./.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DSB/M/114
18 December 2001
(01-6378)
Dispute Settlement Body
5 December 2001
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 5 December 2001
Chairman:  Mr. R. Farrell (New Zealand)
Subjects discussed: Page
1. Argentina – Definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of ceramic floor tiles
from Italy..................................................................................................................... ..............1
(a) Implementation of the reco mmendations of the DSB.................................................................1
2. United States – Preliminary determinations with respect to certain softwood
lumber from Canada ............................................................................................................. ...2
(a) Request for the establishm ent of a panel by Canada ..................................................................2
1. Argentina – Definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of ceramic floor tiles from
Italy
(a) Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB
1. The Chairman recalled that in accordance with the DSU provisions the DSB was required to
keep under surveillance the implementation of recommendations and rulings of the DSB in order to
ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members.  In this respect, Article 21.3 of
the DSU provided that the Member concerned shall inform the DSB, within 30 days after the date of
adoption of the panel or Appellate Body report, of its intentions in respect of implementation of the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  He recalled that at its meeting on 5 November 2001, theDSB had adopted the Panel Report in the case on "Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on
Imports of Ceramic Floor Tiles  from Italy".
2. The representative of Argentina said that, in accordance with Article 21.3 of the DSU, his
country wished to inform the DSB of its intent ions regarding the implementation of the DSB's
recommendations and rulings in this case.  He said that in order to implement, Argentina would needa reasonable period of time.  His country had already entered into consultations with the EC and
hoped to reach an agreement on the time-frame and modalities for implementation  in this case.
3. The representative of the European Communities said that Article 21 of the DSU provided
that Members should comply without delay with the DSB's recommendations. At the 5 November
DSB meeting, the EC had stated that the number and gravity of the violations of the Anti-DumpingAgreement as well as the possibility for Argentina to withdraw its measure without a legislative actionWT/DSB/M/114
Page 2
would call for an immediate withdrawal of the an ti-dumping duties.  Consultations with Argentina
were underway in order to determine modalities for implementation and to terminate the application
of anti-dumping duties.  The EC hoped that these consultations would bring satisfactory results in the
very near future.
4. The DSB took note of the statements, and of th e information provided by Argentina regarding
its intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations.
2. United States – Preliminary determinations  with respect to certain softwood lumber
from Canada
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada (WT/DS236/2)
5. The Chairman recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on
5 November 2001 and had agreed to revert to it.  He drew attention to the communication from
Canada contained in document WT/DS236/2.
6. The representative of Canada said that her country was requesting the establishment of a
panel for the second time. She recalled that Canada's first request had been submitted at the
5 November DSB meeting, but the United States had not agreed to a panel at that time.  Canada's
claims concerning the preliminary countervailing duty and critical circumstances determinations made
by the US Department of Commerce on 9 August 2 001 with respect to certain softwood lumber from
Canada, together with the expedited and administrative review provisions of US law, were set out in
Canada's panel request.  As previously stated, in Canada's view, these determinations and provisions
of US law were inconsