applied against a product originating in a developingcountry Member as long as its imports do not exceed the individual and collective
thresholds in that provision;
• reversed the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.1(3) of the Panel Report, that the United
States acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) of theAgreement on Safeguards  by failing to include in its published report a finding or
reasoned conclusion either (1) that increased imports have caused serious injury, or (2)that increased imports are threatening to cause serious injury;
• reversed the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.2(9) of the Panel Report, that the United
States did not violate its obligations under Articles 2 and 4 of the Agreement on
Safeguards by exempting Canada and Mexico from the line pipe measure;
• modified the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.2(1)) of the Panel Report, that the United
States did not violate its obligations under Articles I, XIII:1 and XIX of GATT 1994 by
exempting Canada and Mexico from the line pipe measures, declaring it moot and ashaving no legal effect;
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.1(4) of the Panel Report, that the United States
acted inconsistently with its obligation under Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement on
Safeguards  by failing to establish a causal link between the increased imports and the
serious injury or threat thereof;
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.81 of the Panel Report, that the United States
was not required by Article 5.1, first sentence, of the Agreement on Safeguards  toWT/DS/OV/16
Page 107
demonstrate, at the time of imposition, that the line pipe measure was necessary to
prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment;
• reversed the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.2(2) of the Panel Report, that Korea failed to
make a prima facie case that the United States violated its obligation under Article 5.1,
first sentence, of the Agreement on Safeguards , by imposing a measure that exceeds what
is "necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment", and findsthat the United States applied the line pipe measure beyond the "extent necessary to
prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment".
On 8 March 2002, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as
modified by the Appellate Body Report.
60. WT/DS206 – United States – Anti-Dumping a nd Countervailing Measures on Steel Plate
From India
Complaint by India.  On 4 October 2000, India requested consultations with the United States
concerning:
(i) final affirmative determinations of sales of certain cut-to-length carbon quality steel
plate products from India at less than fair value by US Department of Commerce
(DOC) on 13 December 1999 and affirmed on 10 February 2000;
(ii) interpretation and use of provisions relating to facts available in the anti-dumping and
countervailing duty investigations by DOC; and
(iii) determination and interpretation by the US International Trade Commission (ITC) of
negligibility, cumulation and material injury caused by the said Indian steel imports.
India considered that these determinations are erroneous and based on deficient procedures
contained in various provisions of US anti-dumping and countervailing duty law.  According
to India, these determinations and provisions raise questions concerning the obligations of theUnited States under the GATT 1994, the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement,
and the Agreement establishing the WTO (WTO Agreement). India considered that the
provisions of these agreements with which these measures and determinations appear to be
inconsistent, include, but are not limited to, the following: Articles VI and X of the GATT
1994; Articles 1, 2, 3 (especially 3.3), 5 (especially 5.8), 6 (especially 6.8), 12, 15, 18.4 andAnnex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; Articles 10, 11 (especially 11.9), 15 (especially
15.3), 22 and 27 (especially 27.10) of the SCM Agreement; Article XVI of the WTO
Agreement.
Further to India's request, the DSB established a Panel at its meeting of 24 July 2001.  Chile,
the EC and Japan reserved their third-rights.  On 16 October 2001, India requested the
Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel.  On 26 October 2001, theDirector-General composed the Panel.  On 16 April 2002, the Chairman of the Panel
informed the DSB that the Panel would not be able to complete its work in six months in light
of scheduling conflicts.  The Panel expected to complete its work in June 2002, depending on
translation.
On 28 June 2002, the Panel circulated its report to Members.  The Panel concluded that:
(a) the United States statutory provisions governing the use of facts available, sections
776(a) and 782(d) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, are not inconsistent
with Articles 6.8 and paragraphs 3, 5, and 7 of Annex II of the AD Agreement.
(b) the United States did not act inconsistently with Article 15 of the AD Agreement with
respect to India in the anti-dumping investigation underlying this dispute.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 108
The Panel also concluded that the "practice" of the USDOC concerning the application of
"total facts available" was not a measure which can give rise to an independent claim of
violation of the AD Agreement, and have therefor e not ruled on India's claim in this regard.
With respect to India's claims not addressed above, the Panel concluded that:(a) it would not rule on India's abandoned claim; and
(b) in light of considerations of judicial economy, it was neither necessary nor
appropriate to make findings with resp ect to the remainder of India's claims.
The Panel therefore recommended that the DSB request the United States to bring its measure
into conformity with its obligations under the AD Agreement.
At its meeting on 29 July 2002, the DSB adopted the Panel report.
61. WT/DS207 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures relating to Certain
Agricultural Products
Complaint by Argentina.  On 5 October 2000, Argentina requested consultations with Chile
concerning:
(1) the price band system established by Law 18.525 (as subsequently amended by Law
18.591 and Law 19.546), as well as implementing regulations and complementary
and/or amending provisions; and
(2) the provisional safeguard measures adopted on 19 November 1999 by Decree
No. 339 of the Ministry of Economy and the definitive safeguard measures imposed
on 20 January 2000 by Decree No. 9 of the Ministry of Economy on the importationof various products, including wheat, wheat flour and edible vegetal oils.
Argentina considered that these measures raised questions concerning the obligations of Chile
under various agreements. According to Argentina, the provisions with which the measures
relating to the said price band system are inconsistent, include, but are not limited to, the
following: Article II of the GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
According to Argentina, the provisions with which the safeguard measures are inconsistent,include, but are not limited to, the following: Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the Safeguards
Agreement, and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994.
On 19 January 2001, Argentina requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
1 February 2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second requestto establish a panel by Argentina, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 12 March
2001.  Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, the EC, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras, Japan, Nicaragua, Paraguay, the US and Venezuela reserved their third party
rights.  On 7 May 2001, Argentina requested the Director-General to determine the
composition of the Panel.  On 17 May 2001, the Panel was composed.
On 23 November 2001, the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be able to complete its
work in six months due to the scheduling requests of the parties.  The Panel expected to
complete its work by the end of March 2002.  On 3 May 2002, the Panel circulated its report
to Members.  The Panel concluded that:
(a) the Chilean PBS is inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and
Article II:1(b) of GATT 1994;WT/DS/OV/16
Page 109
(b) as regards the Chilean safeguard measures on wheat, wheat flour and edible vegetable
oils:
(i) Chile has acted inconsistently with Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards by not making available the relevant minutes of the sessions of
the CDC through an appropriate medium so as to constitute a "published"report;
(ii) Chile has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 because
the CDC failed to demonstrate the existence of unforeseen developments, and
Article 3.1 of the Agreement on Safegu ards because the CDC's report did not
set out findings and reasoned conclusions in this respect in its report;
(iii) Chile has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and
Articles 2 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards because the CDC failed todemonstrate the likeness or direct competitiveness of the products produced
by the domestic industry, and, consequently, failed to identify the domestic
industry;
(iv) Chile has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and
Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards because the CDCfailed to demonstrate the increase in imports of the products subject to the
safeguard measures required by those provisions;
(v) Chile has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and
Article 4.1(a), 4.1(b) and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards because the
CDC did not demonstrate the existence of a threat of serious injury;
(vi) Chile has acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4.2(b) of the Agreement
on Safeguards because the CDC did not demonstrate a causal link;
(vii) Chile has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and
Article 5.1 of the Agreement on Safegu ards because the CDC did not ensure
that the measures were limited to the extent necessary to prevent or remedyinjury and facilitate adjustment;
(viii) Argentina failed to establish that Chile has acted inconsistently with the
requirement of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards to
conduct an "appropriate investigation" because Argentina allegedly did not
have a full opportunity to participate in the investigation and did not have
access to any public summary of the confidential information on which the
Chilean authorities may have based their determination.
On 24 June 2002, Chile notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of
law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel.
On 23 September 2002 the report of the Appellate Body was circulated. The Appellate Body:(a) found that the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU by making its
finding, in paragraph 7.108 of the Panel Report, that the duties resulting from Chile's
price band  system are inconsistent with Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994, on the
basis of the  second  sentence of that provision, which was not before the Panel, and,
therefore, reverses this finding;
(b) decided that the Panel did not err in choosing to examine Argentina's claim under
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture before examining Argentina's claim
under Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994;
(c) with respect to Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture:WT/DS/OV/16
Page 110
(i) upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.47 and 7.65 of the Panel Report,
that Chile's price band system is a border measure that is similar to variable import
levies and minimum import prices;
(ii) reversed the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.52 and 7.60 of the Panel Report,
that an "ordinary customs duty" is to be understood as "referring to a customs duty
which is not applied on the basis of factors of an exogenous nature";
(iii) upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.102 and 8.1(a) of the Panel
Report, that Chile's price band system is inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the
Agreement on Agriculture;
(d) decided, in the light of these findings, that it was not necessary to rule on whether
Chile's price band system is consistent with the first sentence of Article II:1(b) of the
GATT 1994.
The Appellate Body recommended that the DSB request Chile to bring its price band system,
as found, in its and in the Panel Report as modified by its Report, to be inconsistent with the
Agreement on Agriculture, into conformity with its obligations under that Agreement.
At its meeting on 23 October 2002, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the
Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report.
62. WT/DS211– Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dumping  Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey
Complaint by Turkey.  On 6 November 2000, Turkey requested consultations with Egypt
concerning an anti-dumping investigation by the Egyptian Ministry of Trade and Supply with
respect to imports of rebar from Turkey. The investigation was completed and the final reportreleased on 21 October 1999. As a result of the investigation, anti-dumping duties were
imposed, ranging from 22.63-61.00 per cent ad valorem.
Turkey considered that:
• Egypt made determinations of injury and dumping in that investigation without a proper
establishment of the facts and based on an evaluation of the facts that was neither
unbiased nor objective;
• during the investigation of material injury or threat thereof and the causal link, Egypt
acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.1 and 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement; and
• during the investigation of sales at less than normal value, Egypt violated Article X:3 of
the GATT 1994, as well as Articles 2.2, 2.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.6, 6.7 and 6.8, and Annex II,
Paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 and Annex I, Paragraph 7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
On 3 May 2001, Turkey requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 16 May
2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by Turkey, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 20 June 2001.  Chile, the EC,
Japan and the US reserved their third party rights.  On 18 July 2001, the Panel was composed.
On 8 August 2002, the Panel Report was circulated to WTO Members.  The Panel concluded
that Egypt did not act inconsistently with its obligations under:
(a) Article 3.4 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not established that the Egyptian
Investigating Authority was required to examine and evaluate the particular factorsWT/DS/OV/16
Page 111
identified by Turkey as "relevant factors and indices having a bearing on the state of
the domestic industry";
(b) Article 3.2 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not established that there was a legal
obligation on the Egyptian Investigating Authority to perform the price undercutting
analysis in the way asserted by Turkey;
(c) Article 3.1 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not established that the Egyptian
Investigating Authority's price undercutting finding was not based on positive
evidence;
(d) Articles 6.1 and 6.2 of the AD Agreement in respect of the alleged change in scope of
the injury investigation from threat of mate rial injury to present material injury and
notice thereof to the Turkish exporters;
(e) Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not established that the
Egyptian Investigating Authority violated the positive evidence requirement of
Article 3.1 by virtue of the Investigating Authority not developing certain specific
kinds of evidence, nor has Turkey established that, as a consequence, Egypt violated
the requirement of Article 3.5 to demonstrate a causal relationship between the
dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry;
(f) Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not established that the Egyptian
Investigating Authority's evaluation of the possible causation of injury by factors
other than the dumped imports was inconsistent with Article 3.5;
(g) Article 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not established that the
Egyptian Investigating Authority was obligated by Articles 3.1 and 3.5 to perform ananalysis and make a finding of the type asserted by Turkey in respect of whether the
imports caused injury "through the effects of dumping";
(h) Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement and paragraph 5 of Annex II thereto, with regard to
three of the Turkish exporters, as an unbiased and objective investigating authority
could have found that these three exporters failed to provide necessary informationand that resort to facts available was therefore justified in calculating the cost of
production in respect of these three exporters;
(i) Article 6.1.1 of the AD Agreement, as the request for information at issue was not a
"questionnaire" in the sense of this provision, and the minimum time-period provided
for in Article 6.1.1 was therefore not applicable to this request for information;
(j) Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement, or paragraph 6 of Annex II thereto, with regard to
the 19 August 1999 request for information, as Turkey has not established that thetime-period allowed by the Egyptian Investigating Authority for submission of the
requested information was unreasonable or, as a consequence, that the Egyptian
Investigating Authority failed to provide the Turkish exporters with a full opportunity
for the defence of their interests;
(k) Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement, or paragraph 6 of Annex II thereto, with regard to
the 23 September 1999 request for information, as Turkey has not established that the
time-period allowed by the Egyptian Investigating Authority for the submission of the
requested information was unreasonable or, as a consequence, that the Egyptian
Investigating Authority failed to provide the Turkish exporters with a full opportunity
for the defence of their interests;
(l) Paragraph 3 of Annex II to the AD Agreement, as this provision does not apply to the
selection of particular information as "facts available";
(m) Paragraph 7 of Annex II to the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not established that the
Egyptian Investigating Authority failed to use "special circumspection"  in estimating
the prevailing inflation rate in Turkey, which was applied to the data reported by onerespondent, at 5 per cent per month;
(n) Article 6.7 of the AD Agreement, paragraph 7 of Annex I thereto, and paragraphs 1
and 6 of Annex II thereto, as Turkey has not established that these provisions contain
the obligations asserted by Turkey, i.e., Turkey has not established that it is
mandatory for investigating authorities to conduct "on-the-spot" verification ofWT/DS/OV/16
Page 112
information submitted, that investigating authorities are precluded from requesting
additional information during the course of the investigation, that the rights of the
Turkish exporters were seriously prejudiced, or that the actions of the Egyptian
Investigating Authority impaired their "opportunity to provide further explanations";
(o) Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not established that the burden of
proof requirement of that provision is applicable to the request for certain cost
information by the Egyptian Investigating Authority in its letter of 19 August 1999,
nor, even if that requirement were applicable, that the request imposed an
unreasonable burden of proof on the Turkish respondents;
(p) Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement and paragraph 6 of Annex II thereto, as Turkey has
not established that the Egyptian Investigating Authority denied requests of Turkish
exporters for meetings;
(q) Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not made a prima facie  case that the
Egyptian Investigating Authority violated this provision in failing to make an
adjustment to normal value for differences in terms of sale;
(r) Articles 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not made a prima
facie  case that the Egyptian Investigating Authority violated these provisions in
deciding not to make an interest income offset in calculating cost of production and
constructed normal value; and
(s) Article X:3 of GATT 1994 as Turkey has not established that Egypt administered its
relevant laws, regulations, decisions or rulings in a non-uniform, non-impartial or
unreasonable manner in deciding not to accept an offer of certain respondents totravel to Cairo for a meeting with the Investigating Authority.
The Panel concluded that Egypt acted inconsistently with its obligations under:
(t) Article 3.4 of the AD Agreement, in that while it gathered data on all of the factors
listed in Article 3.4, the Egyptian Investigating Authority failed to evaluate all of the
factors listed in Article 3.4 as it did not evaluate productivity, actual and potentialnegative effects on cash flow, employment, wages, and ability to raise capital or
investments; and
(u) Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement, and paragraph 6 of Annex II thereto, with regard to
two of the Turkish exporters, as the Egyptian Investigating Authority, having
received the information that it had iden tified to these two respondents as being
necessary, nevertheless found that they had failed to provide the necessary
information, and further, did not inform these two exporters of this finding and didnot give them the required opportunity to provide further explanations before
resorting to facts available.
With respect to those of Turkey's claims not addressed above, the Panel concluded that:
(v) the claim was not within its terms of reference (claim under AD Article 17.6(i), claim
under Article X:3 of GATT 1994 in respect of selection of particular facts available),or was abandoned by Turkey (claim under Article X:3 in respect of resort to facts
available); or
(w) in the light of considerations of judicial economy, it was neither necessary nor
appropriate to make findings.
The Panel recommended Egypt to bring its definitive anti-dumping measures on imports ofsteel rebar from Turkey into conformity with the relevant provisions of the AD Agreement.
On 1 October 2002, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.
63. WT/DS212 – United States – Countervailin g Measures concerning Certain Products
from the European Communities
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 10 November 2000, the EC requested
consultations with the US concerning the continued application by the United States of
countervailing duties on a number of products.  In particular, the EC claimed that theWT/DS/OV/16
Page 113
application of the " same person" methodology by the US, and the continued imposition of
duties based on it, are in breach of Articles 10, 19 and 21 of the SCM Agreement, because
there is no proper determination of a benefit to the producer of the goods under investigation,
as required by Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement. The EC included in this request for
consultations 12 US countervailing duty orders3 where this " same person " methodology was
applied.  All these cases involve alleged non-recurring subsidies granted to firms prior to a
change of ownership;
On 1 February 2001, the EC requested further consultations with the US.  Failing
consultations and further to the request of the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting
of 10 September 2001.  Brazil, India and Mexico  reserved their third-party rights.  On 25
October 2001, the EC requested the Director-General to determine the composition of thePanel.  On 5 November 2001, the Panel was composed.  On 18 April 2002, the Chairman of
the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be able to complete its work in six months due
to the complexity of the matter.  The Panel expected to complete its work by mid July 2002.
On 31 July 2002, the Panel Report was circulated to the Members.  The Panel concluded that
where a privatization is at arm's length and for fair market value, the benefit from a prior non-
recurring financial contribution bestowed upon the state-owned producer no longer accrues to
the privatized producer.  Therefore, the Panel found that both the 12 countervailing duty
determinations and Section 1677(5)(F) were inconsistent with WTO Law.
On 9 September 2002 the US notified its decision to appeal certain issues of law covered in
the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The United States
sought review by the Appellate Body of the conclusions of the Panel set forth in paragraphs
8.1(a) –(d) and 8.2 of the Panel Report.
On 9 December 2002, the Appellate Body Report was circulated to Members.  The Appellate
Body:
• upheld the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 8.1 (a), (b) and (c) of the Panel Report, that
the United States has acted inconsistently with Articles 10, 14, 19.1, 19.4, 21.1, 21.2 and
21.3 of the  SCM Agreement, by imposing and maintaining countervailing dutieswithout determining whether a "benefit" continues to exist in twelve countervailing duty
determinations;
• reversed the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.1(d), first sentence, of the Panel Report, that
"[o]nce an importing Member has determined that a privatization has taken place atarm's-length and for fair market value, it must reach the conclusion that no "benefit"
resulting from the prior financial contribution (or subsidization) continues to accrue to
the privatized producer";  and
                                                     
3 Original imposition of countervailing duties (post-WTO measures) :  Stainless Sheet and Strip in
Coils from France (C-427-815); Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel from France (C-427-817); Certain
Pasta from Italy (C-475-819); Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in coils from Italy (C-475-821); Certain StainlessSteel Wire Rod from Italy (C-475-823); Stainless Steel Plate in coils from Italy (C-475-825); Certain Cut-to-length Carbon-quality steel plate from Italy (C-475-827). Administrative reviews: Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel
Flat Products from Sweden (C-401-401); Cut-to Length Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden (C-401-804); Grain-oriented electrical steel from Italy * (C-475-812). Sunset reviews: Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
United Kingdom (C-412-815); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from France
(C-427-810); Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Germany (C-428-817); Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Platefrom Spain (C-469-804).
* Preliminary determination, plus final sunset resultsWT/DS/OV/16
Page 114
• reversed the Panel's conclusion, in paragraph 8.1(d), second sentence, of the Panel
Report, that Section 771(5)(F) of the Tariff Act 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C.§ 1677(5)(F), is inconsistent with the  SCM Agreement.
• upheld the Panel's conclusion, in paragraph 8.2 of the Panel Report, that, insofar as the
United States has infringed its obligations under the  SCM Agreement, as set out inparagraphs 8.1(a), (b), and (c) of the Panel Report, these actions of the United States
constitute  prima facie  nullification or impairment of benefits accruing to the EuropeanCommunities, pursuant to Article 3.8 of the DSU; and, because the United States has
failed to rebut this presumption, the United States has in fact nullified or impaired
benefits accruing to the European Communities under the  SCM Agreement.
The Appellate Body recommended that the DSB request the United States to bring its
measures and administrative practice (the "same person" methodology) into conformity with
its obligations under that Agreement.  On 8 January 2003, the DSB adopted the Appellate
Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report.
64. WT/DS213 – United States – Countervailin g Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 10 November 2000, the EC requested
consultations with the US in respect of countervailing duties imposed by the US on imports ofcertain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products ("corrosion resistant steel"), dealt with
under US case number C-428-817.  This dispute related, in particular, to the final results of a
full sunset review of the above measure, carried out by the US Department of Commerce
("DOC") and published in the US Federal Register No. 65 FR 47407 of 2 August 2000.  In
this decision, the DOC found that revocation of the countervailing duty order would be likelyto lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy.  The EC considered that
this finding is inconsistent with the obligations of the US under the SCM Agreement and, in
particular, in breach of Articles 10, 11.9 and 21 (notably 21.3) thereof.
On 5 February 2001, the EC requested further consultations.  As the consultations failed, a
panel was established by the DSB on 10 September 2001 further to the request of the EC.
Japan and Norway reserved their third-party rights.  On 18 October 2001, the EC requested
the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel.  On 26 October 2001, the
Director-General composed the Panel.  On 12 April 2002, the Chairman of the Panel
informed the DSB that the Panel would not be able to complete its work within six monthsdue to the parties' wish to use the maximum time periods prescribed in Appendix 3 of the
DSU.  The Panel expected to complete its work by July 2002.
On 3 July 2002, the Panel circulated its report to Members.  The Panel concluded that:(a) US CVD law and the accompanying regulations are consistent with Article 21,
paragraphs 1 and 3, and Article 10 of the SCM Agreement in respect of theapplication of evidentiary standards to the self-initiation of sunset reviews;
(b) US CVD law and the accompanying regulations are inconsistent with Article 21.3 of
the SCM Agreement in respect of the application of a 0.5 per cent de minimis
standard to sunset reviews, and therefore violate Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement
and, consequently, also Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement;
(c) the United States, in applying a 0.5 per cent de minimis standard to the instant sunset
review, acted in violation of Article 21.3 of the SCM Agreement;WT/DS/OV/16
Page 115
(d) US CVD law and the accompanying regulations and statement of policy practices are
consistent with Article 21.3 of the SCM Agreement in respect of the obligation to
determine the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of subsidisation in sunset
reviews; and
(e) the United States, in failing to determine properly the likelihood of continuation or
recurrence of subsidisation in the sunset review on carbon steel, acted in violation of
Article 21.3 of the SCM Agreement.
The Panel recommended that the DSB request the United States to bring its measures
mentioned in paragraphs (b), (c) and (e) into conformity with its obligations under the
WTO Agreement.
One member of the Panel dissociated himself from the Panel assessment relating to the
US CVD law as such and as applied in the sunset review on carbon steel in respect of
application of a de minimis standard to sunset reviews.  This member did not share the view
of the majority of the Panel that the silence in Article 21.3 of the SCM Agreement as to the
applicability of a de minimis standard to sunset reviews means that this standard applies to
sunset reviews.  Accordingly, and contrary to the panel's above findings, this memberconcluded that:
• US CVD law and the accompanying regulations are consistent with Article 21.3 of the
SCM Agreement in respect of the application of a 0.5 per cent de minimis standard to
sunset reviews; and
• the United States, in applying a 0.5 per cent de minimis standard to the instant sunset
review, did not act in violation of Article 21.3 of the SCM Agreement.
On 30 August 2002, the US notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain
issues of law covered in the Panel report. The Report was circulated to Members on 28
November 2002.  The Appellate Body:
• upheld Panel findings relating to the Panel's terms of reference;  the consistency of
United States law with obligations relating to the self-initiation of sunset reviews bydomestic authorities; and the consistency of United States law with obligations relating
to the determination to be made in a sunset review;
• reversed the Panel's interpretation of Article 21.3 of the   Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures  as regards  de minimis   subsidization in sunset reviews.
Accordingly, the Appellate Body also reversed the related Panel findings that UnitedStates law, as such and as applied, were inconsistent with that provision.
On 19 December 2002, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as
modified by the Appellate Body Report.
65. WT/DS217, WT/DS234 – United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of
2000
Joint complaint by Australia, Brazil, Chile, European Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan,
Korea and Thailand (WT/DS217), and Canada and Mexico (WT/DS234).  On 21 December
2000 and 21 May 2001 respectively, the complainants requested consultations with the US
concerning the amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930 signed on 28 October 2000 with the title
of "Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000" (the "Act") usually referred to as
"the Byrd Amendment".  According to the comp lainants the Act is inconsistent with the
obligations of the United States under several provisions of the GATT, the AD Agreement,WT/DS/OV/16
Page 116
the SCM Agreement, and the WTO Agreement.  In particular, the Act is alleged to be
inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under: (i) Article 18.1 of the ADA in
conjunction with Article VI:2 of the GATT and Article 1 of the ADA; (ii) Article 32.1 of the
SCM Agreement, in conjunction with Article VI:3 of the GATT and Articles 4.10, 7.9 and 10
of the SCM Agreement; (iii) Article X(3)(a) of the GATT; (iv) Article 5.4 of the ADA andArticle 11.4 of the SCM Agreement; (v) Articl e 8 of the ADA and Article 18 of the SCM
Agreement; (vi) Article 5 of the SCM Agreement; and (vii) Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh
Agreement establishing the WTO, Article 18.4 of the ADA and Article 32.5 of the SCM
Agreement.
On 12 July 2001, the complainants in dispute WT/DS217 requested the establishment of a
panel.  At its meeting on 24 July 2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.Further to a second request to establish a panel by the complainants, the DSB established a
panel at its meeting on 23 August 2001.  Arge ntina; Canada; Costa Rica; Hong Kong, China;
Israel; Norway and Mexico reserved their third-party rights.
On 10 August 2001, Canada and Mexico requested the establishment of a panel. At its
meeting on 23 August 2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a
second request to establish a panel by Canada and Mexico, the DSB established a panel at its
meeting on 10 September 2001.  The DSB also agreed, in accordance with Article 9 of the
DSU, that the panel established to examine the complaint by Australia, Brazil, Chile, EC,
India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea and Thai land (WT/DS217) on 23 August 2001 would also
examine the complaint by Canada and Mexico (WT/DS234).
On 15 October 2001, all 11 complainants requested the Director-General to determine the
composition of the Panel.  On 25 October 2001, the Panel was composed. On 17 April 2002,
the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that  the Panel would not be able to complete its
work in six months since the parties were given the maximum amount of time for preparing
submissions and oral statements.  The Panel expected to complete its work by July 2002.
On 16 September 2002, the Panel Report was circulated to Members.  The Panel concluded
that the CDSOA was inconsistent with Articles 5.4, 18.1 and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, Articles 11.4, 32.1 and 32.5 of the Subsidies Agreement, Articles VI:2 and VI:3
of the GATT 1994, and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  The Panel rejected thecomplaining parties' claims that the CDSOA was inconsistent with Articles 8.3 and 15 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, Articles 4.10, 7.9 and 18.3 of the Subsidies Agreement, and
Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.  They also rejected Mexico's claim that the CDSOA
violated SCM Article 5(b).  The CDSOA is a new and complex measure, applied in a
complex legal environment.  In concluding that the CDSOA was in violation of theabovementioned provisions, the Panel had been confronted by sensitive issues regarding the
use of subsidies as trade remedies.  If Members were of the view that subsidisation is a
permitted response to unfair trade practices, th e Panel suggested that they clarify this matter
through negotiation.  Pursuant to Article 3.8 of the DSU, the Panel concluded that to the
extent that the CDSOA was inconsistent with the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,the SCM Agreement, and the GATT 1994, the CDSOA nullified or impaired benefits
accruing to the complaining parties under those agreements.  The Panel recommended that the
DSB request the United States to bring the CDSOA into conformity with its obligations under
the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement, and the GATT of 1994 by repealing the
CDSOA.
On 18 October 2002, the United States notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body
certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed
by the Panel.  On 13 December 2002, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that it was not
able to circulate the Report within 60 days from the appeal and that the Report was to beWT/DS/OV/16
Page 117
circulated no later than 16 January 2003.   On 16 January 2003, the Appellate Body circulated
its Report.  The Appellate Body:
(a) upheld the finding of the Panel, in paragraphs 7.51 and 8.1 of the Panel Report, that
the CDSOA is a non-permissible specific action against dumping or a subsidy,contrary to Article 18.1 of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement   and Article 32.1 of the
SCM Agreement ;
(b) consequently upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.93 and 8.1 of the Panel
Report, that the CDSOA is inconsistent with certain provisions of the  Anti-Dumping
Agreement   and the SCM Agreement  and that, therefore, the United States has failed
to comply with Article 18.4 of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement , Article 32.5 of the
SCM Agreement  and Article XVI:4 of the  WTO Agreement ;
(c) upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.4 of the Panel Report, that, pursuant to
Article 3.8 of the DSU, to the extent that the CDSOA is inconsistent with provisions
of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement   and the  SCM Agreement ,  the CDSOA nullifies or
impairs benefits accruing to the Complaining Parties under those Agreements;
(d) reversed the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.66 and 8.1 of the Panel Report, that the
CDSOA is inconsistent with Article 5.4 of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement   and
Article 11.4 of the  SCM Agreement ;
(e) rejected the Panel's conclusion, in paragraph 7.63 of the Panel Report, that the United
States may be regarded as not having acted in good faith with respect to its
obligations under Article 5.4 of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement   and Article 11.4 of the
SCM Agreement ; and
(f) rejected the claim of the United States that the Panel acted inconsistently with
Article 9.2 of the DSU by not issuing a separate panel report in the dispute brought by
Mexico.
The Appellate Body recommended  that the DSB request the United States bring the CDSOA
into conformity with its obligations under the  Anti-Dumping Agreement ,  the  SCM
Agreement ,  and the GATT 1994.  Further to Canada's request, the DSB adopted the
Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body, at its
meeting on 27 January 2003.
66. WT/DS219 – European Communities – Anti-D umping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron
Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil
Complaint by Brazil.  On 21 December 2000, Brazil requested consultations with the EC as
regards definitive anti-dumping duties impos ed by Council Regulation (EC) No. 1784/2000
concerning imports of malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings originating, inter alia , in
Brazil.
• Brazil considered that the EC's establishment of the facts was not proper and that its
evaluation of these facts was not unbiased and objective, both at the provisional and
definitive stage, particularly in relation to the initiation and conduct of the investigation
(including the evaluation, findings and determination of dumping, injury and causal link
between them).
• Brazil also challenged the evaluation and findings made in relation to the "community
interest".
• In sum, Brazil considered that the EC had infringed Article VI of GATT 1994 and
Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 ,5 , 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 15 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 118
Further to Brazil's request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 24 July 2001.  Chile,
Japan, Mexico and the US reserved their third-party rights.  The Panel was composed on
5 September 2001.
On 15 January 2002, both parties requested the Panel to suspend its work until 1 March 2002
with a view to reaching a mutually agreed solution.  The Panel agreed to the request.  On 28
February 2002, both parties requested the Panel to further suspend its work until 5 April 2002
with a view to reaching a mutually agreed solution.  The Panel agreed to this request.  On 22
April 2002, the Panel resumed its work, in accordance with Brazil's request.  On 3 May 2002,
the Chairman of the Panel notified the DSB that it would not be possible to complete its work
in six months in light of, inter alia , scheduling conflicts.  The Panel expects to complete its
work in December 2002.  On 7 March 2003, the Panel circulated its Report to the Members.The Panel concluded that the EC had acted inconsistently with its obligations under:
- Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  in “zeroing” negative dumping
margins in its dumping determination; and
- Article 12.2 and 12.2.2 in that it is not directly discernible from the published
Provisional or Definitive Determination that the European Communitiesaddressed or explained the lack of significance of certain injury factors listed
in Article 3.4.
The Panel ruled against Brazil on all other claims.  On 23 April 2003, Brazil notified its
decision to appeal certain issues of law as well as certain legal interpretations developed by
the Panel.
On 22 July 2003, the Appellate Body Report was circulated to Members.  Of the seven issues
appealed by Brazil, the Appellate Body rejected Brazil's claims with respect to six issues.
The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's findings that the European Communities did not act
inconsistently with Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 or with Articles 1, 2.2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4,
or 3.5 of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement .  In the course of upholding these findings, the
Appellate Body also rejected Brazil's claim that the Panel, contrary to its obligation under
Article 17.6(i) of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement , failed to assess properly the facts of the
matter before it when admitting into evidence the document referred to as Exhibit EC-12.
The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding with respect to one issue.  The Appellate
Body found, in contrast to the Panel, that th e European Communities acted inconsistently with
Articles 6.2 and 6.4 of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement  by failing to disclose to interested
parties during the anti-dumping investigation certain information related to the evaluation of
the state of the domestic industry, which was contained in document Exhibit EC-12.
On 18 August 2003, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as
modified by the Appellate Body Report.
67. WT/DS221 – United States – Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
Complaint by Canada.  On 17 January 2001, Canada requested consultations with the US
concerning Section 129(c)(1) of the Urugua y Round Agreements Act (the "URAA") and the
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA.  In Canada's view, in a
situation in which the DSB has ruled that the US has, in an anti-dumping or countervailingduty proceeding, acted inconsistently with US  obligations under the AD or SCM Agreements,
the US law prohibits the US from complying fully with the DSB ruling. Under US law,
determinations whether to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties are made after the
imports occur.  With regard to imports that oc curred prior to a date on which the US directs
compliance with the DSB ruling, the measures require US authorities to disregard the DSBWT/DS/OV/16
Page 119
ruling in making such determinations, even  where the determination whether to levy anti-
dumping or countervailing duties is made after the date fixed by the DSB for compliance. In
such circumstances, determinations by the US to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties
would be inconsistent with its obligations under the AD or SCM Agreements.
Canada considered that these measures are inconsistent with US obligations under
Article21.3 of the DSU, in the context of Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.7 and 21.1 of the DSU;
Article VI of the GATT 1994; Articles 10 and note 36, 19.2, 19.4 and note 51, 21.1, 32.1,
32.2, 32.3, and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement; Articles 1, 9.3, 11.1, 18.1-4 and note 12 of the
AD Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
Further to Canada's request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 23 August 2001.
Chile, EC, India and Japan reserved their third-party rights.  On 30 October 2001, the Panel
was composed.  On 30 April 2002, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that the
Panel would not be able to complete its work in six months due to the complexity of the
matter and that the Panel expected to issue its final report to the parties by the end of June
2002.  On 15 July 2002, the Panel circulated its report to Members.  The Panel concluded thatthat Canada had failed to establish that section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements
Act was inconsistent with Articles VI:2, VI:3 and VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994;  Articles 1, 9.3,
11.1 and 18.1 and 18.4 of the AD Agreement; Articles 10, 19.4, 21.1, 32.1 and 32.5 of the
SCM Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  In the light of its conclusion,
the Panel made no recommendations to the DSB.
On 30 August 2002, the DSB adopted the Panel report.
68. WT/DS222 – Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft
Complaint by Brazil.  On 22 January 2001, Brazil requested consultations with Canada
concerning subsidies which are allegedly being granted to  Canada's regional aircraft industry.
Brazil's claims are as follows:
• Export credits, within the meaning of Item (k) of Annex I to the SCM Agreement, are
being provided to Canada's regional aircraft industry by the Export Development
Corporation (EDC) and the Canada Account.
• Loan guarantees, within the meaning of Item (j) of Annex I to the SCM Agreement, are
being provided by EDC, Industry Canada, and the Province of Quebec, to support exports
of Canada's regional aircraft industry.
• Brazil takes the view that all of the above-mentioned measures are subsidies, within the
meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement, since they are financial contributions thatconfer a benefit.
• According to Brazil, they are also contingent, in law or in fact, upon export, and
constitute, therefore, a violation of Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.
Further to Brazil's request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 12 March 2001.
Australia, the EC, India and the US reserved their third party rights.  On 7 May 2001, Brazil
requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel.  On 11 May 2001,
the Panel was composed.
On 9 August 2001, the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible to complete its
work within the 3 months deadline from its com position.  The panel informed that it expected
to complete its work by October 2001.  On 28 January 2002, the Panel circulated its report to
the Members.  The Panel:WT/DS/OV/16
Page 120
• rejected Brazil's claims that the EDC Corporate Account, Canada Account, the IQ
programmes "as such" constitute prohibited export subsidies contrary to Article 3.1(a) ofthe SCM Agreement;
• rejected Brazil's claim that the EDC Corporate Account, Canada Account and the IQ
programmes "as applied" constitute prohibited export subsidies contrary to Article 3.1(a)of the SCM Agreement;
• upheld Brazil's claim that the EDC Canada Account financing to Air Wisconsin, to Air
Nostrum and to Comair constitutes a prohibited export subsidy contrary to Article 3.1(a)
of the SCM Agreement;
• rejected Brazil's claim that the EDC Corporate Account financing to ASA, ACA, Kendell
Air Nostrum and Comair in December 1996, March 1997 and March 1998 constitutes a
prohibited export subsidy contrary to Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement;
• rejected Brazil's claim that IQ equity guarantees to ACA, Air Littoral, Midway, Mesa Air
group, Air Nostrum and Air Wisconsin constitute prohibited export subsidies contrary to
Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement; and
• rejected Brazil's claim that IQ loan guarantees to Mesa Air Group and Air Wisconsin
constitute prohibited export subsidies contrary to Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement.
The Panel also recommended that Canada withdraw the subsidies identified within 90 days.At its meeting on 19 February 2002, the DSB adopted the panel report.
69. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines
Complaint by Peru.  On 20 March 2001, Peru requested consultations with the EC concerning
Regulation (EEC) 2136/89 which, according to Peru, prevents Peruvian exporters to continue
to use the trade description "sardines" for their products.
Peru submitted that, according to the relevant Codex Alimentarius standards (STAN 94-181
rev. 1995), the species " sardinops sagax sagax " are listed among those species which can be
traded as "sardines".  Peru, therefore, considered that the above Regulation constitutes an
unjustifiable barrier to trade, and, hence, in breach of Articles 2 and 12 of the TBT Agreement
and Article XI:1 of GATT 1994.  In addition, Peru argues that the Regulation is inconsistent
with the principle of non-discrimination, and, he nce, in breach of Articles I and III of GATT
1994.
Further to Peru's request, the DSB established a Panel at its meeting on 24 July 2001.
Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela and the US reserved their third-party rights.
On 31 August 2001, Peru requested the Director-General to determine the composition of thePanel.  On 11 September 2001, the Panel was composed.  On 11 March 2002, the Panel
informed the DSB that it would not be able to issue its report within 6 months, due to the
complexity of the matter and scheduling constraints.  The Panel expects to complete its work
by end of April 2002.  On 3 May 2002, the parties to the dispute requested the Panel to
suspend its proceedings, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, until 21 May 2002.  On 6 May2002, the Panel agreed to this request.
The Panel Report was circulated to Members on 29 May 2002.  The Panel concluded that the
EC Regulation was inconsistent with Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement.
On 28 June 2002, the EC notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues
of law covered in the in the Panel report and certain legal interpretations developed by thePanel.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 121
On 26 September 2002 the report of the Appellate Body was circulated.  The Appellate Body:
(a) found that the condition attached to the withdrawal of the Notice of Appeal of
25 June 2002 was permissible, and that the appeal of the EC, commenced by the
Notice of Appeal of 28 June 2002, was admissible;
(b) found that the  amicus curiae   briefs submitted were admissible but their contents did
not assist in deciding the appeal;
(c) upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.35 of the Panel Report, that the
EC Regulation is a "technical regulation" under the TBT Agreement;
(d) upheld the Panel's findings, in paragraph 7.60 of the Panel Report, that Article 2.4 of
the TBT Agreement applies to measures that were adopted before 1 January 1995 but
which have not "ceased to exist", and, in paragraph 7.83 of the Panel Report, thatArticle 2.4 of the TBT Agreement applies to existing technical regulations, including
the EC Regulation;
(e) upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.70 of the Panel Report, that Codex Stan 94
is a "relevant international standard" under Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement;
(f) upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.112 of the Panel Report, that
Codex Stan 94 was not used "as a basis for" the EC Regulation within the meaning of
Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement;
(g) reversed the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.52 of the Panel Report, that, under the
second part of Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement, the burden of proof rested with
the EC to demonstrate that Codex Stan 94 is an "ineffective or inappropriate meansfor the fulfilment of the legitimate objectives pursued" by the EC through the
EC Regulation, and found, instead, that the burden of proof rested with Peru to
demonstrate that Codex Stan 94 is an effective and appropriate means to fulfil those
"legitimate objectives", and, upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.138 of the
Panel Report, that Peru has adduced sufficient evidence and legal arguments todemonstrate that Codex Stan 94 is not "ineffective or inappropriate" to fulfil the
"legitimate objectives" of the EC Regulation;
(h) rejected the claim of the EC that the Panel did not conduct "an objective assessment
of the facts of the case", as required by Article 11 of the DSU;
(i) rejected the claim of the EC that the Panel made a determination, in paragraph 7.127
of the Panel Report, that the EC Regulation is trade-restrictive, and, declared moot
and without legal effect the two statements, in paragraph 6.11 and in footnote 35 ofthe Panel Report, on the trade-restrictive character of the EC Regulation;  and
(j) found it unnecessary to complete the analysis under Article 2.2 of the
TBT Agreement, Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, or Article III:4 of the
GATT 1994.
Therefore, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.1 of the Panel
Report, that the EC Regulation is inconsistent with Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement.
The Appellate Body recommended that the DSB request the EC to bring the EC Regulation,
as found in its and in the Panel Report, as modified by its Report, to be inconsistent withWT/DS/OV/16
Page 122
Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement, into conf ormity with EC's obligations under that
Agreement.
On 23 October 2002, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as
modified by the Appellate Body Report.
70. WT/DS236 – United States – Preliminary De terminations with respect to Certain
Softwood Lumber from Canada
Complaint by Canada.  On 21 August 2001, Ca nada requested consultations with the US
concerning the preliminary countervailing duty determination and the preliminary critical
circumstances determination made by the US Department of Commerce on 9 August 2001,
with respect to certain softwood lumber from Canada.  This request also concerned USmeasures on company-specific expedited reviews and administrative reviews.  In particular:
• As far as the preliminary countervailing duty determination is concerned, Canada
considered this determination to be inconsistent with US obligations under Articles 1, 2,10, 14, 17.1, 17.5, 19.4 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement and Article VI(3) of GATT
1994.
• With respect to the preliminary critical circumstances determination, Canada considered
this determination to be inconsistent with Articles 17.1, 17.3, 17.4, 19.4 and 20.6 of theSCM Agreement.
• As regards US measures on company-specific expedited reviews and administrative
reviews, Canada considered these measures are inconsistent with US obligations underArticle VI:3 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 10, 19.3, 19.4, 21.1, 21.2 and 32.1 of the
SCM Agreement.
• Canada also considered that the US had failed to ensure that its laws and regulations are
in conformity with its WTO obligations as required by Article 32.5 of the SCMAgreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
On the grounds that the affirmative preliminary countervailing duty and critical circumstances
determinations had an immediate and significant trade impact, Canada requested urgentconsultations pursuant to Article 4.8 of the DSU.  Although accepting Canada's request to
enter into consultations, the US did not accept this to be a case of urgency for the purposes of
Article 4.8 of the DSU since the measures in question involve the posting of bond for or
deposit of preliminary duties which could be refunded in whole or in part.
On 25 October 2001, Canada requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
5 November 2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
5 December 2001, the DSB established a panel.  The EC and India reserved their third-party
rights to participate in the panel proceedings.  On 17 December 2001, Japan requested to
participate in the proceedings as a third party.
On 22 January 2002, Canada requested the Director-General to determine the composition of
the panel.  On 1 February 2002, the Director-General composed the panel.
On 27 September 2002, the Panel Report was circulated. The Panel found that the USDOC
Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination:
(a) was not inconsistent with Article 1. 1 (a) SCM Agreement when the USDOC found
that the provision of stumpage constituted a financial contribution, in the form of the
provision of a good or service;WT/DS/OV/16
Page 123
(b) failed to determine the existence and amount of benefit to the producers of the subject
merchandise on the basis of the prevailing market conditions in Canada as required
by Article 1.1 (b) and Article 14 and 14 (d) SCM Agreement; and
(c) failed to establish that a benefit was conferred to certain producers of the subject
merchandise as the USDOC did not examine whether a benefit was passed through bythe unrelated upstream producers of log inputs to the downstream producers of the
subject merchandise;
Therefore, the Panel concluded that the USDOC's imposition of provisional measures based
on the preliminary countervailing duty determination was inconsistent with the US
obligations under Articles 1.1 (b), 10, 14, 14 (d), and 17.1(b) SCM Agreement.
The Panel exercised judicial economy in re spect of Canada's claim that the USDOC
instructions transmitted to the United States Customs Service on 4 September 2001, imposed
provisional measures in excess of the subsidy preliminarily found to exist in a manner
inconsistent with Articles 10, 17.2, 17.5, 19.4 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement and Article
VI:3 of GATT 1994.
The Panel further concluded that the retroactive imposition of a provisional measure on the
basis of the USDOC Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination is inconsistent with
Articles 20.6, 17.3, and 17.4 SCM Agreement and exercised judicial economy in respect of
Canada's claim that the USDOC failed to establish the existence of critical circumstancesunder Article 20.6 SCM Agreement in its Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination.
Finally, the Panel concluded that the US laws and regulations challenged by Canada on
expedited and administrative reviews are not inconsistent with the SCM Agreement as they
do not require the executive authority to act in a manner inconsistent with the US obligationsunder Articles 19 and 21 of the SCM Agreement concerning expedited and administrative
reviews.  As a result the Panel rejected Canada's claims that the United States has failed to
ensure that its laws and regulations are in conformity with its WTO obligations as required by
Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
The Panel recommended that the DSB request the United States to bring its measure into
conformity with its obligations under the SCM Agreement.
At its meeting on 1 November 2002, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.
71. WT/DS238 – Argentina – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Preserved
Peaches
Complaint by Chile.  On 14 September 2001, Chile requested consultations with Argentina in
respect of a definitive safeguard measure which Argentina applies on imports of peaches
preserved in water containing added sweetening matter, including syrup, preserved in any
other form or in water.  According to Chile Argentina's definitive safeguard measure is
inconsistent with Articles 2, 4, 5 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, and Article XIX:1of GATT 1994.
On 6 December 2001, Chile requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
18 December 2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of the panel.  At the DSB meeting on
18 January 2002, a panel was established.  Immediately after the establishment, Chile statedthat it would not, for the moment, proceed with the appointment of panelists, as it was still
hoping to reach a mutually satisfactory solution with Argentina.  The European Communities,
Paraguay and the United States reserved their th ird-party rights to participate in the Panel'sWT/DS/OV/16
Page 124
proceedings.  On 13 March 2002, Chile informed the Chairman of the DSB that it would like
the composition of the panel to go ahead.  The panel was composed on 16 April 2002.
On 15 October 2002, the Chair of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible to
complete its work in six months due to the schedule agreed with the parties and that the Panelexpected to circulate its report at the end of January 2003.  On 14 February 2003, the Panel
circulated its Report to the Members.  The Panel concluded that the Argentine preserved
peaches measure was imposed inconsistently with certain provisions of the Agreement on
Safeguards and GATT 1994.  In particular:
• Argentina acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article XIX:1(a) of GATT
1994 by failing to demonstrate the existence of unforeseen developments as required;
• Argentina acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article XIX:1(a) of GATT
1994 and Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards by failing to make a
determination of an increase in imports, in absolute or relative terms, as required;
• Argentina acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article XIX:1(a) of GATT
1994 and Articles 2.1, 4.1(b) and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards because the
competent authorities, in their determinati on of the existence of a threat of serious
injury:
(i) did not evaluate all of the relevant factors having a bearing on the situation of the
domestic industry;
(ii) did not provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported
their determination; and
(iii) did not find that serious injury was clearly imminent.
The Panel did not find that Argentina acted inconsistently with its obligations under
Articles 2.1 and 4.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards by basing a finding of the existence
of a threat of serious injury on an allegation, conjecture or remote possibility.  The Panel
exercised judicial economy with respect to all other claims.
At its meeting on 15 April 2003, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.
72. WT/DS241 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-D umping Duties on Poultry from Brazil
Complaint by Brazil.  On 7 November 2001, Brazil requested consultations with Argentina in
respect of the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Argentina on imports of poultryfrom Brazil, classified under Mercosur tariff line 0207.11.00 and 0207.12.00.  These
measures were adopted by the Ministry of Economy of Argentina in Resolution 574 from 21
July 2000, published in the Argentinean Official Gazette on 24 July 2000.  Brazil considered
that the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed, as well as the investigation conducted by the
Argentinean Authorities might have been flawed and based on erroneous or deficient
procedures, inconsistent with Argentina's oblig ations under Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12 and
Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Arti cle VI of the GATT 1994, and Articles 1 and
7 of the Customs Valuation Agreement.
On 19 November 2001, the EC requested to join the consultations.  On 25 February 2002,
Brazil requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 8 March 2002, the DSB
deferred the establishment of a panel.  At the DSB meeting on 17 April 2002, the panel wasestablished.  Argentina noted that notwithstanding the establishment of the panel at the
present meeting, it was still hopeful that a mutually satisfactory solution to the dispute couldWT/DS/OV/16
Page 125
be found.  Canada, Chile, the EC, Guatemala, Paraguay and the US reserved their third-party
rights.
On 17 June 2002, Brazil requested the Director-General to compose the panel.  On
27 June 2002, the panel was composed.
On 18 December 2002, the Chair of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible
to complete its work in six months due to the schedule agreed with the parties and that the
Panel expected to complete its work by the beginning of April 2003.
On 22 April 2003, the Panel circulated its Report to the Members.  The Panel found that
Argentina had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3,3.4, 3.5, 5.1, 5.8, 6.1.1, 6.1.3, 6.8 and Annex II, 6.10 and 12.1 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement.  The Panel also concluded that Argentina had not acted inconsistently with a
number of Articles from the same Agreement and declined to rule on a number of claims for
judicial economy reasons.
At its meeting on 19 May 2003, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.
73. WT/DS243 – United States – Rules of Or igin for Textiles and Apparel Products
Complaint by India.  On 11 January 2002, India requested consultations with the United
States in respect of its rules of origin applicable to imports of textiles and apparel products asset out in Section 334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Section 405 of the Trade and
Development Act of 2000 and the customs regulations implementing these provisions.
India argued that, prior to the abovementioned Section 334, the rule of origin applicable to
textiles and apparel products was the "substantial transformation" rule.  India considered thatSection 334 changed the system by identifying specific processing operations which would
confer origin to the various types of textiles and apparel products.  In India's view, these
changes appear to have been made to protect the United States textiles and clothing industry
from import competition.  India indicated that the changes introduced by Section 334 had
already been challenged by the European Communities on the grounds that they were
incompatible with the United States' obligations under the Agreement on Rules of Origin and
other WTO Agreements (WT/DS151).  India explai ned that that dispute was settled through a
procès-verbal  whereby the United States agreed to introduce legislation amending
Section 334.  According to India, the changes introduced by the amending legislation, i.e.
Section 405, were aimed at taking account of the particular export interests of the European
Communities.
India is of the view that the changes introduced by Sections 334 and 405 have resulted in
extraordinary complex rules under which the criter ia that confer origin vary between similar
products and processing operations.  India argued that the structure of the changes, the
circumstances under which they were adopted and their effect on the conditions of
competition for textiles and apparel products suggest that they serve trade policy purposes.On those grounds, India questioned the compatibility of those changes with paragraphs (b),
(c), (d) and (e) of Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin.
On 7 May 2002, India requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 22 May
2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel .  Further to a second request by India,the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 24 June 2002.  EC, Pakistan and the Philippines
reserved their third party rights.  On 3 July 2002, Bangladesh reserved its third party rights.
On 4 July 2002, China reserved its third party rights.  On 10 October 2002, the Panel was
composed.  On 9 April 2003, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that due to theWT/DS/OV/16
Page 126
complexity of the matter, the Panel would not be able to complete its work in six months.
The Panel expects to issue its final report to the parties in early May 2003.
On 20 June 2003, the Panel Report was circulated to Members.  The Panel found that:
(a) India failed to establish that section 334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act is
inconsistent with Articles 2(b) or 2(c) of the RO Agreement ; and
(b) India failed to establish that section 405 of the Trade and Development Act is
inconsistent with Articles 2(b), 2(c) or 2(d) of the RO Agreement ;
(c) India failed to establish that the customs regulations contained in 19 C.F.R. § 102.21
are inconsistent with Articles 2(b), 2(c) or 2(d) of the RO Agreement;
At its meeting on 21 July 2003, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.
B. APPELLATE BODY AND PANEL COMPLIANCE REPORTS (ARTICLE 21.5)
ADOPTED
1. WT/DS18/RW – Australia - Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon
(See WT/DS18 for precedents)  Canada made  a request, pursuant to DSU Article 21.5, for
determination by the original panel of whether the measures taken by Australia in implementing
the recommendations of the DSB were WTO-cons istent..  At its meeting of 28 July 1999, the
DSB agreed to Canada's request and referred the matter for determination of the WTO-
consistency of the implementing measures to th e original panel.  The EC, Norway and the US
reserved their third-party rights.  The DSB also  referred the Canadian request for suspension of
concessions to arbitration in view of Australia' s challenge of the level of nullification suffered
by Canada.  On 7 September 1999, the Complia nce Panel and Arbitrator were composed.
On 18 February 2000, the report of the DSU Article  21.5 panel was circulated to Members.  The
panel found that:
• due to delays in the entry into force of several implementing measures which extended
beyond the reasonable period of time within which Australia had to implement the DSB
recommendations, no measures to comply existe d in the sense of Article 21.5 of the DSU in
respect of a number of covered products and dur ing specific periods of time.  As a result,
during those periods, Australia failed to bring its measure into conformity with the SPS
Agreement in the sense referred to in Article 22.6 of the DSU.
• Australia, by requiring that only salmon produc t that is "consumer-ready" as specifically
defined can be imported into Australia and released from quarantine, was maintainingsanitary measures that were not "based on" a risk assessment, which was contrary to
Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.  The panel also considered the samerequirement to be in violation of Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.
• Finally, the panel found that Australia violated Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement
as a result of a measure enacted by the Gove rnment of Tasmania that effectively prohibits
the importation of certain Canadian salmon pr oduct into most parts of Tasmania without
being based on a risk assessment and without sufficient scientific evidence.
At its meeting on 20 March 2000, the DSB adopted the report of the compliance panel.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 127
2. WT/DS27/RW – European Communities - Re gime for the Importation, Sale and
Distribution of Bananas
(See WT/DS27 for precedents)  On 15 December 1998, the EC requested the establishment of
a panel under Article 21.5 to determine that the implementing measures of the EC must be
presumed to conform to WTO rules unless challenged in accordance with DSU procedures.On 18 December 1998, Ecuador requested the re-establishment of the original panel to
examine whether the EC measures to implement the recommendations of the DSB are WTO-
consistent.  At its meeting on 12 January 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original
panel, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, to examine both Ecuador's and the EC's requests.
Jamaica, Nicaragua, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cô te d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Dominica,
St. Lucia, Mauritius, St. Vincent, indicated their interest to join as third parties in both
requests, while Ecuador and India indicated their third-party interest only in the EC request.On 18 January 1999, the Compliance Panels were composed.  The two Compliance Panel
Reports were circulated on 12 April 1999..
In the panel requested by the EC, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, the panel found that,
because a challenge had actually been made by Ecuador regarding the WTO-consistency ofthe EC measures taken in implementation of the DSB recommendations, it was unable to
agree with the EC that the EC must be presumed to be in compliance with the
recommendations of the DSB. The report of the compliance panel requested by the EC, under
Article 21.5 of the DSU, was never adopted by the DSB.
In the panel requested by Ecuador, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, the panel found thatthe implementation measures taken by the EC in compliance with the recommendations of the
DSB were not fully compatible with the EC's WTO obligations. The report of the compliance
panel requested by Ecuador, under Article 21.5 of the DSU, was adopted by the DSB on
6 May 1999.
3. WT/DS46/RW and WT/DS46/RW/2 – Braz il - Export Financing Programme for
Aircraft
(See WT/DS46 for precedents)  On 23 November  1999, Canada requested the establishment of
a panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU, requesting that the panel find that Brazil had not taken
measures to comply fully with the rulings a nd recommendations of the DSB.  Canada and
Brazil reached an agreement concerning the proce dures to be applicable pursuant to Articles 21
and 22 of the DSU and Article 4 of the Subsidies Agreement.  At its meeting on 9 December1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original  panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.
Australia, the EC and the US reserved their third-party rights.  On 17 December 1999, the
compliance panel was composed.
The report of the compliance panel was circulated to Members on 9 May 2000.  The panel
found that Brazil's measures to comply with th e recommendations and rulings of the DSB either
did not exist or were not consistent with the S ubsidies Agreement.  In reaching this conclusion,
the panel notably rejected Brazil's defence that PROEX payments were permitted under item (k)
of Annex I of the Subsidies Agreement, adding  that, if a WTO Member encountered an export
credit that had been provided on terms that it could not meet consistent with the SCM
Agreement, the proper response was to challenge that export credit in WTO dispute settlement.
On 22 May 2000, Brazil notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the review panel.  The report of the Appellate Body was circulated
to Members on 9 May 2000.  The Appellate Body  upheld the review panel's conclusion that
Brazil has failed to implement the recommenda tion of the DSB because of the continued
issuance by Brazil of NTN-I bonds, after 18 Nove mber 1999, pursuant to letters of commitment
issued before 18 November 1999.  The Appellate Body also upheld the review panel's findingsWT/DS/OV/16
Page 128
that payments made under the revised PROEX ar e prohibited by Article 3 of the Subsidies
Agreement and are not justified under item (k) of the Illustrative List of the same Agreement.
The Appellate Body therefore upheld the review  panel's conclusion that Brazil has failed to
implement the recommendations of the DSB.  The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and
the panel report, as modified by the Appellate  Body report, at its meeting on 4 August 2000.
On 22 January 2001, Canada requested the DSB to refer the matter again to the original panel,
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At its m eeting of 16 February 2001, the DSB referred the
matter to the original panel. Australia, the EC and Korea reserved their third-party rights.  The
Panel circulated its report on 26 July 2001.  The Panel concluded as follows:
• It has not been established that PROEX III as  such was inconsistent with Article 3.1(a) of
the SCM Agreement;
• PROEX III as such is justified under the second paragraph of item (k) of the Illustrative List
of Export Subsidies of Anne x I of the SCM Agreement;
• PROEX III cannot be justified under para graph 1 of the above-mentioned item.
At its meeting on 23 August 2001, the DSB adopted  the Panel Report on this second recourse to
Article 21.5 of the DSU.
4. WT/DS58/RW – United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp
Products
(See WT/DS58 for precedents) On the grounds that the US had not implemented
appropriately the recommendations of the DSB, on 12 October 2000, Malaysia requested that
the matter be referred to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  In particular,Malaysia considered that by not lifting the import prohibition and not taking the necessary
measures to allow the importation of certain shrimp and shrimp products in an unrestrictive
manner, the United States had failed to comp ly with the recommendations and rulings of the
DSB.  At its meeting of 23 October 2000, the DSB referred the matter to the original panel
pursuant to Article 21.5 DSU. Australia, Cana da, the EC, Ecuador, India, Japan, Mexico,
Pakistan, Thailand and Hong Kong, China reserved their third-party rights.  On 8 November
2000, the Panel was composed.
The Panel circulated its report on 15 June 2001. The Panel concluded that:
• the measure adopted by the US in order to comply with the recommendations and rulings
of the DSB violated Article XI.1 of the GATT 1994;
• in light of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, Section 609 of Public Law 101-
162, as implemented by the Revised Guidelines of 8 July 1999 and as applied so far by
the US authorities, was justified under Article XX of the GATT 1994 as long as the
conditions stated in the findings of this Report, in particular the ongoing serious good
faith efforts to reach a multilateral agreement, remain satisfied.
• should any one of the conditions referred above cease to be met in the future, the
recommendations of the DSB may no longer be complied with. In such a case, any
complaining party in the original case may be entitled to have further recourse to
Article 21.5 of the DSU.
On 23 July 2001, Malaysia notified the DSB its intention to appeal the above report.  In
particular, Malaysia sought review by the Appe llate Body of the Panel's finding that the US
measure at issue does not constitute unjustifiable or arbitrary discrimination betweencountries where the same conditions prevail and that it is therefore within the scope of the
measures permitted under Article XX of the GA TT 1994 as long as the conditions stated inWT/DS/OV/16
Page 129
the findings of the Panel Report, in particular the ongoing serious good faith efforts to reach a
multilateral agreement, remain satisfied.
On 19 September, the Appellate Body informed the DSB of a delay in the circulation of its
Report in this appeal.  The Report was circulated to the Members on 22 October 2001.  TheAppellate Body upheld the contested findings of the Panel:  Since it had upheld the Panel's
findings that the US measure was now applied in a manner that met the requirements of
Article XX of the GATT 1994, the Appellate Body refrained from making any
recommendations.  On 21 November 2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and
the Panel Report, as upheld by the Appellate Body Report.
5. WT/DS70/RW – Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft
(See WT/DS70 for precedents)  On 23 November  1999, Brazil requested the establishment of a
panel under Article 21.5 because it believed that Canada had not taken measures to comply fully
with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB.  Brazil and Canada reached an agreement
concerning the procedures to be applicable  pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU and
Article 4 of the Subsidies Agreement.  At its meeting on 9 December 1999, the DSB agreed to
reconvene the original panel pursuant to Article  21.5 of the DSU.  Australia, the EC and the US
reserved their third-party rights.  On 17 December 1999, the Compliance Panel was composed.
The report of the compliance panel was circulated to Members on 9 May 2000.  The panel
found:
(i) that Canada had implemented the recomm endation of the DSB th at Canada withdraw
Technology Partnership Canada (TPC) assistance to the Canadian regional aircraft
industry within 90 days,
(ii) but that Canada had failed to implemen t the recommendation that it withdraw the
Canada Account assistance to the Canadian regional aircraft industry within 90 days.
With regard to the latter finding, the panel considered that the measures taken by Canada were
not sufficient to ensure that future Canada Account transactions in the Canadian regional
aircraft sector would be in conformity with  the interest rate provisions of the OECD
Arrangement and would thereby qualify for the safe haven in item (k) of Annex I of the
Subsidies Agreement.  The panel therefore conc luded that Canada's measures did not ensure
that such Canada Account transactions would not be prohibited export subsidies.
On 22 May 2000, Brazil notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the compliance pane l.  The report of the Appellate Body was
circulated to Members on 9 May 2000.  The Appella te Body found that the review panel erred
in declining to examine one of Brazil's argument s to the effect that the revised TPC programme
is inconsistent with Article 3.1(a) of the Subs idies Agreement.  The Appellate Body also found,
however, that Brazil had failed to establish that the revised TPC programme is inconsistent with
Article 3.1(a) of the Subsidies Agreement and, acco rdingly, that Brazil had failed to establish
that Canada has not implemented the recomme ndations of the DSB.  The DSB adopted the
Appellate Body report and the panel report, as m odified by the Appellate Body report, at its
meeting on 4 August 2000.  Canada stated its intention to implement the recommendations of
the DSB in respect of the Canada Account Programme.
6. WT/DS99/RW – United States – Anti-D umping Duty on Dynamic Random Access
Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea
(See WT/DS99 for precedents)  On 9 March 2000, Korea informed the DSB that it believed that
the measures taken by the United States to comp ly with the rulings and recommendations of theWT/DS/OV/16
Page 130
DSB were not consistent with the Anti-Du mping Agreement and Article X:1 of GATT 1994.
Korea therefore requested that this matter be re ferred to the original panel pursuant to Article
21.5 of the DSU.  On 6 April 2000, Korea submitted a new request to the effect that the matter
be referred to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  At its meeting on 25 April
2000, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original pa nel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  The
EC reserved its reserved its third-party rights.  On 11 May 2000, the Compliance Panel was
composed.
On 19 September 2000, Korea requested the Panel to suspend its work, including the issuance
of the interim report, "until further notification" pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU.  The
Panel, in a letter sent to the parties on 21 September 2000, agreed to this request. On 20
October 2000, the parties notified the DSB of a mutually satisfactory solution to the matter,involving the revocation of the antidumping order at issue as the result of a five-year "sunset"
review by the US Department of Commerce.
7. WT/DS103/RW and WT/D S113/RW – Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of
Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products
(See WT/DS103 for precedents and WT/DS103/RW/2 for follow-up).  On 16 February 2001,
the US and New Zealand requested the DSB to refer the problems with the implementation of
the original report to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 DSU. At its meeting of 1
March 2001, the DSB referred the matter to the original panel.  Australia, the EC and Mexico
reserved their third party rights.  On 12 April 2001, the compliance Panel was composed.
The compliance Panel circulated its report on 11 July 2001.  It concluded that Canada,
through the CEM scheme and the continued operation of Special Milk Class 5(d), has acted
inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 3.3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture,
by providing export subsidies within the meaning of Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement onAgriculture in excess of its quantity commitment levels specified in its Schedule for exports
of cheese, for the marketing year 2000/2001.
On 4 September 2001, Canada appealed the compliance Panel report before the Appellate
Body.  In particular, Canada appealed the Panel's finding that the Canadian measures in
question constitute an export subsidy within the meaning of Article 9.1(c)of the Agreement
on Agriculture.  Canada considered that the Panel's finding that commercial export salesconstitute payments that are financed by virtue of governmental action is based on erroneous
findings on issues of law and on related legal in terpretations with respect to the interpretation
and application of the said Article 9.1(c).
The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 3 December 2001.  The
Appellate Body reversed the compliance Panel's findings to the effect that the supply of CEM
by domestic milk producers to domestic dairy processors involves "payments" on the export
of milk "that are financed by virtue of governmental action" under Article 9.1(c) of the
 Agreement on Agriculture.  The Appellate Body  concluded that, in the light of the factual
findings made by the Panel and the uncontested facts in the Panel record, it was unable tocomplete the analysis of the claims made by New Zealand and the United States under
Articles 9.1(c) or 10.1 of the  Agreement on Agriculture, or the claim made by the
United States under Article 3.1 of the  SCM Agreement.  At its meeting on 18 December
2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as reversed by the
Appellate Body Report.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 131
8. WT/DS103/RW/2 and WT /DS113/RW/2 – Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation
of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products
(See WT/DS103, WT/DS103/RW fo r precedents).  On 6 December 2001, the US submitted to
the DSB a second recourse for the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the
DSU.  The US submits that, since the Appellate Body's 21.5 Report did not make anyfindings on the consistency of Canada's new measures, the US continues to believe that
Canada had failed to comply with the original recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  On
the same date, New Zealand made a similar request.
At its meeting on 18 December 2001, the DSB agreed, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, to
refer to the original Panel, for the second time, the matter raised by New Zealand and the US.
At the meeting, the EC and Australia reserved third-party rights to participate in the Panel'sproceedings.  On 28 December 2001, Argentina also reserved its third-party rights to
participate in the Panel's proceedings.
On 18 December 2001, Canada concluded with New Zealand and the US respectively,
additional understandings regarding procedures under Article 21 and 22 of the DSU.Pursuant to both understandings, Canada and the respective party agree to request that the
arbitration requested by Canada under Article 22.6 of the DSU remain suspended pending the
work of the compliance Panel.
On 17 January 2002, the Panel was composed.  On 26 July 2002, the Report was circulated to
the Members.  The Panel concluded that Canada, through the CEM scheme and the continued
operation of Special Milk Class 5(d), had acted inconsistently with its obligations under
Articles 3.3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture, by providing export subsidies within the
meaning of Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture in excess of its quantity
commitment levels specified in its Schedule for exports of cheese and "other dairy products".It also concluded that Canada had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 10.1
of the Agreement on Agriculture and that therefore Canada had acted inconsistently with its
obligations under Article 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Accordingly, the Panel
recommended that the DSB request Canada to bring its dairy products marketing regime into
conformity with its obligations in respect of export subsidies under the Agreement on
Agriculture.
On 23 September 2002, Canada notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the compliance panel.  On 20 December 2002, the Appellate
Body circulated its report.  The Appellate Body  upheld the Panel's finding that the measure at
issue—the supply of "commercial export milk" ("CEM") by Canadian milk producers to
Canadian dairy processors—involves export s ubsidies in the form of "payments" on the
export of milk that are "financed by virtue of governmental action" within the meaning of
Article 9.1(c) of the  Agreement on Agriculture .  It reversed the Panel's interpretation of the
rules on burden of proof in Article 10.3 of the  Agreement on Agriculture .  However, the
Appellate Body held that this error did not af fect any of the Panel's other findings under the
 Agreement on Agriculture .  In view of its conclusion under Article 9.1(c) of the  Agreement
on Agriculture ,  the Appellate Body declined to rule on the Panel's alternative finding under
Article 10.1 of that Agreement.
On 17 January 2003, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as
modified by the Appellate Body Report.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 132
9. WT/DS108/RW – United States  – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations"
(See WT/DS108 for precedents)  On 7 D ecember 2000, the EC notified the DSB that
consultations had failed to settle the dispute a nd that it was requesting the establishment of a
panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  At its meeting of 20 December 2000, the DSB
agreed to refer the matter to the original panel.  Australia, Canada, India, Jamaica and Japanreserved their third party rights.  On 5 January 2001, the Panel was composed.  On
21 December 2000, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the US and the EC jointly
requested the Article 22.6 DSU arbitrator to suspend the arbitration proceeding until adoption
of the panel report or, if there is an appeal, adoption of the Appellate Body report.  The
arbitration was accordingly suspended.
On 20 August 2001, the compliance panel report was circulated to the Members.  The Panel
concluded that the FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000 (the
amended FSC legislation) was still inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM
Agreement, with 10.1 and 8 of the Agreement on  Agriculture and with Article III:4 of the
GATT 1994.
On 15 October 2001, the US notified its decision to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the panel report.  On 14 January 2002, the Appellate Body
circulated its Report to the Members.  The Appellate Body:
• upheld the Panel's findings that the US acted inconsistently with its obligations under the
SCM Agreement, the Agreement on Agriculture, and the GATT 1994 through the FSC
amended legislation, a measure taken by the United States to implement the
recommendations and rulings made by the DSB in the original proceedings in the  United
States – FSC  dispute;
• with respect to third party rights, found that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Article
10.3 of the DSU in declining to rule that  all  written submissions of the parties filed prior
to the first meeting of the Panel must be provided to the third parties.
At its meeting on 29 January 2002, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel
Report, as upheld by the Appellate Body Report.
10. WT/DS126/RW – Australia – Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of
Automotive Leather
(See WT/DS126 for precedents)  On 4 October 1999, the United States informed the DSB that it
believed that the measures taken by Australia to comply with the rulings and recommendations
of the DSB were not consistent with the Subsidies Agreement and the DSU, and therefore
requested that the original panel be reconvened  pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  At its
meeting on 14 October 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original panel pursuant to
Article 21.5 of the DSU.  The EC and Mexico rese rved their third-party rights.  On 1 November
1999, the Compliance Panel was composed.
The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 21 January 2000.  The panel determined
that Australia had failed to comply with th e DSB's recommendations within 90 days.  The DSB
adopted the review panel's report on 11 February 2000.  On 24 July 2000, the parties notifiedthe DSB that they had reached a mutually satis factory solution in regard to implementation of
the findings of the review panel.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 133
11. WT/DS132/RW – Mexico - Anti -Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup
(HFCS) from the United States
On 12 October 2000, the US requested that the DSB refer the matter to the original panel,
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, in orde r to establish whether Mexico had correctly
implemented the DSB's recommendations.  At its meeting of 23 October 2000, the DSBreferred the matter to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  The EC,
Jamaica and Mauritius reserved their third-party rights. The US and Mexico informed the
DSB that they were discussing mutually agreeable procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the
DSU in relation to this matter.  On 13 November 2000, the Panel was composed.
The Article 21.5 Panel circulated its report on 22 June 2001.  The Panel concluded that
Mexico's imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of HFCS from the US onthe basis of the SECOFI redetermination was inconsistent with the requirements of the
AD Agreement in that Mexico's inadequate consideration of the impact of dumped imports on
the domestic industry, and its inadequate consideration of the potential effect of the alleged
restraint agreement in its determination of likelihood of substantially increased importation,
are not consistent with the provisions of Articles 3.1, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.7(i) of the AD Agreement.The Panel therefore considered that Mexico has failed to implement the recommendation of
the original Panel and the DSU to bring its measure into conformity with its obligations under
the AD Agreement.
On 24 July 2001, Mexico appealed the above Panel report.  In particular, Mexico requested
the Appellate Body to examine and reverse the Panel's conclusions that Mexico's imposition
of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of HFCS from the United States, on the basis of
SECOFI's redetermination, was inconsistent with the requirements of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, in that
• Mexico's inadequate consideration of the impact of dumped imports on the domestic
industry, and its inadequate consideration of the potential effect of the alleged restraintagreement in its determination of likelihood of substantially increased importation, are
not consistent with the provisions of Article 3.1, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.7(i) of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, and
• Mexico therefore failed to implement the recommendation of the original Panel and of the
DSB to bring its measure into conformity with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping
Agreement;
• and that it has nullified or impaired benefits accruing to the United States under that
Agreement.
According to Mexico, these conclusions are based on erroneous matters of law and legal
interpretations of various provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the DSU.
On 20 September 2001, the Appellate Body informed that the issuance of the report would be
delayed.  The Report was circulated to the Members on 22 October 2001.  The Appellate
Body upheld the contested findings of the Panel and therefore recommended the DSB to
request Mexico to bring its anti-dumping measure into conformity with its obligations under
that Agreement.  On 21 November 2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the
Panel Report, as upheld by the Appellate Body Report.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 134
12. WT/DS141/RW – European Comm unities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-
Type Bed Linen from India
(See WT/DS141 for precedents)  On 8 March 2002, India sought recourse to Article 21.5 of
the DSU (request for consultations), stating that  there was disagreement as to the existence or
consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken to comply with therecommendations and rulings.  On 4 April 2002, India requested the establishment of a
compliance panel.  In particular, India claimed that the EC had violated Articles 2, 3, 5.7, 6, 9,
12 and 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Accordingly, India requested the Panel to conclude that:(a) The re-determination, as amended, and the subsequent actions as identified above, are
inconsistent with the above provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and GATT
1994; and
(b) By failing to withdraw the measures fou nd to be inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping
Agreement and to bring its measures into conformity with its obligations under theAnti-Dumping Agreement and GATT 1994, the EC has failed to comply with the
DSB recommendations and rulings in this dispute.
At the DSB meeting on 17 April 2002, India informed the DSB that pursuant to an
understanding reached between the EC and India,  it was requesting the withdrawal of the item
from the agenda in accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure for WTO meetings.
The DSB agreed to India's request.
On 7 May 2002, India again requested the establishment of a compliance panel.  At the DSB
meeting on 22 May 2002, it was agreed that, if possible, the matter would be referred to theoriginal panel.  Japan and the United States reserved their third party rights to participate in
the proceedings.  On 27 May 2002, Korea reserved its third party rights.  On 25 June 2002,
the compliance panel was composed.  On 19 August 2002, the Chairman of the Panel
informed the DSB that it expected to complete its work in November 2002.  On 29 November
2002, the report was circulated to Members.  The Panel concluded that the EC's definitive
anti-dumping measure on imports of bed line n from India, EC Regulation 1644/2001, is not
inconsistent with the AD Agreement or the DSU and that, therefore, the EC had implementedthe recommendation of the original Panel, the Appellate Body, and the DSB to bring its
measure into conformity with its obligations under the AD Agreement.
On 8 January 2003, India informed the DSB that it intended to apeal certain issues of law and
legal interpretations developed by the Panel in its Report.  On 6 March 2003, the AppellateBody informed the DSB that it was not able to circulate its report within the 60-day deadline
and that it intended to do so no later than 8 April 2003.  On 8 April 2003, the Appellate Body
circulated its Report.  The Appellate Body:
• upheld   the Panel's finding that India's claim under Article 3.5 was not properly before
the Panel and, consequently, declined  to rule on it,
• reversed  the Panel's finding that the EC did not act inconsistently with paragraphs 1 and
2 of Article 3 of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement ,
• declined  to rule on the Panel's finding that  the EC applied the second alternative in the
second sentence of Article 6.10 for limiting its examination in this investigation;  andWT/DS/OV/16
Page 135
• found  that the Panel properly discharged its duties under Article 17.6 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Article 11 of the DSU and, therefore, upheld the Panel'sfinding that the EC had information before it on the relevant economic factors listed in
Article 3.4 of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement  when making its injury determination.
The Appellate Body recommended that the DSB request the EC to bring its measure  into
conformity with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  At its meeting on 24 April 2003, the DSBadopted the Appellate Body Report and the Pane l Report, as modified by the Appellate Body
Report.
VI. IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF ADOPTED REPORTS
For descriptions of the reports see Section V:   Completed Panel and Appellate Body Review.
1. WT/DS2 and WT/DS4 – United States - St andards for Reformulated and Conventional
Gasoline
Complaints by Venezuela and Brazil.  The US announced implementation of the
recommendations of the DSB as of 19 August  1997, at the end of the 15 month reasonable
period of time.
2. WT/DS8, WT/DS10 and WT/DS11 – Japa n - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages
Complaints by the European Communities, Canada and the United States.  On 24 December
1996, the US, pursuant to Article 21(3)(c) of the DSU applied for binding arbitration to
determine the reasonable period of time for implementation by Japan of the recommendations
of the Appellate Body.
The Arbitrator's report was circulated to members on 14 February 1997. The Arbitrator found
the reasonable period for implementation of the recommendations to be 15 months from the
date of adoption of the reports i.e. it expired on 1 February 1998.  Japan presented modalities
for implementation which were accepted by the complainants.
3. WT/DS18 – Australia - Measures Affe cting the Importation of Salmon
Complaint by Canada.  At the DSB meeting on 25 November 1998, Australia informed the
DSB that it was committed to implementing the recommendations of the DSB and was looking
forward to discussing w ith the complainants the question of implementation.
On 24 December 1998, Canada requested arbitrati on, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, to
determine the reasonable period of time for implementation of the recommendations of the
DSB.  The Arbitrator decided that the reas onable period of time for implementation was 8
months i.e. it expired on 6 July 1999.  The report of the Arbitrator was circulated to Members
on 23 February 1999.  On 28 July 1999, Canada made a request to the DSB, pursuant to Article
22.2 of the DSU, for authorization to suspend concessions to Australia for its non-compliancewith the recommendations of the DSB in this matter.  Canada simultaneously made a request,
pursuant to DSU Article 21.5, for determination by  the original panel of whether the measures
taken by Australia in implementing the recommendations of the DSB were WTO-consistent.
Australia informed the DSB that in the event that the DSB approved Canada's request under
22.2, it wished to request, pursuant to DSU 22.6, fo r arbitration on the level of nullification
suffered by Canada.  The DSB agreed to Canada's request and referred the matter for
determination of the WTO-consistency of the impl ementing measures to the original panel.  The
EC, Norway and the US reserved their third-pa rty rights.  The DSB also referred the Canadian
request for suspension of concessions to arbitrati on in view of Australia's challenge of the levelWT/DS/OV/16
Page 136
of nullification suffered by Canada.  On 7 September 1999, the Compliance Panel and
Arbitrator were composed.  On 18 February 2000, the report of the DSU Article 21.5 panel was
circulated to Members.  At its meeting on 20 March 2000, the DSB adopted the report of the
compliance panel.
4. WT/DS24 – United States - Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man-Made Fibre
Underwear
Complaint by Costa Rica.  At the meeting of the DSB on 10 April 1997, the US informed the
meeting that the measure which had been the subject of this dispute had expired on 27 March
1997 and had not been renewed, effectively mean ing that the US had immediately complied
with the recommendations of the DSB.
5. WT/DS26 and WT/DS48 – European Communiti es - Measures Affecting Meat and Meat
Products (Hormones)
Complaints by the United States and Canada. On 8 April 1998, the respondent requested that
the "reasonable period of time" for implementati on of the recommendations and rulings of the
DSB be determined by binding arbitration, pur suant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  The
Arbitrator found the reasonable period of time for implementation to be 15 months from the
date of adoption (i.e. 15 mont hs from 13 February 1998).  The report of the Arbitrator was
circulated to Members on 29 May 1998.
The period for implementation was set by arbitra tion at 15 months from the date of the adoption
of the reports i.e. it expired on 13 May 1999.  The EC undertook to comply with the
recommendations of the DSB within the im plementation period.  At the DSB meeting on
28 April 1999, the EC informed the DSB that it w ould consider offering compensation in view
of the likelihood that it may not be able to comp ly with the recommendations and rulings of the
DSB by the deadline of 13 May 1999.
On 3 June 1999, the United States and Canada, pu rsuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, requested
authorization from the DSB for the suspension of concessions to the EC in the amount of
US$202 million and Can.$75 million, respectively.  The EC, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the
DSU, requested arbitration on the level of susp ension of concessions requested by the United
States and Canada.  The DSB referred the issue of the level of suspension to the original panel
for arbitration.
The arbitrators determined the level of nullificat ion suffered by the United States to be equal to
US$116.8 million, and the level of nullification suffered by Canada to be equal to
CDN$11.3 million.  The report of the arbitrators was circulated to Members on 12 July 1999.
At its meeting on 26 July 1999, the DSB authorized  the suspension of concessions to the EC by
the United States and Canada in the respective amounts determined by the arbitrators as being
equivalent to the level of nullification suffered by them.
6. WT/DS27 – European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution
of Bananas
Complaints by Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States.
On 17 November 1997, the complainants requested that the "reasonable period of time" for
implementation of the recommendations and rulin gs of the DSB be determined by binding
arbitration, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DS U.  The Arbitrator f ound the reasonable period
of time for implementation to be 15 months and 1 week from the date of the adoption of theWT/DS/OV/16
Page 137
reports i.e. it expired on 1 January 1999.  The report of the Arbitrator was circulated to
Members on 7 January 1998.
On 18 August 1998, further the EC's revision of their legislation, the complainants requested
consultations with the EC (without prejudice to their rights under Article 21.5), for the
resolution of the disagreement between them over the WTO-consistency of measures
introduced by the EC in purported compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the
Panel and Appellate Body.  At the DSB meeting on 25 November 1998, the EC announced
that it had adopted the second Regulation to implement the recommendations of the DSB, and
that the new system will be fully operational from 1 January 1999.  On 15 December 1998,
the EC requested the establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 to determine that the
implementing measures of the EC must be presumed to conform to WTO rules unlesschallenged in accordance with DSU procedures.  On 18 December 1998, Ecuador requested
the re-establishment of the original panel, under Article 21.5, to examine whether the EC
measures to implement the recommendations of the DSB are WTO-consistent.  At its meeting
on 12 January 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original panel, pursuant to Article 21.5
of the DSU, to examine both Ecuador's and the EC's requests.
On 14 January 1999, the United States, pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, requested
authorization from the DSB for suspension of  concessions to the EC in an amount of
US$520 million.  At the DSB meeting on 29 January 1999, the EC, pursuant to Article 22.6 of
the DSU, requested arbitration on the level of suspension of concessions requested by theUnited States.  The DSB referred the issue of the level of suspension to the original panel for
arbitration.  Pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU, the request for the suspension of
concessions by the United States was deferred by the DSB until the determination, through
the arbitration, of the appropriate level for the suspension of concessions.
In the arbitration under Article 22.6 of the DSU, necessitated by the EC's challenge to the
level of suspension sought by the United States (US$520 million), the arbitrators found that
the level of suspension sought by the United States was not equivalent to the level of
nullification and impairment suffered as a result of the EC's new banana regime not being
fully compatible with the WTO.  The arbi trators accordingly determined the level of
nullification suffered by the United States to be equal to US$191.4 million.  The arbitrator's
report and the reports of the panels were issued to the parties on 6 April 1999, and circulatedto Members on 9 and 12 April 1999 respectively.  On 9 April 1999, the United States,
pursuant to Article 22.7 of the DSU, requested that the DSB authorize suspension of
concessions to the EC equivalent to the level of nullification and impairment, i.e. US$191.4
million.  On 19 April 1999, the DSB authorized the United States to suspend concessions to
the EC as requested.
The report of the compliance panel requested by Ecuador, under Article 21.5 of the DSU, was
adopted by the DSB on 6 May 1999.  On 8 November 1999, Ecuador requested authorization
from the DSB to suspend the application to the EC of concessions or other related obligations
under the TRIPS Agreement, GATS and GATT 1994, pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, inan amount of US$450 million.  At the DSB meeting on 19 November 1999, the EC, pursuant
to Article 22.6 of the DSU, requested arbitration on the level of suspension of concessions
requested by Ecuador.  The DSB referred the is sue of the level of suspension to the original
panel for arbitration.  Pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU, the request for the suspension of
concessions by Ecuador was deferred by the DSB until the determination, through thearbitration, of the appropriate level for the suspension of concessions.
Also at the DSB meeting on 19 November 1999, the EC informed the DSB of its proposal for
reform of the banana regime, which envisages a two-stage process, comprising a tariff rate
quota system for several years.  This system should then be replaced by a tariff only systemWT/DS/OV/16
Page 138
no later than 1 January 2006.  The proposal includes a decision to continue discussions with
interested parties on the possible systems for distribution of licences for the tariff rate quota
regime.  If no feasible system can be found, the proposal for a transitional tariff rate quota
regime would not be maintained and nego tiations under Article XXVIII of GATT 1994 would
be envisaged to replace the current system with a tariff only regime.  At the DSB meeting on24 February 2000, the EC explained that there continued to be divergent views expressed by
the main parties concerned and that, as a result, no agreed conclusions could be reached.
The arbitrator's report (on the Ecuadorian request for suspension of concessions) was
circulated to Members on 24 March 2000.  The arbitrators found that the level of nullification
and impairment suffered by Ecuador amounted to US$201.6 million per year.  The arbitrators
found that Ecuador may request authorization by the DSB to suspend concessions or otherobligations under GATT 1994 (not including investment goods or primary goods used as
inputs in manufacturing and processing industries); under GATS with respect to "wholesale
trade services" (CPC 622) in the principal di stribution services; and, to the extent that
suspension requested under GATT 1994 and GATS was insufficient to reach the level of
nullification and impairment determined by the arbitrators, under TRIPS in the followingsectors of that Agreement:  Section 1 (copyright and related rights); Article 14 on protection
of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organisations), Section 3
(geographical indications), Section 4 (industrial designs).  The arbitrators also noted that,
pursuant to Article 22.3 of the DSU, Ecuador should first seek to suspend concessions or
other obligations with respect to the same sectors as those in which the panel reconvened atthe request of Ecuador pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU had found violations, i.e. GATT
1994 and the sector of distribution services under GATS.  On 8 May 2000, Ecuador
requested, pursuant to Article 22.7 of the DSU, that the DSB authorize the suspension of
concessions to the EC equivalent to the level of nullification and impairment, i.e. US$201.6
million.  On 18 May 2000, the DSB authorized Ecuador to suspend concessions to theEuropean Communities as requested.
At the DSB meeting of 27 July 2000, the European Communities stated with respect to
implementation of the recommendations of the DSB that it had begun examining the
possibility of managing the proposed tariff rate quotas on a first come, first served basis
because negotiations with interested parties on tariff rate quota allocation on the basis of
traditional trade flows had reached an impasse.  The European Communities also said that its
examination would include a tariff only system and its implications. At the DSB meeting of
23 October 2000, the EC stated that it was finalizing its internal decision-making process with
a view to implementing the new banana regime. To this effect, the EC considered that, during
a transitional period of time, its new banana regime should be regulated by the establishment
of tariff-rate quotas and managed on the basis of a "first-come, first-served" (FCFS) system.Before the end of transitional period of time, the EC would initiate Article XXVIII
negotiations with a view to establishing a tariff-only system. On 1 March 2001, the EC
reported to the DSB that on 29 January 2001, the Council of the European Union adopted
Regulation (EC) No 216/2001 amending Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 on the common
organisation of the market in bananas. The modifications made in Council Regulation216/2001 provide for three tariff quotas open to all imports irrespective of their origin: (1) a
first tariff quota of 2.200.000 tonnes at a rate of 75€/tonnes, bound under the WTO; (2) a
second autonomous quota of 353.000 tonnes at a rate of 75€/tonnes; (3) a third autonomous
quota of 850.000 tonnes at a rate of 300€/tonnes. Imports from ACP countries will enter duty-
free. In view of contractual obligations towards these countries and the need to guaranteeproper conditions of competition, they will benefit from a tariff preference limited to a
maximum of 300€/tonnes. The tariff quotas are a transitional measure leading ultimately to a
tariff-only regime. According to the EC, substa ntial progress has been achieved with respect
to the implementing measures necessary to manage the three tariff rate quotas on the basis of
the First-come, First-served method.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 139
On 3 May 2001, the EC reported to the DSB that intensive discussions with the US and
Ecuador, as well as the other banana supplying countries, including the other co-
complainants, have led to the common identification of the means by which the long-standing
dispute over the EC's bananas import regime will be resolved.  In accordance with Article16(1) of Regulation No (EC) 404/93 (as ame nded by Council Regulation No (EC) 216/2001),
the EC will introduce a Tariff Only regime for imports of bananas no later than 1 January
2006. GATT Article XXVIII negotiations will be initiated in good time to that effect.  In the
interim period, starting on 1 July 2001, the EC will implement an import regime based on
three tariff rate quotas, to be allocated on the basis of historical licensing.
On 22 June 2001, the EC notified an "Understa nding on Bananas between the EC and the US"
of 11 April 2001, and an "Understanding on Bananas between the EC and Ecuador" of 30
April 2001.  Pursuant to these Understandings with the US and Ecuador, the EC will
implement an import regime on the basis of historical licensing as follows:
(1) effective 1 July 2001, the EC will implement an import regime on the basis of
historical licensing as set out in annex to each of the Understandings;
(2) effective as soon as possible thereafter, subject to Council and European Parliament
approval and to adoption of an Article XIII waiver, the EC will implement an import
regime on the basis of historical licensing as set out in annex to each of the
Understandings.
The Commission will seek to obtain the implementation of such an import regime as soon as
possible.  Pursuant to its Understanding with the EC, the US,
(i) upon implementation of the new import regime described under (1) above, would
provisionally suspend its imposition of the increased duties;
(ii) upon implementation of the new import regime described under (2) above, would
terminate its imposition of the increased duties;
(iii) may reimpose the increased duties if the import regime described under (2) does not
enter into force by 1 January 2002; and
(iv) would lift its reserve concerning the waiver of Article I of the GATT 1994 that the
EC has requested for preferential access to the EC of goods originating in ACP states
signatory to the Cotonou Agreement; and w ill actively work towards promoting the
acceptance of an EC request for a waiver of Article XIII of the GATT 1994 needed
for the management of quota C under the import regime described under (2) above
until 31 December 2005.
Pursuant to its Understanding with the EC, Ecuador
(i) took note that the European Commission wi ll examine the trade in organic bananas
and report accordingly by 31 December 2004;
(ii) upon implementation of the new import regime, Ecuador's right to suspend
concessions or other obligations of a level not exceeding US$201.6 million per year
vis-à-vis the EC would be terminated;
(iii) Ecuador would lift its reserve concerning the waiver of Article I of the GATT 1994
that the EC has requested for preferential  access to the EC of goods originating in
ACP states signatory to the Cotonou Agreement; and would actively work towardspromoting the acceptance of an EC request for a waiver of Article XIII of the GATT
1994 needed for the management of quota C under the import regime described in
paragraph C(2) until 31 December 2005.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 140
The EC notified the Understandings as mutually satisfactory solutions within the meaning of
Article 3.6 DSU.  Both Ecuador and the US co mmunicated that the Understandings did not
constitute mutually satisfactory solutions within the meaning of Article 3.6 DSU and that it
would be premature to take the item off the DSB agenda.  At the DSB meeting on
25 September 2001, Ecuador made an oral statement whereby it criticised the Commissionproposal aimed at reforming the EC common organisation for bananas in order to honour the
above Understandings.
On 4 October 2001, the EC circulated a status report on the implementation where it indicated
that it was continuing to work actively on the legal instruments required for the management
of the three tariff quotas after 1 January 2002.  In addition, the EC's report indicated that no
progress had been made since the previous DSB meeting regarding the waiver requestsubmitted by the EC and the ACP States.  The EC further indicated that in the event that no
progress was made at the meeting of the Counci l of Trade in Goods scheduled for 5 October
2001, the EC and the ACP States would be forced to reassess the situation in all respects.  At
the DSB meeting on 15 October 2001, the EC recall ed that the procedure for the examination
of the waiver request had been unblocked at the meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods on5 October 2001, and expressed its readiness to work and discuss with all interested parties in
the course of this examination.  Ecuador said that if the waiver was limited to what was
required during the transitional import regime then it could be granted quickly.  Guatemala
said that it would carefully follow the outcome of EC's actions and requested that the item
should remain on the DSB agenda.  Honduras noted that the EC had an obligation to describethe measures to be put in place after 2005.  It also reiterated its concerns that the rights of
developing countries were not being respected.  Panama supported the statement by Honduras
and urged the EC to take into account the concerns of Latin American banana exporters.  The
US expressed satisfaction that the examination procedure of the waiver request had started
and hoped that the process would be expeditious.  Saint Lucia said that the statement byHonduras that the EC disregarded the rights of some developing countries was inaccurate.  It
welcomed the start of the examination procedure and hoped that any current differences
would soon be resolved.  At the DSB meeting on 5 November 2001, the EC informed that the
Working Party to examine the waiver requests submitted by the EC and ACP had made some
progress.  Ecuador said that tariff preferences to be applied by the EC would reproduce the
same inconsistencies in the banana import regime.  Honduras indicated that it was necessary
to ensure that the scope of the waiver did not go beyond what was required for theimplementation of the new regime.  Panama said that even if the waiver was granted, the
dispute would not be settled.
At the DSB meeting on 18 December 2001, the EC welcomed the granting of the two waivers
by the Ministerial Conference, which were the prerequisite for the implementation of phase IIof the Understandings reached with the United States and Ecuador.  The EC noted that the
Regulation implementing phase II would be adopted on 19 December 2001, with effect on 1
January 2002.  Ecuador, Honduras, Panama and Colombia noted the progress made and
sought information from the EC concerning the granting of import licences by one EC
Member State in a manner that was inconsistent with the Understandings.  On 21 January2002, the EC announced that Regulation (EC) NO. 2587/2001 had been adopted by the
Council on 19 December 2001 and indicated that through this Regulation the EC had
implemented phase 2 of the Understandings with the US and Ecuador.
7. WT/DS31 – Canada - Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals
Complaint by the United States. The implementation period was agreed by the parties to be
15 months from the date of adoption of the re ports i.e. it expired on 30 October 1998.  Canada
has withdrawn the contested measure.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 141
8. WT/DS33 – United States - Measure A ffecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and
Blouses
Complaint by India.  The US announced that the measure was withdrawn as at 22 November
1996, before the Panel had concluded its work.  Therefore, no implementation issue arose.
9. WT/DS34 – Turkey – Restrictions on Im ports of Textile and Clothing Products
Complaint by India.  At the DSB meeting of 19 November 1999, Turkey stated its intention to
comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  On 7 January 2000, the parties
informed the DSB that they had agreed that  the reasonable period of time for Turkey to
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings would expire on 19 February 2001.
Pursuant to the agreement reached, Turkey also  was to refrain from making more restrictive
restrictions affecting imports of specified tex tile and clothing products from India, to increase
the size of the quotas of India on certain specified  textile and clothing products and to treat India
no less favourably than any other Member with re spect to the elimination of or modification of
quantitative restrictions affecting any product covered by the agreement.
On 6 July 2001, the parties to the dispute notified the DSB that they have reached a mutually
acceptable solution regarding implementation by Turkey of the conclusions and
recommendations adopted by the DSB on the ma tter.  Pursuant to the Agreement, Turkey
agreed to
(1) remove the quantitative restrictions it applies on textile categories 24 and 27 in respect
of imports from India, by 30 June 2001 or th e date of signature of the Agreement;
(2) carry out tariff reductions on the applied rate basis as described in annex to the
Agreement, by 30 September 2001;
(3) strive towards early compliance with th e recommendations and rulings of the DSB.
Pursuant to the Agreement, the compensation w ould remain effective until Turkey removes all
quantitative restrictions applied as of 1 January 1996 in respect of imports from India for the 19
categories of textile and clothing products.
At the meeting of the DSB on 18 December 2001, India made a statement concerning the lack
of notification by Turkey of tariff reductions carried out as part of the implementation
process.
10. WT/DS46 – Brazil - Export Financing Programme for Aircraft
Complaint by Canada.  At the DSB meeting of 19 November 1999, Brazil announced that it had
withdrawn the measures at issue within  90 days and had thus implemented the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.
On 23 November 1999, Canada requested the esta blishment of a panel under Article 21.5 of the
DSU, requesting that the panel find that Brazil ha d not taken measures to comply fully with the
rulings and recommendations of the DSB.  Canada and Brazil reached an agreement concerning
the procedures to be applicable pursuant to Ar ticles 21 and 22 of the DSU and Article 4 of the
Subsidies Agreement.  At its meeting on 9 D ecember 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the
original panel pursuant to Article 21.5.  The report  of the Panel was circulated to the Members
on 9 May 2000.
On 10 May, Canada requested authorization from  the DSB to suspend the application to Brazil
of concessions or other related obligations under the GATT, the Textiles Agreement and theWT/DS/OV/16
Page 142
Import Licensing Agreement, pursuant to Article 4.10 of the Subsidies Agreement and Article
22.2 of the DSU, in an amount of Can$700 million per year.
On 22 May 2000, Brazil notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the review panel.  At the DSB meeting on 22 May 2000, Brazilalso requested arbitration, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the Subsidies
Agreement, to determine whether the countermeasures requested by Canada were appropriate.
The DSB referred the matter to the original panel for arbitration, it being understood that no
countermeasures would be sought pending the re port of the Appellate Body and until after the
arbitration report.
The report of the Appellate Body was circ ulated to Members on 9 May 2000.  The Appellate
Body upheld the review panel's conclusion that Brazil had failed to implement the
recommendation of the DSB because of the contin ued issuance by Brazil of NTN-I bonds, after
18 November 1999, pursuant to letters of commitment issued before 18 November 1999.  The
Appellate Body also upheld the review panel's findings that payments made under the revised
PROEX are prohibited by Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement and are not justified under item
(k) of the Illustrative List of the same Agreem ent.  The Appellate Body therefore upheld the
review panel's conclusion that Brazil has failed  to implement the recommendations of the DSB.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and th e panel report, as modified by the Appellate
Body report, at its meeting on 4 August 2000.
Brazil stated its intention to bring future PR OEX operations in line with the recommendations
of the DSB.  The arbitrator's report was circulated to Members on 28 August 2000.  The
arbitrators found that the appr opriate countermeasures in this case amounted to C$344.2 million
per year.  The arbitrators found that Canada ma y request authorization by the DSB to suspend
tariff concessions or other obligations under GATT 1994, the Agreement on Textiles andClothing and the Agreement on Import Licensi ng Procedures. At the DSB meeting of 12
December 2000, Canada received, pursuant to Article 22.7 of the DSU and Article 4.10 of the
SCM Agreement, authorization from the DSB to suspend the application to Brazil of tariff
concessions or other obligations under GATT 1994, the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing
and the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures  covering trade in a maximum amount of C$
344.2 million per year. On 12 December 2000, Brazil advised the DSB of changes that it had
made to the measures at issue in this case and claimed that PROEX had been brought intocompliance with Brazil's obligations under the SCM Agreement. Canada is of the view that
Brazil continues to violate its SCM Agreement obligations. According to Canada, there is
therefore a disagreement between Canada and Brazil as to whether the measures taken by
Brazil to comply with the 20 August 1999 and 4 August 2000 rulings and recommendations
of the DSB bring Brazil into conformity with the provisions of the SCM Agreement and resultin the withdrawal of the export subs idies to regional aircraft under PROEX.
On 22 January 2001, Canada requested the DSB to refer the matter again to the original panel,
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At its m eeting of 16 February 2001, the DSB referred the
matter to the original panel. Australia, the EC and Korea reserved their third-party rights.  The
Panel circulated its report on 26 July 2001.  At  its meeting on 23 August 2001, the DSB adopted
the Panel Report on this second rec ourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU.
11. WT/DS50 – India - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical
Products
Complaint by the United States.  At the DS B meeting of 22 April 1998, the parties announced
that they had agreed on an implementation peri od of 15 months from the date of the adoption of
the reports i.e. it expired on 16 April 1999.  India undertook to comply with the
recommendations of the DSB within the impl ementation period.  At the DSB meeting on 28WT/DS/OV/16
Page 143
April 1999, India presented its final status report on implementation of this matter which
disclosed the enactment of the relevant legi slation to implement the recommendations and
rulings of the DSB.
12. WT/DS54, WT/DS55, WT/DS 59 and WT/DS64 – Indonesia - Certain Measures
Affecting the Automobile Industry
Complaints by the United States, the European Communities and Japan.  Indonesia indicated its
intention to comply with the recommendations of the DSB within the time permissible under
Article 21 of the DSU.  On 8 October 1998, the EC, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU,
requested that the reasonable period of implemen tation be determined by binding arbitration.
The Arbitrator determined that the reasonable  period of time for Indonesia to implement the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB was 12 m onths from the date of adoption of the Panel
Report i.e. it expired on 23 July 1999.  The report of  the Arbitrator was circulated to Members
on 7 December 1998.  By a communication dated 15 July 1999, Indonesia informed the DSB
that it had issued a new automotive policy on 24 June 1999 (the 1999 Automotive Policy),
which effectively implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this matter.
13. WT/DS56 – Argentina - Certai n Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles,
Apparel and Other Items
Complaint by the United States.  At the DSB meeting on 22 June 1998, Argentina announced
that it had reached an agreement on implemen tation with the US, whereby Argentina would
reduce the statistical tax to 0.5% by 1 January 1999, and cap specific duties on textiles andapparel at 35% by 19 October 1998.  At the DSB meeting on 26 May 1999, Argentina
announced that Decree 108/99, pursuant to whic h no import transactions covered by the
statistical tax shall be taxed in excess of th e amounts agreed between it and the United States,
would enter into force on 30 May 1999.
14. WT/DS58 – United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products
Complaint by India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand. On 25 November 1998, the US
informed the DSB that it was committed to implementing the recommendations of the DSB
and was looking forward to discussing with the complainants the question of implementation.
The parties to the dispute announced that they had agreed on an implementation period of 13
months from the date of adoption of the Appellat e Body and Panel Reports, i.e. it expired on
6 December 1999.  On 22 December 1999, Malaysia and the United States informed the DSBthat they had reached an understanding regarding possible proceedings under Articles 21 and
22 of the DSU.
At the DSB meeting on 27 January 2000, the US stated that it had implemented the DSB's
rulings and recommendations.  The US noted that it had issued revised guidelinesimplementing its Shrimp/Turtle law which were intended to (i) introduce greater flexibility in
considering the comparability of foreign programmes and the US programme and (ii)
elaborate a timetable and procedures for certification decisions.  The US also noted that it had
undertaken and continued to undertake efforts to initiate negotiations with the governments of
the Indian Ocean region on the protection of sea turtles in that region.  Finally, the US statedthat it offered and continued to offer technical training in the design, construction, installation
and operation of TEDs to any government that requested it.  See also Section VI.B.
On 12 October 2000, Malaysia requested that the matter be referred to the original panel
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, considering that by not lifting the import prohibition andnot taking the necessary measures to allow the importation of certain shrimp and shrimp
products in an unrestrictive manner, the United  States had failed to comply with theWT/DS/OV/16
Page 144
recommendations and rulings of the DSB. At  its meeting of 23 October 2000, the DSB
referred the matter to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 DSU.
On 9 July 2001, the US notified its decision to a ppeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of
law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel.  On5 September 2001, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that it would not be able to
circulate its report within the 7 September deadline.  Accordingly, the Report is expected to
be circulated no later than 8 October 2001.
15. WT/DS69 – European Communities - Measures Affecting Importation of Certain
Poultry Products
Complaint by Brazil.  The EC and Brazil announced at the DSB meeting on 21 October 1998,
that they had reached a mutual agreement on a reasonable period of time for implementation,
which was to be the period up to 31 March 1999.
16. WT/DS70 – Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft
Complaint by Brazil.  At the DSB meeting of  19 November 1999, Canada announced that it had
withdrawn the measures at issue within  90 days and thus had implemented the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  On 23 November 1999, Brazil requested the
establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 because it believed that Canada had not taken
measures to comply fully with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB.  Brazil and
Canada reached an agreement concerning the pro cedures to be applicable pursuant to Articles
21 and 22 of the DSU and Article 4 of the Subsid ies Agreement.  At its meeting on 9 December
1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original  panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.
Australia, the EC and the US reserved their third-party rights.
The compliance panel report was circulated to Members on 9 May 2000.  The panel concluded
that Canada's measures did not ensure that such Canada Account transactions would not be
prohibited export subsidies.
On 22 May 2000, Brazil notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the review panel.  The report of the Appellate Body was circulated
to Members on 9 May 2000.  The Appellate Body f ound that Brazil had failed to establish that
Canada has not implemented the recommenda tions of the DSB.  The DSB adopted the
Appellate Body report and the panel report, as m odified by the Appellate Body report, at its
meeting on 4 August 2000.  Canada stated its intention to implement the recommendations of
the DSB in respect of the Canada Account Programme.
17. WT/DS75 and WT/DS84 - Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages
Complaints by the European Communities and the United States.  At the DSB meeting on
19 March 1999, Korea informed the DSB that it was considering options for implementation of
the DSB's recommendations.  On 9 April 1999, the two complainants separately requested,
pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, that  the reasonable period of time for Korea to
implement the recommendations of the DSB be determined by arbitration.  On 23 April 1999,
the three parties to the dispute jointly info rmed the DSB that they had agreed on the
appointment of an arbitrator for the determ ination of the reasonable period of time for
implementation, and also that they had agreed th at the arbitrator issue his arbitration award no
later than 7 June 1999.  On 4 June 1999, the arbitrator determined the reasonable period of time
to be 11 months and two weeks. i.e. until 31 January 2000.  At the DSB meeting on 27 January2000, Korea stated that it considered to ha ve fully implemented the DSB's rulings and
recommendations by amending its Liquor Tax Law and the Education Tax Law to impose flatWT/DS/OV/16
Page 145
rates of 72% liquor tax and 30% education tax on all distilled alcoholic beverages on a non-
discriminatory basis.
18. WT/DS76 – Japan - Measures Affecting Agricultural Products
Complaint by the United States.  Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, Japan informed the DSB
on 13 April 1999 that it was studying ways in wh ich to implement the recommendations of the
DSB.  In a joint communication, the two par ties informed the DSB on 15 June 1999, that they
had agreed on an implementation period of 9 m onths and 12 days from the date of adoption of
the reports, i.e. from 19 March to 31 December 1999.
On 31 December 1999, Japan abolished the vari etal testing requirement as well as the
"Experimental Guide" in accordance with th e DSB's rulings.  At the DSB meeting on 14
January 2000, Japan also stated that it was conduc ting consultations with the US regarding a
new quarantine methodology for those products subject to import prohibitions because they
were hosts of codling moth.  At the DSB meeting on 24 February 2000, Japan noted that it
expected to reach a mutually satisfactory so lution with the US regarding a new quarantine
methodology.
On 23 August 2001, Japan and the US notified to the DSB that they had reached a mutually
satisfactory solution with respect to conditions for lifting import prohibitions on the fruits and
nuts at issue in the dispute.
19. WT/DS79 – India - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical
Products
Complaint by the European Communities.  Indi a indicated at the DSB meeting of 21 October
1998, that it needed a reasonable period of time to comply with the DSB recommendations and
that it intended to have bilateral consultations  with the EC to agree on a mutually acceptable
period of time.  At the DSB meeting on 25 No vember 1998, India read out a joint statement
done with the EC, in which it was agreed that the implementation period in this dispute would
correspond to the implementation period in a simila r dispute brought by the US (DS50). At the
DSB meeting on 28 April 1999, India presented its final status report on implementation of
DS50, which also applies to implementation in this  dispute.  The report disclosed the enactment
of the relevant legislation to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.
20. WT/DS87 and WT/DS110– Chile – Ta xes on Alcoholic Beverages
Complaints by the European Communities.  On  11 February 2000, Chile informed the DSB that
it was studying ways in which to implement th e recommendations of the DSB, noting that any
changes to its tax laws required the approval  of the National Congress and that it would
therefore require a reasonable period of time to implement the recommendations of the DSB.
On 15 March 2000, Chile requested, pursuant to Arti cle 21.3(c) of the DSU, that the reasonable
period of time be determined by arbitration.
The report of the arbitrator was circulat ed to Members on 23 May 2000.  The arbitrator
determined, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, that the reasonable period of time for Chile to
implement the recommendations and rulings of th e DSB is not more than 14 months and 9 days
from 12 January 2000, i.e. Chile had until 21 March 2001 to enact and put into effect a law
appropriately amending the relevant tax legislation.
At the DSB meeting of 1 February 2001, Chile an nounced that implementing legislation  was
adopted by a clear majority in both the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, and that its full
entry into force awaits only on its promulgation by the President of the Republic and itsWT/DS/OV/16
Page 146
publication in the Official Journal. Under this legislative reform, the existing rate of 27 per
cent would be maintained for Pisco, while that same rate would be applied to other alcoholic
beverages as from 21 March 2003.  In the meantime, the tax applied to those spirits will be
progressively reduced to 27 per cent.
21. WT/DS90 – India - Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Products
Complaint by the United States.  At the DS B meeting of 14 October 1999, India stated its
intention to comply with the recommendations  and rulings of the DSB, at the same time
drawing attention to the Panel's suggesti on that the reasonable period of time for
implementation in this case could be longer than  15 months in view of the practice of the IMF,
the BOP Committee and GATT and WTO panels of granting longer phase-out periods for the
elimination of BOP restrictions, and in view of India's status as a deve loping country Member.
On 28 December 1999, the parties informed the DSB that they had reached an agreement on the
reasonable period of time for India to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the
DSB.  The reasonable period of time was to expire on 1 April 2000, except for some tariff items
to be notified by India to the US for which the reasonable period of time was to expire on
1 April 2001.  Pursuant to the agreement reached, India had to treat the US no less favourably
than any other Member with respect to the el imination of or modification of quantitative
restrictions affecting any product covered by the agreement.  At the DSB meeting of 27 July
2000, India stated that it had notified to the United States those tariff items for which thereasonable period is to expire on 1 April 2001 and that for all other items India had
implemented the recommendation of the DSB by  1 April 2000. At the DSB meeting of 5 April
2001, India announced that, with effect from 1 April 2001, it had removed the quantitative
restrictions on imports in respect of the remaining 715 items and had thus implemented the
DSB's recommendations in this case. The United States  welcomed India's action and said thatit had some specific questions to ask India in the next few days.
22. WT/DS98 – Korea - Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy
Products
Complaint by the European Communities.  On  11 February 2000, Korea informed the DSB that
it was studying ways in which to implement the recommendations of the DSB.  On 21 March
2000, the parties notified the DSB that they ha d agreed on a reasonable period of time for
Korea's implementation of the recommendations of the DSB.  Pursuant to that agreement, the
reasonable period expired on 20 May 2000. At th e DSB meeting of 26 September 2000, Korea
informed the DSB that it had lifted its safe guard measure on 20 May 2000 and stated that it
thereby had completed the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in this case.
23. WT/DS99 – United States - Anti-Dumping  Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory
Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea
Complaint by Korea.  On 13 April 1999, the United States informed the DSB it was studying
ways in which to implement the recommendations of the DSB.  At the DSB meeting on 26 July
1999, the two parties notified the DSB that they had agreed on an implementation period of 8
months effective from the date of adoption of the report, i.e. from 19 March 1999.  The
reasonable period of time expired on 19 November 1999.
At the DSB meeting on 27 January 2000, the US stated  that it considered to have implemented
the recommendations and rulings by the DSB.  The US recalled that the Commerce Departmenthad amended section 351.222(b) by deleting the " not likely" standard and incorporating the
"necessary" standard of the Anti-Dumping Agreem ent.  The Commerce Department then issuedWT/DS/OV/16
Page 147
a revised Final Results of Redetermination in the Third Administrative Review on 4 November
1999, concluding that, because a resumption of dumping was likely, it was necessary to leave
the anti-dumping order in place.
On 9 March 2000, Korea informed the DSB that it believed that the measures taken by the
United States to comply with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB were not consistent
with the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article X:1 of GATT 1994.  Korea therefore requested
that this matter be referred to the original pane l pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  On 6 April
2000, Korea submitted a new request to the effect that the matter be referred to the original
panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  At  its meeting on 25 April 2000, the DSB agreed to
reconvene the original panel pursuant to Article  21.5 of the DSU.  The EC reserved its reserved
its third-party rights.
On 19 September 2000, Korea requested the Panel to suspend its work, including the issuance
of the interim report, "until further notification" pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU.  The
Panel, in a letter sent to the parties on 21 September 2000, agreed to this request.  On 20
October 2000, the parties notified the DSB of a mutually satisfactory solution to the matter,involving the revocation of the antidumping order at issue as the result of a five-year "sunset"
review by the US Department of Commerce.
24. WT/DS103 and WT/DS113 – Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and
the Exportation of Dairy Products
Complaints by the United States and New Zeal and.  At the DSB meeting of 19 November 1999,
Canada stated its intention to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  On
23 December 1999, Canada informed the DSB that, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU and
after having agreed to extend the time periods set forth in Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, it has
reached an understanding with the US and New Zealand on four discrete periods of time to beaccorded a staged implementation process.  According to the implementation agreement,
Canada must complete the last stage of the implementation process no later than 31 December
2000. On 11 December 2000, Canada, the US and New Zealand informed the DSB that they
had agreed to extend the reasonable period of time until 31 January 2001.
On 16 February 2001, both the US and New Zealand requested the DSB to refer the matter to
the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 DSU. At its meeting of 1 March 2001, the DSBreferred the matter to the original panel, if possible. Australia, the EC and Mexico reserved
their third party rights. Also on 16 February 2001, both the US and New Zealand requested
authorization from the DSB, pursuant to Article 22.2 DSU, to suspend the application to
Canada of tariff concessions and related obligations under the GATT 1994, each covering
trade in the amount of US$ 35 million on an annual basis. On 28 February 2001, Canadaobjected to the level of suspension and requested that the matter be referred to arbitration
pursuant to Article 22.6 DSU.  At its meeting of 1 March 2001, the DSB referred the matter to
arbitration.
On 12 April 2001, the compliance Panel was composed.  It circulated its report on 11 July
2001.  On 4 September 2001, Canada appealed the compliance Panel report.  The report of the
Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 3 December 2001.  The Appellate Body
concluded that, in the light of the factual findings made by the Panel and the uncontested facts
in the Panel record, it was unable to complete the analysis of the claims made by
New Zealand and the United States under Articles 9.1(c) or 10.1 of the  Agreement onAgriculture, or the claim made by the United States under Article 3.1 of the
 SCM Agreement.  At its meeting on 18 December 2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate
Body Report and the Panel Report, as reversed by the Appellate Body Report.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 148
On 6 December 2001, the US submitted to the DSB a second recourse for the establishment
of a panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  The US submitted that, since the Appellate
Body's 21.5 Report did not make any findings on th e consistency of Canada's new measures,
the US continued to believe that Canada had failed to comply with the original
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  On the same date, New Zealand made a similarrequest.  At its meeting on 18 December 2001, the DSB agreed, pursuant to Article 21.5 of
the DSU, to refer to the original Panel, for the second time, the matter raised by New Zealand
and the US.  At the meeting, the EC and Australia reserved third-party rights to participate in
the Panel's proceedings.  On 28 December 2001, Argentina also reserved its third-party rights
to participate in the Panel's proceedings.
On 18 December 2001, Canada concluded with New Zealand and the US respectively,
additional understandings regarding procedures under Article 21 and 22 of the DSU.
Pursuant to both understandings, Canada and the respective party agree to request that the
arbitration requested by Canada under Article 22.6 of the DSU remain suspended pending the
work of the compliance Panel.
On 17 January 2002, the second compliance Panel was composed.  On 26 July 2002, the
Report was circulated to the Members.  On 23 September 2002, Canada notified its intention
to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the compliance panel.
On 20 December 2002, the Appellate Body circulated its report.
On 16 January 2003, the parties informed the DSB that they had requested an extension of the
suspension of the Art. 22.6 DSU arbitration until 7 February 2003, in order to permit time for
further consultations.  On 6 February 2003, the parties informed the DSB that they had agreed
that the arbitration remain suspended until 10 April 2003. On 9 April 2003, the parties
informed the DSB that they had agreed to further suspend the arbitration until 9 May 2003.On 9 May 2003, Canada and the United States, and Canada and New Zealand informed the
DSB that they had reached a mutually agreed solution under Article 3.6 of the DSU in the
disputes WT/DS103 and WT/DS113.
25. WT/DS108 – United States - Tax Treatm ent for "Foreign Sales Corporations"
Complaint by the European Communities.  Pu rsuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, the US
informed the DSB on 7 April 2000 of its intenti on to implement the recommendations of the
DSB in a manner consistent with its WTO obligations .  At the request of the United States, at its
meeting of 12 October 2000, the DSB modified the time-period for implementation so as to
expire on 1 November 2000.  On 17 November 2000, the US stated that, with the adoption on
15 November 2000 of the FSC Repeal and Extrat erritorial Income Exclusion Act, it had
implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  On the same date, the EC stated
that, in its view, the US had failed to comply with the DSB recommendations and rulings, and
requested the US to enter into consultations w ith the EC pursuant to Articles 4 and 21.5 of the
DSU, Article 4 of the SCM Agreement, Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Article
XXIII:1 of GATT 1994.  Also on 17 November 2000, the EC requested authorisation from the
DSB to take appropriate countermeasures and suspend concessions pursuant to Article 4.10 of
the SCM Agreement and Article 22.2 of the DSU.
Pursuant to an agreement between the parties to  the dispute, the US would request arbitration
with respect to the EC's request and the arbitration would be suspended until the reconstituted
panel has decided the conformity of the new US  legislation with the panel and Appellate Body
reports.  On 27 November 2000, the US requested that the matter be referred to arbitration
pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU. On 7 December 2000, the EC notified the DSB that
consultations had failed to settle the dispute a nd that it was requesting the establishment of a
panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At its meeting of 20 December, the DSB agreed toWT/DS/OV/16
Page 149
refer the matter to the original panel.  On 21 December 2000, pursuant to an agreement
between the parties, the US and the EC join tly requested the Article 22.6 DSU arbitrator to
suspend the arbitration proceeding until adoption of the panel report or, if there is an appeal,
adoption of the Appellate Body report.  The arbitration was accordingly suspended.
On 20 August 2001, the compliance panel report was circulated to the Members.  The Panel
concluded that the amended FSC legislation was still inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2
of the SCM Agreement, with 10.1 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture and with
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.
On 15 October 2001, the US notified its decision to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the panel report.  On 14 January 2002, the Appellate Bodycirculated its Report to the Members. The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's findings that the
US acted inconsistently with its obligatio ns under the SCM Agreement, the Agreement
on Agriculture, and the GATT 1994 through the FSC amended legislation, a measure taken by
the United States to implement the recommendations and rulings made by the DSB in the
original proceedings in the  United States – FSC  dispute.  With respect to third party rights,
the Appellate Body found that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 10.3 of the DSU
in declining to rule that  all  written submissions of the parties filed prior to the first meeting
of the Panel must be provided to the third parties.
At its meeting on 29 January 2002, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel
Report, as upheld by the Appellate Body Report.  In accordance with the procedural
agreement concluded by the parties to the dispute in September 2000 (WT/DS108/12), Article
22.6 arbitration on the amount of countermeasur es and suspension of concessions would be
automatically reactivated.
On 30 August 2002, the Arbitrator's  award was circulated.  The Arbitrator determined that the
suspension by the EC of concessions under the GATT 1994 in the form of the imposition of a
100 per cent ad valorem  charge on imports of certain goods from the United States in a
maximum amount of $4,043 million per year, as described in the EC's request for
authorization to take countermeasures and suspend concessions, would constitute appropriate
countermeasures within the meaning of Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement.
On 24 April 2003, the EC requested authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations
under Article 22.7 of the DSU and Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement.  At its meeting on
7 May 2003, the DSB granted the EC authorization to take appropriate countermeasures and
to suspend concessions.
26. WT/DS114 – Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products
Complaint by the European Communities and their member States.  Pursuant to Article 21.3 of
the DSU, Canada informed the DSB on 25 Apr il 2000 that it would require a reasonable period
of time in order to implement the recommendati ons of the DSB.  Since the parties failed to
reach a mutually satisfactory solution as to th e "reasonable period of time" for implementation
of the recommendations of the DSB, despite a mu tually agreed extension of the period of time
foreseen in Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, on 9 June 2000, the European Communities and their
member States requested that the reasonable period of time be determined by arbitration
pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  The ar bitrator determined, pursuant to Article 21.3 of
the DSU, that the reasonable period of time for Canada to implement the recommendations andrulings of the DSB is six months from the date of adoption of the panel report and that the
reasonable period would thus end on 7 October 2000.  At the DSB meeting of 23 October 2000,
Canada informed Members that, effective from 7 October 2000, it had implemented the DSB's
recommendations.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 150
27. WT/DS121 – Argentina - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear
Complaint by the European Communities.  Purs uant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, Argentina
informed the DSB on 11 February 2000 that the safeguard measure would remain in force until
25 February 2000 and, by that date, the measures aimed at complying with the DSB'srecommendations and ruling would be adopted.
28. WT/DS122 – Thailand - Anti-Dumping Duties on  Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or
Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland
Complaint by Poland.  Thailand informed the DSB that it was in the process of identifying the
most suitable way to comply with the DSB's r ecommendations in this case and that it would
need a reasonable period of time for implementation. Poland reiterated its position that inorder to implement the DSB's recommendations in this case Thailand would have to revoke
the duties currently in place.  If not, Poland would seek recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU.
Poland was ready to enter into consultations with Thailand on a reasonable period of time for
implementation.  On 25 May 2001, the parties to the dispute informed the DSB that they had
agreed that the reasonable period of time shall be 6 months and 15 days and therefore expiredon 20 October 2001.
At the DSB meeting on 18 December 2001, Thailand announced that it had fully implemented
the DSB's recommendations.  Poland said that it could not accept the way in which Thailand
had implemented the DSB's recommendations because it expected that the measures inquestion would be either rescinded or modified.  In Poland's view, Thailand only changed the
justification for the imposition of the measures. Poland reserved its rights under Article 21.5
of the DSU.
On 18 December 2001, Thailand and Poland concluded an understanding with regard to
possible proceedings under Article 21 and 22 of the DSU.  Pursuant to the understanding, in
the event that Poland initiates proceedings under Articles 21.5 and 22 of the DSU, Poland
agrees to initiate complete proceedings under 21.5 prior to any proceedings under Article 22.
On 21 January 2002, the parties informed the DSB that they have reached an agreement to the
effect that the implementation of the recommendations of the DSB in this dispute should no
longer remain on the agenda of the DSB.
29. WT/DS126 – Australia - Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive
Leather
Complaint by the United States.  On 17 Septem ber 1999, Australia informed the DSB that it had
implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  On 4 October 1999, the United
States informed the DSB that it believed that th e measures taken by Australia to comply with
the rulings and recommendations of the DSB were  not consistent with the Subsidies Agreement
and the DSU, and therefore requested that th e original panel be reconvened pursuant to
Article 21.5 of the DSU. The EC and Mexico re served their third-party rights.  The United
States and Australia reached an agreement concerni ng certain procedures to be applicable in this
case under Articles 21 and 22.  That agreement provided, inter alia , that Australia will not raise
any procedural objection to the establishment of a panel in accordance with Article 21.5 of the
DSU, while the United States will not request authorization to suspend concessions pursuant to
Article 22.2 of the DSU until after the review panel has circulated its report.  Also, it has been
agreed that neither party will appeal the review panel's report.
At its meeting on 14 October 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original panel pursuant to
Article 21.5 of the DSU.  The EC and Mexico rese rved their third-party rights.  On 1 NovemberWT/DS/OV/16
Page 151
1999, the Compliance Panel was composed.  The compliance panel report was circulated to
Members on 21 January 2000.  The compliance panel determined that Australia had failed to
comply with the DSB's recommendations within 90 days, and thus had not taken measures to
comply with the recommendation of the DSB in this dispute.  The DSB adopted the review
panel's report on 11 February 2000.  On 24 July 2000, the parties notified the DSB that they hadreached a mutually satisfactory solution in rega rd to implementation of the findings of the
review panel.
30. WT/DS132 – Mexico - Anti-Dum ping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup
(HFCS) from the United States
Complaint by the United States.  Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, Mexico informed the
DSB on 20 March 2000 that it was studying ways in which to implement the recommendations
of the DSB.  Mexico also indicated that it w ould need a reasonable period of time in order to
implement the DSB recommendations.  On 19 April 2000, the parties informed the DSB that
they had agreed, pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of  the DSU, on a reasonable period of time to be
granted to Mexico to implement the recomme ndations of the DSB.  That period expired on
22 September 2000.  At the DSB meeting of 26 September 2000, Mexico stated that it had
published on 20 September 2000 the final determination on anti-dumping investigation of high-
fructose corn syrup from the US  and thereb y complied with the DSB's recommendation.  US
stated that it would examine Mexico's final determination.
On 12 October 2000, the US requested that the DSB refer the matter to the original panel,
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, in orde r to establish whether Mexico had correctly
implemented the DSB's recommendations. At its meeting of 23 October 2000, the DSB
referred the matter to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. The EC, Jamaica
and Mauritius reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. The
US and Mexico informed the DSB that they were discussing mutually agreeable proceduresunder Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU in relation to this matter.
The Article 21.5 Panel circulated its report on 22 June 2001. The Panel considered that
Mexico has failed to implement the recommendation of the original Panel and the DSU to
bring its measure into conformity with its obligations under the AD Agreement.
On 24 July 2001, Mexico appealed the above Panel report.  On 20 September 2001, the
Appellate Body informed that the issuance of the report would be delayed.  The report was
circulated to WTO Members on 22 October 2001.  The DSB adopted the Appellate Body
report and the Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body report, on 21 November 2001.
31. WT/DS136 and WT/DS162 – United Stat es - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916
Complaints by the European Communities (WT/DS136) and Japan (WT/DS162).  At the DSB
meeting of 23 October 2000, the US stated that it was its intention to implement the DSB's
recommendations and rulings.  The US also stated that it would require a reasonable period of
time for implementation and that it would consult with the EC and Japan on this matter.  On
17 November 2000, the EC and Japan requested that the reasonable period of time bedetermined by arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  The arbitrator circulated his
report on 28 February 2001.  He decided that the reasonable period of time in this case was 10
months and would thus expire on 26 July 2001. At its meeting on 24 July 2001, the DSB
agreed to the US proposal to extend the reasonable period of time until 31 December 2001 or
the end of the current session of the US Congress, whichever earlier.  This extension had beenagreed with the parties.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 152
At the DSB meeting on 18 December 2001, the US informed that on 23 July 2001 it
submitted proposed legislation to the US Congress repealing the 1916 Act and terminating all
pending actions under the Act..  It added that, since the US Congress has not yet been
adjourned, the US Administration continued to seek passage of the proposed legislation.
Japan urged the US to complete the implementation within the reasonable period of time.However, in the event of non-compliance by the US, Japan will use its rights under Article 22
of the DSU.  The EC also indicated that if  the US would fail to comply with the DSB's
recommendations, it would have no choice, but to request the authorization to suspend
concessions or other obligations under Article 22.2 of the DSU.  On 7 January 2002, on the
grounds that that the US had failed to brin g its measures into conformity within the
reasonable period of time, the EC and Japan requested authorisation to suspend concessions
pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU.  Both Members propose that the suspension ofconcessions takes the form of an equivalent legislation to the Anti-Dumping Act of 1916
against imports from the US.  On 17 January 2002, the US objected to the levels of
suspension of obligations proposed by the EC and Japan and requested the DSB to refer the
matter to arbitration, in accordance with Article 22.6 of the DSU.  The US claimed that the
principles and procedures of Article 22.3 had not been followed by the EC and Japan.  At theDSB meeting on 18 January 2002, the matter was referred to arbitration.  During the meeting,
the parties indicated that they were still engaged in consultations and would be requesting the
arbitrators, once appointed, to suspend their work with a view to exploring the possibility of
finding a mutually satisfactory solution.  On 25 February 2002, the US submitted to the DSB
a status report regarding implementation of the DSB recommendations and rulings. On 27February 2002, the parties requested  the arbitrator to suspend the arbitration proceeding
noting that a proposal to repeal the 1916 Act and to terminate cases pending under the Act
was being examined by the US Congress.  Th e parties noted, however, that the arbitration
proceeding could be reactivated at the request of either party after 30 June 2002 if no
substantial progress would have been made in resolving the dispute by then.
At the DSB meeting on 17 April 2002, the US submitted its Status Report regarding
implementation of the DSB recommendations and rulings.  The US stated that a bill had
already been introduced to repeal the 1916 Antidumping Act and terminate some pending
cases.  While acknowledging the progress made, the EC and Japan stressed the necessity for
prompt compliance.  Japan noted that under its bilateral agreement with the US, either party
could re-activate the arbitration proceedings after 30 June 2002.
At the DSB meeting on 22 May 2002, the US submitted its status report regarding the
implementation of the DSB recommendations and rulings.  The US stated that on 23 April 2002
a bill had been introduced in the US Senate which would repeal the 1916 Act and apply to all
pending court cases.
At the DSB meeting on 24 June 2002, the US submitted a status report where it stated that a
bill had already been introduced in the US Congress to repeal the 1916 Anti-Dumping Act
and to terminate some pending cases, and that it was continuing its efforts to find a mutually
satisfactory solution to this dispute with the EC and Japan.  The EC and Japan expressedconcern about the lack of progress in this matter and urged the US to repeal the 1916 Act as
soon as possible.  Japan cautioned the US that it might reactivate arbitration proceedings if
the 1916 Act was not repealed by 30 June.  At the DSB meeting on 29 July 2002, the US
reiterated the above statement.  The EC and Japan expressed concern about the lack of
progress in this matter and urged the United States to repeal the 1916 Act as soon as possible.They noted that proceedings against some of their companies might resume very soon and
that it was imperative for swift action to be taken by the United States to prevent their
companies from incurring huge expenses to defend themselves under legislation which had
been found to be inconsistent with WTO rulesWT/DS/OV/16
Page 153
At the DSB meeting on 1 October 2002, the US submitted its status report and, in reference to
the concerns expressed by the EC and Japan at the previous meetings of the DSB, stated that
the bills currently before the Congress would repeal the 1916 Act and apply to all pending
cases.  The EC and Japan expressed concern about the lack of progress and indicated that
swift action was imperative to prevent their companies from incurring huge expenses under
WTO-inconsistent legislation.
At the DSB meeting on 11 November 2002, the US indicated that that the US Administration
would continue to work with the US Congress  following the Congressional recess to achieve
further progress in resolving this dispute.  The EC and Japan expressed concern about the lack
of progress in this matter and urged the United States to repeal the 1916 Act without further
delay.  They noted that proceedings against some of their companies had resumed and that itwas imperative for swift action to be taken by the US to prevent their companies from
incurring huge expenses to defend themselves under legislation which had been found to be
inconsistent with WTO rules.  The EC said that the US status report was incomplete, as it did
not mention the bill introduced by Representative Henry Hyde last June, which if adopted,
would repeal the 1916 Act, but would not affect  pending cases.  For the EC, this would be
unacceptable, as it would not fully comply w ith the recommendations and rulings of the DSB
At the DSB meeting on 28 November 2002, the US reiterated that the bills repealing the 1916
Act which had been introduced in the US Congress, would apply to all pending court cases.  It
further stated that the US Administration would continue to work with the US Congress afterthe Congressional recess to achieve further progress in resolving this dispute.  The EC and
Japan expressed concern about the lack of progress in this matter and urged the US to repeal
the 1916 Act without further delay. They also reiterated their concern about the bill
introduced by Representative Henry Hyde on June 2002, which if adopted, would repeal the
1916 Act, but would not affect pending cases.  They noted that such a result would beunacceptable, as it would not fully comply w ith the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.
At the DSB meeting on 27 January 2003, the US repeated its previous status reports and the
EC and Japan reiterated their concerns.
Given that no legislation had been adopted to repeal the 1916 Act and to terminate the cases
pending before the US courts, on 19 September the EC requested the Arbitrators to reactivate
the arbitration proceeding in dispute WT/DS136.  In accordance with the request from theEC, the Arbitrators resumed the arbitration proceeding on the same day.
At the DSB meeting on 2 October, the US stated that legislation repealing the 1916 Act and
terminating all pending cases had been introduced  in both the US Senate and the US House of
Representatives. The US regretted that the EC had decided to request the resumption of thearbitration procedure in this dispute.  Japan said that it remained gravely concerned about the
lack of implementation by the US and requested the US to provide more detailed information
in order to make it clear if and how the repe aling bills introduced to the US Congress were
being addressed, and that it was still contemplating the possibility of reactivation of the
arbitration procedure.
32. WT/DS138 – United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled
Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Produc ts Originating in the United Kingdom
Complaint by the European Communities.  At the DSB meeting on 5 July 2000, the United
States announced that it considered to have implemented the recommendations of the DSB with
regard to the case concerning its countervailing duty order on certain hot-rolled lead and
bismuth carbon steel products originating in the United Kingdom.  As a follow-up to this case,
the EC has filed a new complaint against the US continued application of countervailing duties
based on the "change of ownership" methodol ogy.  For further information, see WT/DS212.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 154
33. WT/DS139 and WT/DS142 – Canada – Cert ain Measures Affecting the Automotive
Industry
Complaints by Japan and the European Communities.  Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU,
Canada informed the DSB on 19 July 2000 that it would comply with the recommendations of
the DSB.  One of the recommendations made by  the DSB was that Canada withdraw within 90
days the export subsidy found to be inconsistent with Article 3.1(a) of the Subsidies Agreement.
On 4 August 2000, Japan and the European Communities requested, pursuant to Article 21.3(c)
of the DSU, that the reasonable period of time  be determined by arbitration. The arbitrator
determined that the "reasonable period of time" was 8 months from the date of adoption of the
Appellate Body and Panel Reports, as modifi ed by the Appellate Body Report.  The
"reasonable period of time" was thus to expire on 19 February 2001 . At the DSB meeting of
12 March 2001, Canada stated that, as of 18 February 2001, it had complied with the DSB's
recommendations.
34. WT/DS141 – European Communities – Anti-D umping Duties on Imports of Cotton-
Type Bed-Linen from India
Complaint by India.  At the DSB meeting of 5 April 2001, the EC announced its intention to
implement the DSB's recommendations in this case and said that it would need a reasonable
period of time to do so.  India said that the EC could complete its implementation process
within a very short period of time. On 26 April 2001, the parties to the dispute notified the
DSB that they had mutually agreed that the reasonable period of time shall be five monthsand two days, that is from 12 March 2001 until 14 August 2001.
The EC amended its regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-
type bed linen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan and suspending its application with
regard to imports originating in India by the deadline of 14 August 2001.   However, India, atthe 23 August meeting of the DSB, made a statement whereby it expressed the view that the
new EC Regulation did not bring the EC legislation into full compliance with the DSB's
recommendations.
On 13 September 2001, India and the EC informed the DSB that they had reached an
understanding regarding the procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU.  This
understanding foresees that if on the basis of the results of proceedings under Article 21.5 thatmight be initiated by India, India decides to initiate proceedings under Article 22, the EC
would not assert that India is precluded from doing so because its request was made outside
the 30 day time-period.
On 8 March 2002, India sought recourse to  Article 21.5 of the DSU (request for
consultations), stating that there was disagreement as to the existence or consistency with a
covered agreement of measures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings.  On 4
April 2002, India requested the establishment of a compliance panel. At the DSB meeting on
17 April 2002, India informed the DSB that pursuant to an understanding reached between the
EC and India, it was requesting the withdrawal of the item from the agenda in accordancewith Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure for WTO meetings.  The DSB agreed to India's request.
On 7 May 2002, India again requested the establishment of a compliance panel. At the DSB
meeting on 22 May 2002, it was agreed that, if possible, the matter would be referred to the
original panel.  The United States reserved its third party rights to participate in theproceedings.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 155
35. WT/DS146 and WT/DS175 – In dia - Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector
Complaints by the European Communities (WT/DS146) and the United States (WT/DS175).
On 2 May 2002, India informed the DSB that it would need a reasonable period of time to
implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB and that it was ready to enter into
discussions with the EC and the US in this regard.
On 18 July 2002, the parties informed the DSB that they had mutually agreed that the
reasonable period of time to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, shall be
five months, that is from 5 April 2002 to 5 September 2002.
On 6 November 2002, India informed the DSB that it had fully complied with the
recommendations of the DSB in this dispute by issuing Public Notice No. 31 on 19 August2002 terminating the trade balancing requirement.   India also informed that earlier it had
removed the indigenisation requirement vide Public Notice No. 30 on 4 September 2001.
36. WT/DS155 – Argentina - Measures on the Ex port of Bovine Hides and the Import of
Finished Leather
Complaint by the European Communities.  At the DSB meeting of 12 March 2001, Argentina
stated its intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and indicated that it would need
a reasonable period of time to do so.  On 14 May 2001, the EC requested that the reasonable
period of time be determined through binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c).  On
31 August 2001, the Arbitrator circulated its award whereby the reasonable period of timewas fixed at 12 months and 12 days from 16 February 2001.  This period was therefore to
expire on 28 February 2002.
In view of the concrete action undertaken by Argentina to comply with the DSB
recommendations and rulings during the reasonable period of time in this dispute, and in lightof the economic problems that Argentina is currently facing, the parties agreed on the
following procedures: the parties would pursue  their discussions on compliance by Argentina
with the DSB recommendations and rulings; and the EC would retain the right to make a
request for authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations under the DSU at any
time after the expiry of the reasonable period of time, but only after completion of
proceedings under Article 21.5 DSU.  On 25 February 2002, the parties requested the DSB to
circulate their agreement on procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU.   On 8 March2002, the parties notified the DSB of their agreement.
37. WT/DS156 – Guatemala - Definitive Anti- dumping Measure regarding Grey Portland
Cement from Mexico
Complaint by Mexico.  At the DSB meeting of 12 December 2000, in accordance with Article
21.3 of the DSU, Guatemala informed the DSB that in October 2000 it had removed its anti-
dumping measure and had thus complied with the DSB's recommendations. Mexico
welcomed Guatemala's implementation in this case.
38. WT/DS160 – United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act
Complaint by the European Communities.  Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, the US
informed the DSB on 24 August 2000 that it would implement the recommendations of the
DSB.  The US proposed 15 months as a reasonable period of time within which to implement
those recommendations.  On 23 October 2000, the EC requested that the reasonable period of
time for implementation be determined by mean s of binding arbitration as provided for in
Article 21.3 (c) DSU. The Arbitrator circulat ed his Award on 15 January 2001. The ArbitratorWT/DS/OV/16
Page 156
determined that the reasonable period of time for the US to implement the recommendations
and rulings of the DSB in this case is 12 months from the date of the adoption of the panel
report.  At its meeting of 24 July 2001, the DSB agreed to the US proposal to extend the
reasonable period of time until 31 December 2001 or the end of the current session of the US
Congress, whichever earlier.  This extension had been agreed with the EC.
On 23 July 2001, the US and the EC notified the DSB of their agreement to pursue arbitration
pursuant to Article 25.2 of the DSU in order to determine the level of nullification or
impairment of benefits to the EC as result of Section 110(5)(B) of the US Copyright Act.  On
9 November 2001, the arbitrator determined that the level of EC benefits which were being
nullified or impaired as a result of the operation of Section 110(5)(B) amounted to Euro
1,219,900 per year.
At the DSB meeting on 18 December 2001, the US indicated that it was engaged in
productive discussions with the EC with a view to  resolving the dispute before the end of the
expiry of the reasonable period of time.  The EC underlined that the resolution of the dispute
required an amendment of the WTO-inconsistent legislation.  The EC stated that if it was notpossible to conclude any arrangements before the end of the reasonable period of time, it
would have to seek the DSB's authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations under
Article 22.2 of the DSU.  On 7 January 2002, on the grounds that that the US had failed to
bring its measures into conformity within the reasonable period of time, the EC requested
authorisation to suspend concessions pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU.  The EC proposed
to suspend concessions under the TRIPs Agreement in order to permit the levying of a special
fee from US nationals in connection with border measures concerning copyright goods.  On
17 January 2002, the US objected to the level of suspension of obligations proposed by the
EC and requested the DSB to refer the matter to arbitration, in accordance with Article 22.6
of the DSU.  The US claimed that the principles and procedures of Article 22.3 had not beenfollowed.  During the DSB meeting on 18 January 2002, the parties indicated, however, that
they were engaged in constructive negotiations and were hopeful of finding a mutually
satisfactory solution.  On 25 February 2002, the US submitted a status report regarding
implementation of the DSB recommendations and rulings.  On 26 February 2002, the parties
requested the arbitrator to suspend the arbitration proceeding, while noting that the
proceeding may be reactivated at the request of either party after 1 March 2002.
At the DSB meeting on 17 April 2002, the US presented a status report on its progress in
implementing the DSB's recommendations and rulin gs.  The US indicated that it was engaged
in discussions with the EC to find a positive and mutually acceptable solution to the dispute.
The EC expressed its concern about the US' sl ow progress in implementation and requested
the US to provide more information in its next status report.  Australia also expressed itsconcern about the delay and requested that any compensatory arrangement between the
parties must be applied on a non-discriminatory basis.
At the DSB meeting on 24 June 2002, the US presented a status report on its progress in
implementing the DSB's recommendations.  The US stated that the US Administration wasengaged in discussions with Congress and the EC in order to reach a mutually acceptable
resolution to the dispute. The EC acknowle dged the efforts being undertaken by the US
Administration, but underlined the importance of the US to bring its measures into conformity
with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.  Australia reiterated its concern about the
delay by the US in implementing the recommendations and rulings of the DSB and requestedagain that any compensatory arrangement reached between the parties must be applied on a
non-discriminatory basis.  At the DSB meeting on 29 July 2002, the US reiterated its previous
statement.  The EC acknowledged the efforts being made by the US Administration, but
expressed concern about the significant delay in the implementation of the recommendations
and rulings of the DSB.  He inquired whether it would be possible for Congress to take actionWT/DS/OV/16
Page 157
very soon considering the summer recess and legislative elections scheduled to take place in
the fall.
At the DSB meeting on 1 October 2002, the US presented its status report regarding the
implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  At that meeting, the US statedthat its administration was engaged in discussion with Congress and the EC to find a mutually
acceptable solution. The EC inquired about the prospects of a solution in the short run.
Australia stated that since its views were well- known it did not wish to repeat those. It also
indicated that it had made a proposal in the context of the DSU negotiations to deal with its
concerns.
At the DSB meetings on 11 November 2002, 28 November 2002 and 27 January 2003, the
US presented  status reports where it stated that the US and the EC were committed to finding
a positive and mutually acceptable solution to the dispute and that the US Administration
would continue to engage the US Congress fo llowing the Congressional recess with a view to
settling this dispute as soon as practicable.  The EC expressed disappointment with the lack of
implementation by the US and urged the US to take rapid and concrete action to settle thisdispute.
On 23 June 2003, the US and the EC informed the DSB of a mutually satisfactory temporary
arrangement.
39. WT/DS161 and WT/DS169 Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled, and
Frozen Beef
Complaints by the United States and Australia.  At the DSB meeting of 2 February 2001,
Korea announced that it had already implemented some elements of the DSB's
recommendations and that in order to complete the process it would need a reasonable periodof time. On 19 April 2001, the parties to the dispute notified the DSB that they had mutually
agreed that the reasonable period of time shall be 8 months, and was thus to expire on
10 September 2001.
At the DSB meeting on 25 September 2001, Korea announced that it had implemented the
DSB's recommendation by the deadline, i.e. 10 September.  The US indicated that it will
continue to work with Korea to ensure that the replacement measures resulted in full market
access for US beef.
40. WT/DS166 – United States – Definitive Safe guard Measure on Imports of Wheat Gluten
from the European Communities
Complaint by the European Communities.  At the DSB meeting of 16 February 2001, the US
announced that it intended to implement the recommendations and rulings contained in the
panel and Appellate Body reports. On 20 March 2001, the EC requested that the reasonable
period of time for implementation be determined by binding arbitration pursuant to
Article 21.3(c) DSU. On 10 April 2001, the parties to the dispute notified the DSB that they
had mutually agreed that the reasonable period of time shall be four months and 14 days, thatis from 19 January 2001 to 2 June 2001.
41. WT/DS170 – Canada – Patent Protection Term
Complaint by the United States.  At the DSB meeting of 23 October 2000, Canada stated that
it was its intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Canada said that itwould require a reasonable period of time for implementation and that it would consult with
the United States on this matter. On 15 December 2000, the US requested that the reasonableWT/DS/OV/16
Page 158
period of time for implementation by Canada be determined by binding arbitration pursuant to
Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. The arbitrator circulated his report on 28 February 2001. He
decided that the reasonable period of time in this case was 10 months and was thus to expire
on 12 August 2001.
42. WT/DS176 – United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act
Complaint by the European Communities and its member States.  At the DSB meeting on
19 February 2002, the US stated that it needed a reasonable period of time to comply with the
rulings and recommendations of the DSB.  On 28 March 2002, the US and the EC informed
the DSB that they have reached a mutual agreement on the reasonable period of time for the
US to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  The reasonable period of
time will expire on 31 December 2002, or on the date on which the current session of the USCongress adjourns, and in no event later than 3 January 2003.
At the DSB meeting on 1 October 2002, the US presented its status report regarding the
implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings.   The US referred to the mutually
agreed reasonable period of time. It also st ated that the US Administration was consulting
with the Congress to determine the appropriate statutory measures needed to be taken to
resolve the dispute. Both the EC and Cuba ex pressed their expectation that a solution would
be found within the agreed reasonable period of time.
At the DSB meeting on 28 November 2002, the US presented a status report where it said that
the reasonable period of time for the implementation of the recommendations and rulings of
the DSB would expire on 31 December 2002, or on the date on which the current session of
the US Congress adjourned, whichever was later, and in no event later than 3 January 2003.
He further stated that the US Administration was working with the US Congress with a view
to resolving this dispute.  The EC said that the EC was open to all solutions that would favourcompliance by the US with its obligations under the WTO Agreement.  While the EC
expected to find a mutually satisfactory solution to the dispute with the US, it was concerned
about recent pronouncements by the US Administration that there was no need to clarify that
Section 211 did not apply in cases where the trademark had been abandoned by the original
owner.  He recalled that during the Panel proceedings, the US representatives gave
assurances, which were accepted by the Panel, that Section 211 would not apply to a new
trademark after a former trademark, to which the Section might have applied, had beenabandoned.  He further noted that the US Federal Courts had taken a contrary view and had
applied Section 211 to trademarks succeeding abandoned trademarks.  Given the uncertainty,
it was imperative for any solution to this disp ute to specifically address the issue of the
abandonment of trademarks.  Cuba urged the United States to bring its measures into
conformity with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB within the reasonable period oftime that it had agreed with the EC.
At the DSB meeting on 28 November 2002, the US submitted a status report indicating that
the US Congress would convene early 2003 and that the US Administration would continue
to engage the US Congress with a view to find ing a solution to this dispute.  The EC noted
that the US status report was too brief and did not shed light on the steps being taken by the
US to bring its measures into conformity with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.
The EC urged the US to stand by the affirmations it expressly made during the Panel
proceedings and which were relied upon by the Panel.  It was necessary for it to be clarified
that Section 211 did not apply to a new trademark after a former trademark, to which Section211 might have applied, had been abandoned.  Cuba urged the US to bring its measures into
conformity with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB within the reasonable period of
time that it had agreed with the EC.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 159
On 20 December 2002, the EC and the US informed the DSB that they had mutually agreed
to modify the reasonable period of time for the US to implement the recommendations and
rulings of the DSB, so as to expire on 30 June 2003.  At the DSB meeting on 27 January
2003, the US submitted its status report and indicated that US Administration was intent on
working with the new Congress in order to find a solution to this dispute.  The EC indicatedthat, given the extension of the reasonable period, it expected that the US Administration
would work diligently with the new Congress to bring its measures into conformity by the
new deadline.  Cuba strongly urged the US to implement the recommendations and rulings of
the DSB within the reasonable period of time that it had agreed with the EC.
On 30 June 2003, the EC and the US informed the DSB that they had mutually agreed to
modify the reasonable period of time for the US to implement the recommendations andrulings of the DSB, so as to expire on 31 December 2003.
At the DSB meeting of 2 October 2003, the US presented its status report noting that there is a
bill pending in the US House of Representatives that would, among others, repeal Section
211. The US administration would continue to work with the US C ongress with respect to
appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this dispute.  The EC welcomed the
introduction of a bill in June 2003 in the US Congress that would, inter alia , repeal Section
211. The EC hoped that this repeal, which was part of a whole scheme of measures to ensure
adequate protection of intellectual property rights, would offer a solution to this dispute to the
benefit of all.
43. WT/DS177 and WT/DS178 – United States – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Fresh,
Chilled or Frozen Lamb from New Zealand
Complaints by New Zealand and Australia.  At the DSB meeting of 20 June 2001, the US
recalled that on 14 June 2001 it had submitted in writing to the DSB its intentions withrespect to the implementation in this case and sa id that it intended to implement the DSB's
recommendations in a manner that would respect its WTO obligations.  The US further stated
that it would need a reasonable period of time for implementation and, for that reason, it
would enter into discussions with the complaining parties.  On 27 September 2001, the US
informed the DSB of its decision to implement the recommendations of the DSB by ending
the safeguard measure effective on 15 November 2001.  On 28 September 2001, Australia
and New Zealand agreed that the reasonable period of time for implementation would expireon 15 November 2001.
44. WT/DS179 – United States – Anti-Dumping Mea sures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils
and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea
Complaint by Korea  At the DSB meeting of 1 March 2001, the US stated its intention to
implement the DSB's recommendations and indicated that it would need a reasonable period
of time to do so. on 26 April 2001, the parties to the dispute notified the DSB that they had
mutually agreed that the reasonable period of time shall be 7 months and shall thus expire on
1 September 2001.
At the DSB's meeting of 10 September 2001, the US announced that it had implemented the
DSB's recommendation on 1 September 2001.  At that meeting, Korea acknowledged the
implementation.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 160
45. WT/DS184 – United States – Anti-Dumping  Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel
Products from Japan
Complaint by Japan.  On 20 November 2001, Japan requested that the reasonable period of
time for implementation of the DSB's recommendations be determined by binding arbitration
under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  Pending the appointment of the arbitrator, Japan and theUS agreed to extend the time-period under that provision.  They agreed that the award of the
arbitrator is to be made no later than 19 February 2002.  On 19 February 2002, the arbitrator
circulated his award.  The arbitrator concluded that the reasonable period of time for
implementation by the United States of the DSB's recommendations was 15 months from 23
August 2001.  Accordingly, this period will expire on 23 November 2002.
At the DSB meeting on 1 October 2002, the US presented its status report regarding the
implementation of the recommendations and rulings  of the DSB.  The US stated that the US
Administration had started taking steps to comply with the recommendations and rulings of
the DSB.  To that end, the US Department of Commerce had published a proposed change to
its "arm's length" test with a view to comply ing with the recommendations and rulings of the
DSB. The US would apply this test to the hot-steel products which were the subject matter ofthe dispute.  The US confirmed that this test would be applied in future anti-dumping
proceedings initiated by the US.  Regarding the statutory aspects of this dispute, the US stated
that the Administration was consulting with Congress with a view to determining which
measures might be required to achieve a solution to the dispute.
Japan expressed its concerns that the US might not be able to fulfil its obligations by the
expiry of the reasonable period of time.  It stated that while the status report submitted by the
US indicated that the DOC and Congress were taking steps to comply with the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB, the repo rt did not disclose anything in relation to
the International Trade Commission, whose appli cation of the relevant US law was found to
be inconsistent with the US obligations under the WTO.  Japan urged the US to bring its
measures into compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB and stated that
Japan would monitor all aspects of US implementation of the DSB recommendations and
rulings.  The EC urged the US to implement promptly the recommendations and rulings of the
DSB.
At the DSB meeting on 11 November 2002, the US submitted a status report stating that the
US Department of Commerce had published a proposed change to its "arm's length" test with
a view to complying with the recommendations a nd rulings of the DSB.  He said that the US
would apply this test to the hot-steel products which were the subject matter of this dispute.
The US confirmed that this test would be applied in future anti-dumping proceedings initiated
by the US.  Regarding the statutory aspects of this dispute, he said that the Administrationwas working with Congress with a view to finding a solution to this dispute.  Japan stated that
the reasonable period of time for the implementation of the recommendations and rulings of
the DSB would expire on 23 November 2002 and Japan was concerned that the United States
might not be able to fulfil its obligations by that time.  He said that while the status report
submitted by the US indicated that the Department of Commerce and Congress were takingsteps to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, it did not disclose
anything in relation to the International Trade Commission, whose application of the relevant
US law was found to be inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the WTO
Agreement.  He urged the US to bring its measures into compliance with the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB, and said that Japan would be entitled after theexpiration of the reasonable period of time to request authorization to suspend concessions or
other obligations pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 161
On 22 November 2002, the US requested the DSB to modify the reasonable period of time.
The US proposed that the reasonable period of time be modified so as to expire on 31
December 2003, or on the date on which the first session of the next US Congress adjourns,
whichever was earlier.  The US believed that such an extension of time would promote a
principal aim of the dispute settlement system, which is to provide mutually satisfactorysolutions to disputes.
At the DSB meeting of 28 November 2002, the US stated that the DOC had issued a new final
determination in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumping duty investigation, which implemented the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB with respect to the calculation of anti-dumping
margins in that investigation. Regarding th e recommendations and rulings of the DSB with
respect to the US anti-dumping statute, the US stated that the US Administration wascontinuing to consult and to work with the US Congress with a view to resolving this dispute
in a mutually satisfactory manner.  To that end, the US was consulting with Japan and had
sought its agreement to extend the reasonable period of time in this case to 31 December 2003
or the end of the first session of the next Congress, whichever is earlier.  Japan expressed
disappointment about the failure of the US to implement the recommendations and rulings ofthe DSB within the reasonable period of time, and said that the lack of implementation
compromised the credibility of the dispute settlement mechanism.  Japan further stated that
whilst it would probably agree to an extension of the reasonable period of time, it expected
the US to bring its measures into compliance as soon as practicable.  Japan also reserved its
right to take appropriate action in the event of non-compliance again by the US.
At its meeting on 5 December 2002, the DSB agreed to the request by the US for an extension
of the reasonable period of time for the implementation of the recommendations and rulings
of the DSB in this dispute.  At the DSB meeting on 27 January 2003, the US submitted a
status report where it recalled his earlier statement concerning the issuance of a new finaldetermination in the hot-rolled steel antidumping duty investigation by the Department of
Commerce which, according to the US, implemented the recommendations and rulings of the
DSB with respect to the calculation of anti-dumpi ng margins in that investigation.  Regarding
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB with respect to the US anti-dumping statute, the
US said that its Administration would work with the new Congress with a view to finding a
satisfactory solution to the dispute.  Japan expressed disappointment about the failure of the
US to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB within the reasonable periodof time, and said that the lack of implementation compromised the credibility of the dispute
settlement mechanism.  Japan urged the US Administration to intensify its efforts and work
with the new Congress to implement as promptly as possible the recommendations and
rulings of the DSB.
At its meeting on 2 October 2003, the US presented its status report and stated that with
respect to the DSB's recommendations and rulings on the US anti-dumping statute, the US
administration would continue to consult and to work with Congress with a view to resolving
this matter.  In this regard, the US stated that the US administration was supporting the
passage of specific amendments to the US anti-dumping duty law that would implement theserecommendations and rulings. Japan noted that the US status report and its statement did not
contain a concrete explanation of its plan for implementation.  Japan urged the United States
to implement the DSB's recommendations before the end of the first session of the 108
th
Congress and to consult with Japan in an ur gent and detailed manner on how and when it
intended to implement the recommendations.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 162
46. WT/DS189 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dum ping Measures on Imports of Ceramic
Floor Tiles from Italy
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 20 December 2001, the EC and Argentina
informed the DSB that they have mutually agreed a reasonable period of time of 5 months to
implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, i.e. from 5 November 2001 until 5April 2002.
At the DSB meeting of 22 May 2002, Argentina announced that on 24 April 2002, the
Ministry of Production had enacted Resolution 76/02 revoking the anti-dumping measures at
issue in this case.  With the publication of this Resolution, Argentina considered that it had
now fully implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  The EC
welcomed Argentina's prompt implementation in this case.
47. WT/DS192 – United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn
from Pakistan
Complaint by Pakistan.  At the DSB meeting of 21 November 2001, the US declared that on 8
November 2001 the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreement had directed theUS Customs Services to eliminate the limit on imports of combed cotton yarn from Pakistan.
The US indicated that, through this action, effective from 9 November 2001, it had
implemented the DSB's recommendations
48. WT/DS202 – United States – Definitive Sa feguard Measures on Imports of Circular
Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe
Complaint by Korea.  At the DSB meeting on 5 April 2002, the US expressed its intention to
implement the DSB's recommendations and indica ted that it would enter into consultations
with Korea to determine a reasonable period of time for implementation.  At the DSB meeting
on 17 April 2002, Korea expressed concern about the lack of any proposal from the USregarding a reasonable period of time for compliance.  The US stated that they would be
proposing a reasonable period of time as soon as possible.  On 29 April 2002, Korea
requested the DSB that the "reasonable period of time" be determined by binding arbitration
pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  On 13 May 2002, Korea requested the Director-
General to appoint an arbitrator.  On 23 May 2002, the Director-General appointed an
arbitrator.  The issuance of the award was scheduled for 12 July 2002.  By joint letter of
12 July 2002, the parties requested the Arbitrator to delay the issuance of the award until 22July 2002 in order to allow time for additional bilateral negotiations between the parties.  The
arbitrator acceded to the request. Additional joint requests for delay were received on 19 and
22 July 2002, wherein the parties requested that the award, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the
DSU, be delayed until 24 July 2002 and 26 July 2002, respectively.  The Arbitrator agreed
also to these additional requests.  By letters dated 24 July 2002, the parties informed theArbitrator that they had reached agreement on the reasonable period of time for compliance in
this matter.  Accordingly, the Arbitrator did not issue his award and, instead, issued a Report
setting out the procedural history of this arbitration.
At the DSB meeting on 18 March 2003, the  US informed that its safeguard measure on line
pipe from Korea had been terminated on 1 March 2003.
49. WT/DS206 – United States – Anti-Dumping a nd Countervailing Measures on Steel Plate
From India
Complaint by India.  On 1 October 2002 the United States and India informed the DSB that
pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU they have mutually agreed that the reasonable periodWT/DS/OV/16
Page 163
of time to implement the DSB recommendations  and rulings in this dispute shall be five
months, i.e., form 29 July 2002 to 29 December 2002.  On 17 January 2003, the parties
informed the DSB that they had mutually agreed  to modify the reasonable period of time for
implementation so as to expire on 31 January 2003.
On 14 February 2003, the parties informed the DSB that they had agreed on certain
procedures under Article 21 and 22 of the DSU.  Pursuant to these agreed procedures, if India
requests the establishment of a 21.5 compliance panel, the US will not oppose it.  India agrees
not to request the authorisation to suspend concessions under Article 22 until the adoption of
the compliance reports (Panel and AB, if any) and the US agrees not to assert that India is
precluded from doing so given that the request would be made outside the 30 day period.
50. WT/DS207 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures relating to Certain
Agricultural Products
Complaint by Argentina.  At the DSB meeting of 11 November 2002, Chile stated that it
intended to comply with the recommendations an d rulings of the DSB.  To that end, Chile
was engaged in consultations with Argentina to find a mutually satisfactory solution to thedispute.  Chile further stated that it would need a reasonable period of time to bring its
measures into conformity with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  On 6 December
2002, Chile informed the DSB, that to date Chile and Argentina had been unable to agree on
the length of the reasonable period of time and thus Chile was requesting that the
determination of the reasonable period of time be the subject of binding arbitration inaccordance with Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  On 16 December 2002, Argentina and Chile
informed the DSB that they have agreed to pos tpone the deadline for the binding arbitration
which would now be completed no later than 90 days from the appointment of the arbitrator
(instead of 90 days from the date of adoption of the rulings and recommendations of the
DSB).  Also on 16 December 2002, Argentina and Chile requested Mr. John Lockhart,Member of the Appellate Body, to act as arbitrator for the purposes of Article 21.3(c) of the
DSU.  On 17 December 2002, Mr. John Lockhart accepted the appointment of arbitrator.
On 17 March 2003, the arbitrator circulated its award.  The Arbitrator concluded that the
"reasonable period of time" that should be extended to Chile to implement the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this  dispute was 14 months (23 December 2003).
At the DSB meeting of 2 October 2003, Chile stated that on 25 September 2003 Law No
19.897 to establish a new price band system had been promulgated replacing Law No 18.525.
The new Law would come into force on 16 December 2003: i.e. prior to the expiry of the
reasonable period of time for compliance. Argentina raised detailed questions concerning the
new Law. Chile noted the statement by Argentina and requested that Argentina make itsquestions available in writing.
51. WT/DS211 – Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dumpi ng Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey
Complaint by Turkey.  On 14 November 2002, Egypt and Turkey informed the Chairman of
the Dispute Settlement Body, that they had mutually agreed that the reasonable period of timeto implement the recommendations and rulings of  DSB should not be more than nine months,
that is from 1 November 2002 until 31 July 2003.
52. WT/DS212 – United States – Countervailin g Measures concerning Certain Products
from the European Communities
Complaint by the European Communities.  At the DSB meeting on 27 January 2003, the US
indicated that it intended to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in aWT/DS/OV/16
Page 164
manner that respected its WTO obligations and that, in that connection, it would need a
reasonable period of time to implement them.  The EC urged the US to promptly bring its
measures into conformity with the recomm endations and rulings of the DSB.  The EC
indicated that, since the principle underlying the findings in this case had been established by
the Appellate Body in an earlier case (US – Imposition of countervailing duties on lead andbismuth carbon steel from the UK),  and as su ch the US should by now know what it had to
do to bring its measures into conformity with WTO disciplines, the reasonable period of time
had to be short.  On 10 April 2003, the parties notified the DSB that they had agreed on a
reasonable period of time for implementation of 10 months (from 8 January 2003 to 8
November 2003)
53. WT/DS217, WT/DS234 – United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of
2000
Joint complaint by Australia, Brazil, Chile, European Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan,
Korea and Thailand (WT/DS217), and Canada  and Mexico (WT/DS234).  On 14 March
2003, the complainants requested arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU to determine
the reasonable period of time for implementation by the US of the DSB recommendations.On 24 March 2003, the complainants requested the Director-General to appoint the arbitrator
in consultation with the parties pursuant to footnote 12 of the DSU.  On 4 April 2003, the
Director-General appointed an Ar bitrator.  On 13 June 2003, the Arbitrator issued its award to
the parties.  The Arbitrator concluded that the "reasonable period of time" for the United
States to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings should be 11 months from thedate of the DSB's adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports in this dispute.  The
reasonable period of time will therefore expire on 27 December 2003.
54. WT/DS219 – European Communities – Anti-D umping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron
Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil
Complaint by Brazil.  On 18 August 2003 the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the
Panel report as modified by the Appellate Body Report.  On 15 September 2003, the
European Communities confirmed in a communication to the DSB its intention to implement
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.
On 1 October 2003, the EC and Brazil informed that DSB that they had agreed that the
reasonable period of time for the EC to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulingswould be 7 months; i.e. until 19 March 2004.
55. WT/DS222 – Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft
Complaint by Brazil.  At the DSB meeting on 8 March 2002, Canada stated that it was
considering its options on how best to implement the recommendations and rulings of theDSB.
On 23 May 2002, on the grounds that that Canada had failed to implement the
recommendations of the DSB within the 90-day time-period granted by the DSB, Brazil
requested authorization to suspend concessions pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU.  Brazilproposed that the suspension of concessions take s the form of some or all of the following
countermeasures:
• suspension of its obligations under paragraph 6(a) of Article VI of GATT 1994to
determine the effect of subsidization under EDC Canada Account and EDC Corporate
Account programmes;
• suspension of application of obligations under the Agreement on Import licencing
procedures relating to licensing requirement on imports from Canada; andWT/DS/OV/16
Page 165
• suspension of tariff concessions and related obligations under GATT 1994
concerning those products in the list attached to Brazil's communication of 23 May
2002.
At the DSB meeting on 3 June 2002, Brazil and Canada informed the DSB that they had
reached an agreement in this matter.  Under the terms of the agreement, the parties agreed that
it would in no way prejudice the right of Brazil to request authorization to take appropriate
countermeasures under Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement and Article 22.2 of the DSU, nor
affect the relevant time periods under the DSU.
At the DSB meeting on 24 June 2002, Brazil stated that it was requesting authorization to
suspend concessions for an amount of US$3.36 billion towards Canada as the latter had failed
to withdraw its prohibited export subsidies within the time-frame specified by the Panel.
Canada disputed Brazil's right to request authorization from the DSB to suspend concessions.
It argued that Brazil had not fulfilled the conditions spelt out in Article 22.2 of the DSU andas such it could not avail itself of Article 22.6 of the DSU.  Canada also objected to the
countermeasures proposed by Brazil.  The DSB referred the matter to arbitration according to
Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement.
On 17 February 2003, the arbitrator circulated its award.  The arbitrator determined that the
suspension of concessions by Brazil covering trade in a total amount of US$247,797,000
would constitute appropriate countermeasures within the meaning of Article 4.10 of the SCMAgreement.  On 6 March 2003, Brazil requested authorization to suspend concessions or other
obligations under Article 22.7 of the DSU and Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement.  At its
meeting on 18 March 2003, the DSB authorized the suspension of concessions.
56. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines
Complaint by Peru.  At the DSB meeting of 11 November 2002, the EC stated that it was
working towards implementing the rulings a nd recommendations of the DSB in a manner
consistent with its obligations under WTO rules, in particular, Article 2.4 of the TBT
Agreement.  However, the EC stated that in order to be able to achieve this it would need a
reasonable period in which to bring its measures into conformity with its obligations under theTBT Agreement, especially given that implementation would entail the repeal of a statutory
measure.  To that end, the EC was willing to consult with Peru, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the
DSU, in order to achieve agreement on the reasonable period of time needed for
implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommendations.
On 19 December 2002, Peru and the EC informed the DSB that they had agreed that the
reasonable period of time for the EC to implement the recommendations and rulings of the
DSB, will expire on 23 April 2003.  On 14 April 2003, the parties informed the DSB that they
had reached an agreement to extend the reasonable period of time until 1 July 2003.
57. WT/DS236 – United States – Preliminary De terminations with respect to Certain
Softwood Lumber from Canada
Complaint by Canada.  At the DSB meeting of 28 November 2002, the US said that the
measures at issue in this dispute were no longer in effect and that the provisional cash
deposits that Canada challenged had been refunded prior to the circulation of the Panel
Report.  As such, it was not necessary for the US to take any further action to comply with the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  Cana da dismissed the US view that no action was
required on its part to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  Canada
stated that the legal methodologies found by the Panel to be plainly illegal in the USWT/DS/OV/16
Page 166
Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determin ation remained unchanged in the Final
Determination.
58. WT/DS238 – Argentina – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Preserved
Peaches
Complaint by Chile.  At its meeting on 15 April 2003, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.  On
14 May 2003, Argentina informed the DSB that it could not comply with its
recommendations immediately and thus asked for a reasonable period of time for
implementation.  On 27 June 2003, Argentina and Chile informed the DSB that they had
agreed that the reasonable period of time will be 31 December 2003.
VII. SETTLED OR INACTIVE CASES
A. MUTUALLY AGREED SOLUTIONS
1. WT/DS5 – Korea - Measures Concerning the Shelf-life of Products
Complaint by the United States.  On 3 May 1995, the US requested consultations with Korea in
respect of requirements imposed by Korea on imports from the US which had the effect of
restricting imports.  The US alleged violations of  Articles III and XI of GATT, Articles 2 and 5
of the SPS Agreement, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, and Article 4 of the Agreement on
Agriculture.  The parties notified a mutually acceptable solution to this dispute on 31 July 1995.
2. WT/DS6 – United States - Imposition of Import Duties on Automobiles from Japan
under Sections 301 and 304 of the Trade Act of 1974
Complaint by Japan.  On 19 July 1995, the parties notified settlement of this dispute.  Japan had
alleged that the import surcharges violated GATT Articles I and II.
3. WT/DS7, WT/DS12 and WT/DS 14 – European Communities - Trade Description of
Scallops
Complaints by Canada, Peru and Chile.  The complaint concerned a French Government Order
laying down the official name and trade descrip tion of scallops. Complainants claimed that this
Order will reduce competitiveness on the French market as their product will no longer be able
to be sold as "Coquille Saint-Jacques" although there is no difference between their scallops and
French scallops in terms of colour, size, texture,  appearance and use, i.e. it is claimed they are
"like products".  Violations of GATT Articles I and III and TBT Article 2 were alleged.
A panel was established at the request of Canada on 19 July 1995.  A joint panel was
established on 11 October 1995 at the request of Peru and Chile on the same subject.  The two
panels concluded their substantive work, but suspended the proceedings pursuant to
Article 12.12 of the DSU in May 1996 in view of the consultations held among the parties
concerned towards a mutually agreed solution. Th e parties notified a mutually agreed solution
to the DSB on 5 July 1996. Brief panel reports noting the settlement were circulated to
Members on 5 August 1996 in accordance with th e provisions of Article 12.7 of the DSU.
4. WT/DS19 – Poland - Import Regime for Automobiles
Complaint by India.  This request for consultations, dated 28 September 1995, concerns
Poland's preferential treatment of the EC in its  tariff scheme on automobiles.  On 16 July 1996,
both parties notified a mutually agreed solution to the DSB.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 167
5. WT/DS20 – Korea - Measures Concerning Bottled Water
Complaint by Canada.  In this request for consultations dated 8 November 1995, Canada
claimed that Korean regulations on the shelf-life and physical treatment (disinfection) of bottled
water were inconsistent with GATT Articles III and XI, SPS Articles 2 and 5 and TBT
Article 2.  At the DSB meeting on 24 April 1996, the parties to the dispute announced that theyreached a settlement.
6. WT/DS21 – Australia - Measures Affect ing the Importation of Salmonids
Complaint by the United States.  This request for consultations, dated 17 November 1995,
concerns the same regulation alleged to be in violation of the WTO Agreements in WT/DS18,
in respect of which the reports of the panel a nd Appellate Body have already been adopted and
are awaiting implementation.  On 11 May 1999, th e United States requested the establishment
of a panel.  At its meeting on 16 June 1999, the DSB established a panel.  Canada, the EC,
Hong Kong/China, India and Norway reserved th eir third party rights. At the request of the
complainants, the Panel agreed on 8 November 1999 to suspend its work, pursuant to Article
12.12 of the DSU, until such time as the panelists have completed their work in the ongoing
proceeding requested by Canada pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU (WT/DS18) or for elevenmonths, whichever is the earlier.  On 29 March 2000, the panel agreed to a request by the US,
pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, to suspend its work for a period of one month, i.e. until 29
April 2000.  On 12 May 2000, the panel agreed to a request by the US to suspend its work for
an additional period of time, which will expire on 17 July 2000. On 27 October 2000, the parties
to the dispute notified a mutually satis factory solution on the matter to the DSB.
7. WT/DS28 – Japan - Measures Concerning Sound Recordings
Complaint by the United States.  This request, dated 9 February 1996, is the first WTO dispute
settlement case involving the TRIPS Agreement.  The United States claims that Japan's
copyright regime for the protection of intellectual property in sound recordings is inconsistentwith, inter alia, the TRIPS Agreement Article  14 (protection of performers, producers of
phonograms and broadcasting organizations).  On January 24 1997, both parties informed the
DSB that they had reached a mutually satisfactory solution to the dispute.
8. WT/DS35 – Hungary - Export Subsidies in Respect of Agricultural Products
Complaint by Argentina, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Thailand and the United States.
This request, dated 27 March 1996, claims that Hungary violated the Agreement on Agriculture
(Article 3.3 and Part V) by providing export subsidies in respect of agricultural products not
specified in its Schedule, as well as by provid ing agricultural export subsidies in excess of its
commitment levels. On 9 January 1997, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand and the United
States requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 25 February 1997 the DSB
established a panel.  Canada, Japan, Thailand and Uruguay reserved their third-party rights tothe dispute.  At the DSB meeting on 30 July 1997, Australia, on behalf of all the complainants,
notified the DSB that the parties to the disput e had reached a mutually agreed solution, which
required Hungary to seek a waiver of certain of  its WTO obligations.  Pending adoption of the
waiver, the complaint was not formally withdrawn.
9. WT/DS36 – Pakistan - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical
Products
Complaint by the United States.  In its request for consultations dated 30 April 1996, the United
States claimed that the absence in Pakistan of (i) either patent protection for pharmaceutical and
agricultural chemical products or a system to permit the filing of applications for patents onWT/DS/OV/16
Page 168
these products and (ii) a system to grant exclusive marketing rights in such products, violates
TRIPS Agreement Articles 27, 65 and 70.   On 4 July 1996, the United States requested the
establishment of a panel.  The DSB considered the request at its meeting on 16 July 1996, but
did not establish a panel due to Pakistan's obj ection.  At the DSB meeting on 25 February 1997,
both parties informed the DSB that they had reach ed a mutually agreed solution to the dispute
and that the terms of the agreement were bein g drawn up, and would be communicated to the
DSB once finalized.  On 28 February 1997, the terms of the agreement were communicated to
the Secretariat.
10. WT/DS37 – Portugal - Patent Protection  under the Industrial Property Act
Complaint by the United States. This request for consultations dated 30 April 1996, concerned
Portugal's term of patent protection under its I ndustrial Property Act.  The US claimed that the
provisions in that Act with respect to exis ting patents were inconsistent with Portugal's
obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. Violations under Articles 33, 65 and 70 were alleged.
On 3 October 1996, both parties notified a mutually agreed solution to the DSB.
11. WT/DS40 – Korea - Laws, Regulations and Pr actices in the Telecommunications Sector
Complaint by the European Communities.  This request for consultations, dated 9 May 1996,
concerns  the laws, regulations and practices in  the telecommunications sector.  The EC claims
that the procurement practices of the Korean  telecommunications sector (Korea Telecom and
Dacom) discriminate against foreign suppliers.  The EC also claims that the Korean government
has favoured US suppliers under two bilateral telecommunications agreements between Korea
and the US. Violations of GATT Articles I, III and XVII are alleged.  On 22 October 1997, the
parties notified the Secretariat of a mutually agreed solution.
12. WT/DS42 – Japan - Measures Concerning Sound Recordings
Complaint by the European Communities.  This request for consultations, dated 24 May 1996,
concerns the intellectual property protection of sound recordings under GATT Article XXII:1.
Violations of Articles 14.6 and 70.2 of the TRIPS Agreement are alleged.  Earlier, the United
States requested consultations with Japan on the same issue (WT/DS28), in which the EC
joined.  On 7 November 1997, both parties notified a mutually agreed solution.
13. WT/DS43 – Turkey - Taxation of Foreign Film Revenues
Complaint by the United States.  This request  for consultations, dated 12 June 1996, concerns
Turkey's taxation of revenues generated from the showing of foreign films.  Violation of GATT
Article III is alleged.  On 9 January 1997, the United States requested the establishment of  a
panel.  At its meeting on 25 February 1997, the DSB established a panel.  Canada reserved its
third-party rights to the dispute.  On 14 Ju ly 1997, both parties notified the DSB of a mutually
agreed solution.
14. WT/DS72 – European Communities - Measures Affecting Butter Products
Complaint by New Zealand.  This request, date d 24 March 1997, is in respect of decisions by
the EC and the United Kingdom's Customs and Ex cise Department, to the effect that New
Zealand butter manufactured by the ANMIX butter-making process and the spreadable butter-making process be classified so as to be excluded from eligibility for New Zealand's country-
specific tariff quota established by the European Communities' WTO Schedule.  New Zealand
alleges violations of Articles II, X and XI of GATT, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, and
Article 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensi ng Procedures.  On 6 November 1997, New
Zealand requested the establishment of a panel.  The DSB established a panel on 18 NovemberWT/DS/OV/16
Page 169
1997.  The US reserved its third-party rights. At the request of the complainants, dated
24 February 1999, the Panel agreed, pursuant to Ar ticle 12.12 of the DSU, to suspend the panel
proceedings.  In a communication dated 11 November 1999, the parties notified a mutually
agreed solution to this dispute.
15. WT/DS73 – Japan - Procurement of a Navigation Satellite
Complaint by the European Communities.  This request, dated  26 March 1997, is in respect of
a procurement tender published by the Ministry of Transport (MoT) of Japan to purchase a
multi-functional satellite for Air Traffic Management.  The EC contends that the specifications
in the tender were not neutral but referred explic itly to US specifications.  This meant, the EC
contends, that European bidders could effectively not participate in the tender.  The EC alleges
inconsistency of this tender with Annex I of  Appendix I of Japan's commitments under the
Government Procurement Agreement (GPA). The EC  also alleges violations of Articles VI(3)
and XII(2) of the GPA.  On 31 July 1997, the EC notified the Secretariat that a mutually agreed
solution had been reached with Japan in this dispute.  On 19 February 1998, the two parties
communicated the text of their agreement to the DSB.
16. WT/DS74 – Philippines - Measures Affecting Pork and Poultry
Complaint by the United States.  This request, dated 1 April 1997, is in respect of the
implementation by the Philippines of its tari ff-rate quotas for pork and poultry.  The US
contends that the Philippines' implementation of these tariff-rate quotas, in particular the delays
in permitting access to the in-quota quantities a nd the licensing system used to administer
access to the in-quota quantities, appears to be inconsistent with the obligations of the
Philippines under Articles III, X, and XI of GATT 1994, Article 4 of the Agreement on
Agriculture, Articles 1 and 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Proce dures, and Articles 2
and 5 of TRIMs.  The US further contends that theses measures appear to nullify or impair
benefits accruing to it directly or indirectly under cited agreements.  On 12 March 1998, theparties communicated a mutually agreed solution to their dispute.
17. WT/DS82 – Ireland - Measures Affecting th e Grant of Copyright and Neighbouring
Rights
Complaint by the United States. On 14 May 1997, th e US requested consultations with Ireland
in respect Ireland's alleged failure to grant c opyright and neighbouring rights under its law.  The
US contended that this failure violates Ir eland's obligations under Articles 9-14, 63, 65 and 70
of the TRIPS Agreement.  On 9 January 1998, the United States requested the establishment of
a panel.  On 6 November 2000, the parties informed the DSB that they had reached a mutually
satisfactory solution.
18. WT/DS83 – Denmark - Measures Affecting the Enforcement of Intellectual Property
Rights
Complaint by the United States.  This request , dated 14 May 1997, is in respect of Denmark's
alleged failure to make provisional measures available in the context of civil proceedings
involving intellectual property rights.  The US contends that this failure violates Denmark's
obligations under Articles 50, 63 and 65 of the TR IPS Agreement.  On 7 June 2001, the parties
to the dispute notified to the DSB a mu tually satisfactory solution on the matter.
19. WT/DS85 – United States - Measures Af fecting Textiles and Apparel Products
Complaint by the European Communities.  This request, dated 23 May 1997, is in respect of
changes to US rules of origin for textiles and apparel products.  The EC alleges that the US hasWT/DS/OV/16
Page 170
introduced changes to its rules of origin for text ile and apparel products, which affect exports of
EC fabrics, scarves and other flat textile products  to the US. As a result, the EC alleges that EC
products are no longer recognised in the US as be ing of EC origin and lose the free access to the
US market that they had hitherto enjoyed.  The EC contends that these changes in US rules of
origin are in violation of the obligations of  the US under Articles 2.4, 4.2 and 4.4 of the ATC,
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origi n, Article III of GATT 1994, and Article 2 of the
TBT Agreement.  On 11 February 1998, the two parties notified their mutually agreed solution.
20. WT/DS86 – Sweden - Measures Affecting th e Enforcement of Intellectual Property
Rights
Complaint by the United States.  This request, dated 28 May 1997, is in respect of Sweden's
alleged failure to make provisional measures available in the context of civil proceedings
involving intellectual property rights.  The US contends that this failure violates Sweden's
obligations under Articles 50, 63 and 65 of the TR IPS Agreement.  In a communication dated 2
December 1998, the two parties notified a mutually agreed solution to this dispute.
21. WT/DS91 – India - Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Products
Complaint by Australia.  This request, dated 16 July 1997, raises the same issues in respect of
India's quantitative restrictions on imports of ag ricultural, textile and industrial products as in
the request by the US in DS90.  On 23 March 1998, the two parties notified a mutually agreed
solution.
22. WT/DS92 – India - Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Products
Complaint by Canada.  This request, dated 16 July 1997, raises the same issues in respect of
India's quantitative restrictions on imports of ag ricultural, textile and industrial products as in
the requests by the US (DS90) and Australia  (DS91).  On 25 March 1998, the two parties
notified a mutually agreed solution.
23. WT/DS93 – India - Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Products
Complaint by New Zealand.  This request, dated 16 July 1997, raises the same issues in respect
of India's quantitative restrictions on imports of agricultural, textile and industrial products as in
the requests by the US (DS90), Australia (DS91) and Canada (D S92).  However, New Zealand
makes an additional claim for nullification and impairment of benefits accruing to it under
GATT 1994. In a letter dated 14 September 1998, but communicated to the Secretariat  on
1 December 1998, the two parties notified a mutually agreed solution to this dispute.
24. WT/DS94 – India - Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Products
Complaint by Switzerland.  This request, dated 18 July 1997, raises the same issues in respect of
India's quantitative restrictions on imports of ag ricultural, textile and industrial products as in
the requests by the US (DS90), Australia (DS 91), Canada (DS92), a nd New Zealand (DS93).
However, Switzerland does not invoke the Agreement on Agriculture.  On 23 February 1998,
the two parties notified a mutually agreed solution.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 171
25. WT/DS96 – India - Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Products
Complaint by the European Communities.  This request, dated 18 July 1997, raises the same
issues in respect of India's quantitative restri ctions on imports of agricultural, textile and
industrial products as in the requests by the US  (DS90), Australia (DS 91), Canada (DS92), New
Zealand (DS93), and Switzerland (D S94).  In addition, the EC is also alleging violations of
Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the SPS Agreement.  On 7 April 1998, the two parties notified a mutually
agreed solution.
26. WT/DS99 – United States - Anti-Dumping  Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory
Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea
Complaint by Korea.  This request, dated 14 August 1997, is in respect of a decision of the US
Department of Commerce (DoC) not to revo ke the anti-dumping duty on dynamic random
access memory semi-conductors (DRAMS) of one megabyte or above originating from Korea.
Korea contends that the DoC's decision was ma de despite the finding that the Korean DRAM
producers have not dumped their products for a peri od of more than three and a half consecutive
years, and despite the existence of evidence demonstrating conclusively that Korean DRAM
producers will not engage in dumping DRAMS in  the future.  Korea considered that these
measures are in violation of Articles  6 and 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
At its meeting on 16 January 1998, the DSB established a panel.  The Panel found the measures
complained of to be in violation of Article 11.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  The report ofthe Panel was circulated on 29 January 1999. Korea requested that this matter be referred to the
original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DS U.  Following adoption of the panel report by
the DSB, Korea submitted a request to the effect th at the matter be referred to the original panel
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  At its meeting on 25 April 2000, the DSB agreed to
reconvene the original panel pursuant to Article  21.5 of the DSU.  The EC reserved its reserved
its third-party rights. 19 September 2000, Korea has requested the Panel to suspend its work,
including the issuance of the interim report, "until further notification" pursuant to
Article 12.12 of the DSU.  The Panel, in a letter sent to the parties on 21 September 2000, has
agreed to this request. At its meeting on 19 March 1999, the DSB adopted the Panel Report. On
20 October 2000, the parties notified the DSB of a mutually satisfactory solution to the
matter, involving the revocation of the antidumping order at issue as the result of a five-year
"sunset" review by the US Department of Commerce.
27. WT/DS102 – Philippines - Measures  Affecting Pork and Poultry
Complaint by the United States.  This request, dated 7 October 1997, is in respect of the same
measures complained of by the US in DS74, but also includes Administrative Order No. 8,
Series of 1997, which purports to amend the orig inal measure complained of in DS74.  On 12
March 1998, the parties communicated a mutually agreed solution to their dispute.
28. WT/DS103 and WT/DS113 – Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and
the Exportation of Dairy Products
(See also Sections V and VI).  Complaints by the United States and New Zealand.
On 9 May 2003, Canada and the United States, and Canada and New Zealand informed the
DSB that they had reached mutually agreed solutions under Article 3.6 of the DSU in both
disputes.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 172
29. WT/DS115 – European Communities - Measure s Affecting the Grant of Copyright and
Neighbouring Rights
Complaint by the United States.  On 6 January 1998, the US requested consultations with the
EC regarding similar measures as in WT/DS82 in respect of Ireland.  On 9 January 1998, the
US requested the establishment of a panel.  On 6 November 2000, the parties notified the DSBthat they had reached a mutually satisfactory solution.
30. WT/DS119 – Australia - Anti-Dumping Me asures on Imports of Coated Woodfree
Paper Sheets
Complaint by Switzerland.  This request, dated 20 February 1998, is in respect of the
provisional anti-dumping measures applied on the imports of coated woodfree paper sheets
from Switzerland.  Switzerland contends that th e investigation is not in conformity with
Australia's commitments under Articles 3 and 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  On 13 May
1998, the two parties notified a mutually agreed solution.
31. WT/DS124 – European Communities - Enforcem ent of Intellectual Property Rights for
Motion Pictures and Television Programs
Complaint by the United States.  This request, dated 30 April 1998, is in respect of the lack of
enforcement of intellectual property rights in Gr eece.  The US claims that a significant number
of TV stations in Greece regularly broadcas t copyrighted motion pictures and television
programs without the authorizat ion of copyright owners.  The US contends that effective
remedies against copyright infringement do not a ppear to be provided or enforced in Greece in
respect of these broadcasts.  The US alleges a violation of Articles 41 and 61 of the TRIPS
Agreement. On 20 March 2001, the parties to the dispute notified a mutually satisfactory
solution on the matter to the DSB.
32. WT/DS125 – Greece - Enforcement of Intellect ual Property Rights for Motion Pictures
and Television Programs
Complaint by the United States.  This request, dated 30 April 1998, is in respect of the same
measures raised against the EC above (DS124) . On 20 March 2001, the parties to the dispute
notified a mutually satisfactory solution on the matter to the DSB.
33. WT/DS151 – United States - Measures Af fecting Textiles and Apparel Products
Complaint by the European Communities.  This dispute, dated 19 November 1998, is in
respect of alleged changes to US rules of origin for textiles and apparel products.  The EC
discloses that this issue was the subject of an earlier request for consultations (WT/DS85), in
respect of which a mutually agreed solution was notified to the DSB, pursuant to Article 3.1
of the DSU.  However, the EC contends that the US has not implemented its commitments as
contained in that agreement with the result that, in the EC view, the US is still acting in amanner inconsistent with its obligations under the WTO.  The dispute concerns changes
allegedly introduced by the US to its rules of origin for textiles and apparel products, which
entered into force on 1 July 1996, which changes adversely affect exports of EC textile
products to the US, in that as a result of these changes EC products are allegedly no longer
recognised in the US as being of EC origin.  The EC alleges violations of Articles 2.4, 4.2 and4.4 of the ATC, Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin, Article III of GATT 1994,
and Article 2 of the TBT Agreement.  In a communication dated 21 July 2000, the parties
notified a mutually agreed solution to this dispute.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 173
34. WT/DS171 – Argentina – Patent Protection for Pharmaceuticals and Test Data
Protection for Agricultural Chemicals
Complaint by the United States.  On 6 May 1999, the US requested consultations with
Argentina in respect of
(i) the alleged absence in Argentina of either patent protection for pharmaceutical
products or an effective system for providing exclusive marketing rights in such
products, and
(ii) Argentina's alleged failure to ensure that changes in its laws, regulations and practice
during the transition period provided under Article 65.2 of the TRIPS Agreement do
not result in a lesser degree of consistency with the provisions of the TRIPS
Agreement.
Under item (i), the US contended that the TRIPS Agreement does not permit WTO Members
to allow third parties to market products subj ect to exclusive marketing rights without the
consent of the right holder.  According to the United States, Argentina's law does not provide
product patent protection for pharmaceutical inventions, or a system that conforms toArticle 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement with regard to the grant of exclusive marketing rights.
The US therefore contended that Argentina's le gal regime appears to be inconsistent with
Articles 27, 65 and 70 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Under item (ii), the US contended that prior to August 1998, Argentina provided a ten year
term of protection against unfair commercial use for undisclosed test data or other data
submitted to Argentine regulatory authorities  in support of applications for marketing
approval for agricultural chemical products.  The US further alleged that since the issuance in
1998 of Regulation 440/98, which inter alia  revoked earlier regulations, Argentina has
provided no effective protection for such data against unfair commercial use.  The UnitedStates therefore alleges that Argentina's legal regime is inconsistent with Article 65.5 of the
TRIPS Agreement.
On 31 May 2002, the US and Argentina notified the DSB that they have reached an
agreement on all of the matters raised by the US in its requests for consultations regarding
this dispute and that concerning Argentina – Certain Measures on the Protection of Patents
and Test Data ( WT/DS196).
35. WT/DS190 – Argentina – Transitional Sa feguard Measures on Certain Imports of
Woven Fabrics of Cotton and Cotton Mixtures Originating in Brazil
Complaint by Brazil.  This request for a panel, dated 11 February 2000, concerns transitional
safeguard measures applied by Argentina, as of  31 July 1999, against certain imports ofwoven fabrics of cotton and cotton mixtures originating in Brazil.  The measures at issue were
applied through Resolution MEyOSP 861/99 of the Ministry of the Economy and Public
Works and Services of Argentina.  In accordance with Article 6.11 of the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing, Brazil had referred the matter to the Textiles Monitoring Body (TMB)
for review and recommendations, after consultations requested earlier by Argentina had failedto produce a mutually satisfactory solution.  At its meeting of 18-22 October 1999, the TMB
conducted a review of the measures implemented by Argentina, having recommended that
Argentina rescind the safeguard measures applied against imports from Brazil.  On 29
November 1999, in accordance with Article 8.10 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing,
Argentina notified the TMB that it considered itself unable to conform with therecommendations issued by the TMB.  At its meeting of 13-14 December 1999, the TMB
conducted a review of the reasons given by Argentina and recommended that Argentina
reconsider its position.  The TMB's recommendations notwithstanding, the matter remainedWT/DS/OV/16
Page 174
unresolved.  Brazil is of the view that the transitional safeguards applied by Argentina are
inconsistent with Argentina's obligations under Articles 2.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.7, 6.8, 6.11,
8.9 and 8.10 of the Agreement on Textiles and Cl othing and should, therefore, be rescinded
forthwith.
At its meeting on 20 March 2000, the DSB established a panel.  The EC, Pakistan, Paraguay
and the US reserved their third-party rights.  In a communication dated June 2000, the parties
notified a mutually agreed solution to this dis pute.  Pursuant to the agreement reached, Brazil
retains the right to resume the procedures for the composition of the panel from the point where
they stood at the time the agreement was reached.
36. WT/DS196 – Argentina – Certain Measures on the Protection of Patents and Test Data
Complaint by the United States. On 30 May 2000, the US requested consultations with
Argentina concerning Argentina's legal regimes governing patents in Law 24,481 (as
amended by Law 24,572), Law 24,603, and Decree  260/96; and data protection in Law
24,766 and Regulation 440/98, and in other related measures.  The US considered that
Argentina:
• fails to protect against unfair commercial use of undisclosed test or other data, submitted
as a requirement for market approval of pharmaceutical or agricultural chemical
products;
• improperly excludes certain subject matter, including micro-organisms, from
patentability;
• fails to provide prompt and effective provisional measures, such as preliminary
injunctions, for purposes of preventing infringements of patent rights from occurring;
• denies certain exclusive rights for patents, such as the protection of products produced by
patented processes and the right of importation;
• fails to provide certain safeguards for the granting of compulsory licenses, including
timing and justification safeguards for compulsory licenses granted on the basis of
inadequate working;
• improperly limits the authority of its judiciary to shift the burden of proof in civil
proceedings involving the infringements of process patent rights; and
• places impermissible limitations on certain transitional patents so as to limit the
exclusive rights conferred by these patents, and to deny the opportunity for patentees to
amend pending applications in order to claim certain enhanced protection provided by
the TRIPS Agreement.
According to the US, Argentina's legal regimes governing patents and data protection are
therefore inconsistent with Argentina's obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, includingArticles 27, 28, 31, 34, 39, 50, 62, 65 and 70 of the Agreement.
On 31 May 2002, the US and Argentina notified the DSB that they have reached an
agreement on all of the matters raised by the US in its requests for consultations regarding
this dispute and that concerning Argentina – Patent Protection for Pharmaceuticals and TestData Protection for Agricultural Chemicals (WT/DS171).
37. WT/DS198 – Romania – Measures on Minimum Import Prices
Complaint by the United States.  On 30 May 2000, the US requested consultations with
Romania in respect of Romania's use of minimum import prices for customs valuationpurposes.  The measures at issue were the Customs Code of 1997 (L141/1997), the Ministry
of Finance General Customs Directive (Ordinan ce No. 5, 4 August 1998), and other relatedWT/DS/OV/16
Page 175
statutes and regulations.  The United States asserted that, pursuant to these measures,
Romania has established arbitrary minimum and maximum import prices for such products as
meat, eggs, fruits and vegetables, clothing, footwear, and certain distilled spirits.  The United
States further asserted that Romania has instituted burdensome procedures for investigating
import prices when the c.i.f. value falls below the minimum import price.  The United Statesconsidered that Romania's measures are inconsistent with its obligations under Articles 1
through 7, and 12 of the Customs Valuation Agreement; general notes 1, 2 and 4 of Annex 1
of the Customs Valuation Agreement; Articles II, X, and XI of the GATT 1994; Article 4.2 of
the Agreement on Agriculture; and Articles 2 and 7 of the Agreement on Textiles and
Clothing.
On 26 September 2001, the US and Romania informed the DSB that they had reached a
mutually satisfactory solution pursuant to Article 3.6 of the DSU.
38. WT/DS199 – Brazil – Measures Affecting Patent Protection
Complaint by the United States.  On 30 May 2000, the US requested consultations with Brazil
in respect of those provisions of Brazil's 1996 industrial property law (Law No. 9,279 of 14May 1996; effective May 1997) and other related measures, which establish a "local working"
requirement for the enjoyability of exclusive patent rights.  The US asserts that the "local
working" requirement can only be satisfied by the local production – and not the importation
– of the patented subject-matter.  More specifically, the US noted that Brazil's "local
working" requirement stipulates that a patent sh all be subject to compulsory licensing if the
subject-matter of the patent is not "worked" in the territory of Brazil.  The US further noted
that Brazil explicitly defines "failure to be worked" as "failure to manufacture or incomplete
manufacture of the product" or "failure to make full use of the patented process".  The US
considered that such a requirement is inconsistent with Brazil's obligations under Articles 27
and 28 of the TRIPS Agreement, and Article III of the GATT 1994.
At its meeting of 1 February 2001, the DSB established a panel. Cuba, the Dominican
Republic, Honduras, India and Japan reserved their third party rights.  On 5 July 2001, the
parties to the dispute notified to the DSB a mutually satisfactory solution on the matter.
39. WT/DS210 – Belgium – Administration of Mea sures Establishing Customs Duties for
Rice
Request by the United States.  On 12 October 2000, the US requested consultations with the
EC concerning the administration by Belgium of laws and regulations establishing the
customs duties applicable to rice imported from the United States. The United States
considered that:
• Belgium has failed to administer the pertinent laws and regulations in a manner that is
consistent with its WTO obligations, leading to the assessment of duties on rice importedfrom the United States in excess of the bound rate of duty, in contravention of Article II
of the GATT 1194;
• Belgium's use of reference prices in the calculation of the applicable import duties would
appear to be inconsistent with Article VII of the GATT 1994 and the Customs Valuation
Agreement;
• Belgium's refusal to recognize widely accepted industry standards associated with the
grading of rice appears to be inconsistent with Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9 of theAgreement on Technical Barriers to Trade;WT/DS/OV/16
Page 176
• Belgium has failed to administer its customs valuation determinations and its assessment
of tariffs in a transparent manner, thereby impeding trade, and appears to have applied themeasures in a manner that discriminates against rice imported from the United States.
• According to the United States, the measures have restricted imports of rice into Belgium.
Thus, the Belgian measures also appear to be inconsistent with Articles I, X and XI of theGATT 1994 and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
• According to the United States, Belgium's meas ures appear to be inconsistent with the
following specific provisions of the identified agreements: Articles I, II, VII, VIII, X and
XI of the GATT 1994; Articles 1-6, 7, 10, 14, 16 and Annex I of the Customs Valuation
Agreement; Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade;
Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Belgium's measures also appear to nullify or
impair the benefits accruing to the United States directly or indirectly under the cited
agreements.
On 19 January 2001, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
1 February 2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request
to establish a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 12 March 2001.
India and Japan reserved their third-party rights.  On 29 May 2001, the US requested the
Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel.  On 7 June 2001, the Panel was
composed.
On 26 July 2001, the US requested the Panel, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, to
suspend its work until 30 September 2001 in light of on-going consultations between the US
and the EC.  On 27 September, the US requested a further suspension of the Panel from 1 to
9 October 2001.  On 9 October, the US requested to further suspend the work of the Paneluntil 1 November 2001.  On 1 November, the US requested to further suspend the work of the
Panel until 16 November 2001.  On 19 November 2001, the US requested the Panel to
suspend its work until 30 November 2001.
On 18 December 2001, the US and the EC informed the DSB that they had reached a
mutually agreed solution pursuant to Article 3.6 of the DSU.
40. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines
(See also Sections V and VI above).  Complaint by Peru.
On 25 July 2003, the European Communities and Peru informed the DSB that they had
reached a mutually agreed solution pursuant to Article 3.6 of the DSU.
41. WT/DS235 - Slovakia – Safeguar d Measure on Imports of Sugar
Complaint by Poland.  On 11 July 2001, Poland requested consultations with Slovakia
concerning the quantitative restrictions imposed by Slovakia on imports of sugar (tariff
heading 1701).  The imposition of the measure in question was notified to the Committee onSafeguards and circulated in document G/ SG/N/10/SVK/1.  Poland considered that this
safeguard measure has been imposed in a manner inconsistent with Slovakia's obligations
under the Safeguards Agreement.  According to Poland, it appeared that Slovak authorities
acted inconsistently with various provisions of the Safeguards Agreement, namely,
Article 3.1, Article 4.2(b), Article 5.2(a), Article 7.4, Article 12.1(b), Article 12.1(c) andArticle 12.3WT/DS/OV/16
Page 177
Poland considered that the investigation and the safeguard measure imposed have nullified or
impaired the benefits accruing to Poland directly or indirectly under the Safeguards
Agreement.
On 11 January 2002, the parties notified the DSB that they have reached a mutually agreed
solution within the meaning of Article 3.6 of th e DSU.  Accordingly, Slovakia agreed to a
progressive increase of the level of its quota for imports of sugar from Poland between 2002
and 2004, and Poland agreed to remove its quantitative restriction on imports of butter and
margarine.  Both parties agreed to implement the above by 1 January 2002.
42. WT/DS237 – Turkey – Certain Import Procedures for Fresh Fruit
Complaint by Ecuador.  On 31 August 2001, Ecuador requested consultations with Turkey
concerning certain import procedures for fresh fruits and, in particular, bananas.  The
procedure requires, according to Ecuador, the issuance by the Turkish Ministry of Agriculture
of a document, known as "Kontrol Belgesi".  Ecuador explained that this procedure is
established under the "Communiqué for Standardization in Foreign Trade" published by the
Under-Secretariat of Foreign Trade in the Official Journal 24271 of 25 December 2000(Annex 1 thereof).  Ecuador alleged that this procedure, as applied by the Turkish authorities,
is a barrier to trade which is inconsistent with the obligations of Turkey under GATT 1994,
the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the Agreement on
Import Licensing Procedures, the Agreement on Agriculture and the GATS.  In particular,
Ecuador considered that the provisions of the WTO agreements with which Turkey's "KontrolBelgesi" procedure appears to be inconsistent include the following:
• Articles II, III, VIII, X and XI of the GATT 1994;
• Articles 2.3 and 8 and Annexes B and C of th e Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures
• Paragraphs 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 1 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures;
• Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and
• Articles VI and XVII of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).
On 20 September 2001, the EC requested to be joined in the consultations.
On 14 June 2002, Ecuador requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 24 June
2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request by Ecuador,
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 29 July 2002.  During the meeting, Ecuador also
requested the DSB to suspend the composition of the Panel as the parties were engaged inconsultations to find a mutually satisfactory solution to the dispute between them.  The EC
and the US reserved their third-party rights.  On 7 August 2002, Colombia requested third
party rights.
On 22 November 2002, the parties to the dispute informed the DSB that they had found a
mutually agreed solution to their dispute.
B. OTHERS
1. WT/DS1 – Malaysia - Prohibition of Imports of Polyethylene and Polypropylene
Complaint by Singapore.  This, the first disp ute under the WTO's dispute settlement procedures,
was settled on 19 July 1995, with Singapore's withdrawal of the panel request.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 178
2. WT/DS9 – European Communities - Duties on Imports of Cereals
Complaint by Canada.  Canada requested cons ultations with the EC on 10 July 1995 concerning
EC regulations implementing some of the EC 's Uruguay Round concessions on agriculture,
specifically, regulations which impose a duty on wheat imports based on reference prices rather
than transaction values, with the result that th e duty-paid import price for Canadian wheat will
be greater than the effective intervention price increased by 55% whenever the transaction value
is greater than the representative price.  A panel was established at the DSB meeting on
11 October 1995, but no panelists have been selected until now.
3. WT/DS13 – European Communities - Duties on Imports of Grains
Complaint by the United States.  This request for consultations, dated 19 July 1995, has
potentially broader product coverage than the case brought by Canada (WT/DS9, item 7(5)(a)below) but otherwise concerns much the same  issues.  On 28 September 1995, the US requested
the establishment of a panel to be considered at the meeting of the DSB on 11 October 1995,
but the EC objected to it. The US again requested the establishment of a panel to be considered
at the meeting of the DSB on 3 December 1996, but later dropped the request at the meeting. On
13 February 1997 the US made a renewed request for the establishment of a panel.  At the DSBmeeting on 20 March 1997, the US withdrew its request  for a panel in this matter.  On 26 March
1997, the US made a fresh request for the establishment of a panel.  On 30 April 1997, the US
informed the Secretariat that it was withdrawing its request for a panel in view of the fact that
the EC had adopted regulations implemen ting an agreement reached on this matter.
4. WT/DS15 – Japan - Measures Affecting the Purchase of Telecommunications
Equipment
Complaint by the European Communities.  This request for consultations, dated 18 August
1995, claims that a 1994 agreement reached betw een the United States and Japan concerning
telecommunications equipment is inconsistent with GATT Articles I:1, III:4 and XVII:1(c), andnullifies or impairs benefits accruing to the EC.  The United States has joined in the
consultations.  Although there has been no offici al notification, the case appears to have been
settled bilaterally.
5. WT/DS17 – European Communities - Duties on Imports of Rice
Complaint by Thailand.  This request for consultations, dated 3 October 1995, covers more or
less the same grounds as Canadian (WT/DS9) a nd the US (WT/DS13) complaints over the EC
duties on grains  ((5)(a) and 5(3) above).  In addition, Thailand seems to have alleged that the
EC has violated the most-favoured-nation requirement under GATT Article I in their
preferential treatment of basmati  rice from India and Pakistan.  See also the Uruguayan
complaint (WT/DS25).
6. WT/DS23 – Venezuela - Anti-Dumping Investig ation in Respect of Imports of Certain
Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG)
Complaint by Mexico dated 5 December 1995.  By a letter dated 6 May 1997, Mexico informed
the Secretariat that Venezuela had terminated the anti-dumping investigation in this matter.
7. WT/DS25 – European Communities - Im plementation of the Uruguay Round
Commitments Concerning Rice
Complaint by Uruguay.  This request for consultations, dated 18 December 1995, seems similar
to the claim by Thailand (WT/DS17).WT/DS/OV/16
Page 179
8. WT/DS32 – United States - Measures Affecting Imports of Women's and Girls' Wool
Coats
Complaint by India.  In a communication dated 14 March 1996, India requested the
establishment of a panel, claiming that the transitional safeguard measures on these textileproducts by the United States were inconsistent  with ATC Articles 2, 6 and 8.  A panel was
established in the DSB meeting on 17 April 1996.  However, on 25 April 1996, India requested
"termination of further action in pursuance of  the decision taken by the DSB on 17 April 1996
to establish a panel" in light of the US removal of the safeguard measures on these products,
which came into effect from 24 April 1996.
9. WT/DS38 – United States - The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act
Complaint by the European Communities. On 3 May 1996 the European Communities
requested consultations with the United States  concerning the Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 and other legislation enacted by the US Congress
regarding trade sanctions against Cuba.  The EC claims that US trade restrictions on goods of
Cuban origin, as well as the possible refusal of visas and the exclusion of non-US nationals
from US territory, are inconsistent with the US obligations under the WTO Agreement.
Violations of GATT Articles I, III, V, XI and XIII, and GATS Articles I, III, VI, XVI and XVII
are alleged. The EC also alleges that even if these measures by the US may not be in violation
of specific provisions of GATT or GATS, they nevertheless nullify or impair its expected
benefits under GATT 1994 and GATS and impede th e attainment of the objectives of GATT
1994. The European Communities requested the establishment of a panel on 3 October 1996.
The DSB established a panel at its meeting on 20 November 1996.  At the request of the EC,
dated 21 April 1997, the Panel suspended its work.  The Panel's authority lapsed on 22 April
1998, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU.
10. WT/DS39 – United States - Tariff Inc reases on Products from the European
Communities
Complaint by the European Communities.  In its request for consultations, dated 17 April 1996,
the EC claimed that the measures taken unde r the Presidential Proclamation No. 5759 of 24
December 1987 (retaliation against the "hormones" directive), which resulted in tariff increases
on products from the European Communities, are inconsistent with GATT Articles I, II and
XXIII, as well as DSU Articles 3, 22 and 23.  On 19 June 1996, the EC requested the
establishment of a panel.  In its request, the EC further claimed that the United States apparently
failed to "ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with its
obligations" under the WTO, with  respect to the application of Section 301 of the 1974 Trade
Act in this case (WTO Agreem ent Article XVI:4).  The United States withdrew the measure on
15 July 1996, and the EC decided not to pursue its panel request, reserving its rights toreconvene, if necessary, a further meeting of the DSB at an early date.
11. WT/DS49 – United States - Anti-Dumping In vestigation Regarding Imports of Fresh or
Chilled Tomatoes from Mexico
Complaint by Mexico.  On 1 July 1996, Mexico requested consultations with the United States
regarding the anti-dumping investigation on fre sh and chilled tomatoes imported from Mexico
under Article 17.3 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.  Violations of GATT Articles VI and X as
well as Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7.1 of the Anti-dumping Agreement are alleged.  Mexico claims
this to be a case of urgency, where the e xpedited procedures under Articles 4.8 and 4.9 of the
DSU are applicable. US Commerce Department offi cial releases indicate that the case has been
settled.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 180
12. WT/DS57 – Australia - Textiles, Clothing  and Footwear Import Credit Scheme
Complaint by the United States.  This request, dated 7 October 1996, concerns a complaint by
the US against subsidies being granted and maintained by Australia on leather products under
the TCF scheme. A violation of Article 3 of the SCM Agreement is alleged. The US is also
invoking Article 30 of the SCM Agreement to the ex tent that it incorporates by reference Article
XXIII:1 of GATT 1994. An official release fr om the USTR in Washington on 25 November
1996 indicates that the case has been settled.
13. WT/DS77 – Argentina - Measures Affecting Textiles and Clothing
Complaint by the European Communities.  This request dated 17 April 1997, is in respect of a
range of specific duties on textiles and clothing  which have allegedly resulted in increased
duties and have led to applied tariffs that exceed the 35% binding made by Argentina.  The EC
contends that these measures are a violation of Argentina's commitments under Article II of
GATT 1994, and also of Article 7 of the ATC.  See similar US complaint in DS56 pending
before a panel.  On 10 September 1997, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its
meeting on 16 October 1997, the DSB established a panel.  The US reserved its third-partyrights.  The Panel suspended its work at the request of the EC on 29 July 1998.  Pursuant to
DSU Article 12.12, the panel's authority lapsed on 29 July 1999, 12 months having passed since
the suspension of the panel's work.
14. WT/DS88 – United States - Measure Affecting Government Procurement
Complaint by the European Communities.  This request, dated 20 June 1997, is in respect of an
Act enacted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on 25 June 1996, entitled Act regulating
State Contracts with companies doing Business with Burma (Myanmar).  The Act provides, in
essence, that public authorities of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are not allowed to
procure goods or services from any persons w ho do business with Burma.  The EC contends
that, as Massachusetts is covered under the US schedule to the GPA,  this violates Articles
VIII(B), X and XIII of the GPA Agreement.  The EC also contends that the measure also
nullifies benefits accruing to it under the GPA, as well as impeding the attainment of the
objectives of the GPA, including that of main taining balance of rights and obligations.  On
8 September 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
21 October 1998, the DSB established a panel.  Japa n reserved its third-party right.  The DSB
agreed that pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU,  a single panel would examine this dispute
together with DS95 below. At the request of  the complainants, dated 10 February 1999, the
Panel agreed, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, to suspend the panel proceedings (which
also applies to DS95 below).  Since the panel wa s not requested to resume its work, pursuant to
Article 12.12 of the DSU, the authority for establ ishment of the panel lapsed as of 11 February
2000 (which also applies to DS95 below).
15. WT/DS89 – United States - Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Colour Television
Receivers from Korea
Complaint by Korea.  This request, dated 10 July 1997, is in respect of the imposition of anti-
dumping duties by the US on imports of colour television receivers (CTVs) from Korea.  Korea
contends that the US has for the past twelve  years maintained an anti-dumping order for
Samsung's CTVs despite the absence of dumping and the cessation of exports from Korea,
without examining the necessity of continuing to  impose such duties.  Korea contends that the
US actions violate Articles VI.1 and VI .6(a) of GATT 1994, and Articles 1, 2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.6, 4.1,
5.4, 5.8, 5.10, 11.1 and 11.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  On 6 November 1997, Korearequested the establishment of a panel.  On 5 January 1998, Korea informed the DSB that it wasWT/DS/OV/16
Page 181
withdrawing its request for a pane l but reserving its right to reintroduce the request.  At the DSB
meeting on 22 September 1998, Korea announced th at it was definitively withdrawing the
request for a panel because the imposition of anti-dumping duties had now been revoked.
16. WT/DS95 – United States - Measure Affecting Government Procurement
Complaint by Japan.  This request, dated 18 July 1997, is in respect of the same issued raised by
the EC in DS88 above. On 8 September 1998, Japan requested the establishment of a panel.  At
its meeting on 21 October 1998, the DSB established a panel.  The DSB agreed that pursuant to
Article 9.1 of the DSU, a single panel would ex amine this dispute together with DS88 above.
17. WT/DS101 – Mexico - Anti-Dum ping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup
(HFCS) from the United States
Complaint by the United States.  On 4 Sept ember 1997, the US requested consultations with
Mexico in respect of an anti-dumping investig ation of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) from
the United States conducted by Mexico, resulting in a preliminary determination of dumping
and injury, and the consequent imposition of provisional measures on imports of HCFS from
the United States.  The US alleged violati ons of Articles 5.5, 6.1.3, 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement.
On 8 May 1998, the US requested consultations in respect of the same anti-dumping
investigation which had resulted in the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures on these
imports from the United States.  See WT/DS132 and WT/DS132/RW.
18. WT/DS106 – Australia - Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive
Leather
Complaint by the United States.  This reque st, dated 10 November 1997, is in respect of
Australia's alleged prohibited subsidies provided to its producers and exporters of automotiveleather.  The US contends that these measures by Australia violate Article 3 of the Subsidies
Agreement.  On 9 January 1998, the United States re quested the establishment of a panel.  At its
meeting on 22 January 1998, the DSB established a panel in accordance with the accelerated
procedure under the Subsidies Agreement.  On 11 June 1998, the US withdrew its request for a
panel. See also WT/DS126.
19. WT/DS181 – Colombia – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Plain Polyester Filaments
from Thailand
Complaint by Thailand.  On 28 and 29 September 1998, at the request of Colombia pursuant
to Article 6.7 of the ATC, consultations took place between Thailand and Colombia regarding
imports into the latter of plain polyester filaments (tariff heading 5402.43) from Thailand.
Failing the consultations, Thailand requested the establishment of a panel on 7 September1999 to settle this dispute.  Colombia's safeguard measure is alleged to be inconsistent with
Article 2 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) regarding the application of a
transitional safeguard mechanism and with Article 2 of the ATC regarding the introduction
and application of restrictions by Members.  The safeguard measures imposed by Colombia
on 26 October 1998 have been subject to the two-stage examination and review procedures bythe Textiles Monitoring Body (TMB).  The TMB recommended at its fiftieth meeting held on
16-19 November 1998 that Colombia rescind the measure.  On 22 December 1998, Colombia
notified the TMB of its inability to conform with this TMB recommendation and provided the
TMB with reasons therefor.  At its fifty-second meeting on 18-20 January 1999, the TMB
reviewed the matter and repeated its recommendation to Colombia to rescind the safeguardmeasure forthwith.  At the DSB meeting on 27 October 1999, Thailand announced that it wasWT/DS/OV/16
Page 182
withdrawing its request for a panel because the Colombian safeguard measure had been
terminated.
20. WT/DS193 - Chile – Measures Affecting th e Transit and Importation of Swordfish
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 19 April 2000, the EC requested consultations
with Chile regarding the prohibition on unloadi ng of swordfish in Chilean ports established
on the basis of Article 165 of the Chilean Fishery Law (Ley General de Pesca y Acuicultura),
as consolidated by the Supreme Decree 430 of 28 September 1991, and extended by Decree
598 of 15 October 1999.
The EC asserted that its fishing vessels operating in the South East Pacific are not allowed
under Chilean legislation to unload their swordf ish in Chilean ports either to land them for
warehousing or to transship them onto other vessels.  The EC considered that, as a result,
Chile makes transit through its ports impossible for swordfish.  The EC claimed that the
above-mentioned measures are inconsistent with the GATT 1994, and in particular Articles V
and XI thereof.
At its meeting of 12 December 2000, the DSB established a panel further to the request of the
EC.  Australia, Canada, Ecuador, India, Ne w Zealand, Norway, Iceland and the US reserved
their third-party rights.  On 23 March 2001, the parties to the dispute informed the Director-
General of the WTO that they agreed to suspend the process for the constitution of the panel.
21. WT/DS227 – Peru – Taxes on Cigarettes
Complaint by Chile.  On 1 March 2001, Chile requested consultations with Peru concerning
the Peruvian Supreme Decree No. 158-99-EF of 25 September 1999 modifying appendices III
and IV of the General Sales Tax and Selective Consumption Tax Law, which identify the
goods subject to the selective consumption tax. Article 1B of the said Supreme Decreeamends the tax applied to cigarettes made of dark tobacco, standard cigarettes made of bright
tobacco and premium cigarettes made of bright tobacco, setting a different specific tax for
each one of these categories of cigarettes ranging from S/0.025 to S/0.100 per unit.
According to Chile, the difference in the amount  of the tax appears to be contingent only on
the number of countries in which the different commercial brands of cigarettes are marketed –
more than three or less than three – a criterion which is a source of concern for Chile, since itcould signify discrimination against imported cigarettes, from Chile for example, which,
being marketed in more than three countries, are subject to a higher tax than local brand
cigarettes.  In Chile's view, this situation, wh ich is damaging to Chilean cigarette exports to
Peru, could constitute a violation of the GATT 1994 – in particular, but not necessarily
exclusively, of Article III.2 of the GATT 1994 – and of a repeated Appellate Bodyjurisprudence in this area.
At its meeting of 24 June 2001, the DSB establishe d a Panel further to Chile's request.  None of
the Members reserved their  third-party rights.
On 12 July 2001, Chile announced its intention to  withdraw the compla int on the grounds that
the contested measure, i.e. the specific selective consumption tax system applied to cigarettes
by Peru, had been amended on 30 June 2001 with the publication of Supreme Decree
No. 128-2001 of the Ministry of the Economy and Finance of Peru, which entered into force
on 1 July 2001.  As from that date, cigarettes are subject to the Peruvian common selectiveconsumption tax system at a rate of 100 per cent, regardless of their origin, price, type or
quality of tobacco and/or the number of sales markets.  This amendment in the tax regimeWT/DS/OV/16
Page 183
applicable to cigarettes was the result of a ruling of the Constitutional Court of Peru on
19 June 2001.
22. WT/DS228 – Chile – Safeguard Measures on Sugar
Complaint by Colombia.  On 19 March 2001, Colombia requested consultations with Chile
concerning definitive safeguard measures relating to sugar.  This request was replaced by that
in dispute WT/DS230 above.
23. WT/DS240 - Romania – Import Prohib ition on Wheat and Wheat Flour
Complaint by Hungary.  On 18 October 2001, Hungary requested consultations with Romania
concerning Romania's Joint Decree of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Industry and
Forestry No. 119069 (16.07.2001), Ministry of Family and Health No. 495 (18.07.2001) andthe National Consumer Protection Authority No. 1/3687 (19.07.2001) prohibiting the import
of wheat and wheat flour which does not meet certain quality standards.
In particular, Hungary claimed that:
• the import prohibition has been imposed in a manner inconsistent with Romania's
obligations under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994; and
• the introduction of the abovementioned quality requirements is in breach of Article III:4
of the GATT 1994 because domestically produced products are not subject to the samequality requirements.
On 30 October 2001, Hungary requested consultations with Romania according to the
urgency procedure provided in Article 4.8 of  the DSU.  On 27 November 2001, Hungary
requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 10 December 2001, the DSB
deferred the establishment of the panel.  On 10 December 2001, Hungary requested the
holding of a special meeting of the DSB in order to establish a panel.  On 20 December 2001,
further to the abrogation by Romania of its le gislation regarding the quality requirements for
imported wheat and wheat flour, Hungary withdrew its request.
24. WT/DS255 – Peru– Tax Treatment on Certain Imported Products
Complaint by Chile.  On 22 April 2002, Chile requested consultations with Peru in respect of
its tax treatment on imports of fresh fruits, vegetables, fish, milk, tea and other natural
products.  In particular, Chile explained that  before the adoption of Law 27.614, published on
29 December 2001, both the sale in the Peruvian market and the importation into Peru of the
products at issue had been exempt from sales tax.  Further to the adoption of Law 27.614, the
importation into Peru of the products at issue was no longer exempt from sales tax (18 per
cent) while the sale of those products in the Peruvian market was still exempt from sales tax.
Chile considered that the different tax treatment between domestic and imported products
constituted a violation by Peru of its national treatment commitments both:
• at bilateral level: Article 19 of the Economic Complementarity Agreement (ECA 38) and,
• at multilateral level (WTO): Article III of GATT 1994.  In this regard, Chile claimed that
Law 27.614 by providing that the exemption from sales tax only applied to the sale in
Peru and not to the importation, was inconsistent with Article III of the GATT 1994.
Chile contended that the above measure prejudiced the competitiveness of Chile's exports to
Peru of the said products, in particular although not limited to, apples, table grapes and
peaches.WT/DS/OV/16
Page 184
On the grounds that the products affected by the measure at issue were natural goods and thus
perishable, Chile was invoking the urgency consultation procedure under Article 4.8 of the
DSU and already announced that it would make use of the expeditious Panel and Appellate
Body procedures referred to in Article 4.9 of the DSU.
On 8 May 2002, the United States requested to join the consultations.On 13 June 2002, Chile requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 24 June
2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  On 26 July 2002, Chile requested that
its second request for the establishment of a panel be removed from the agenda of the DSB
meeting on 29 July 2002.
On 25 September 2002, Chile informed the DSB that it was withdrawing this complaint as
Peru had repealed Article 2 of Law 27.614 and as a result the disputed measures had
disappeared.
__________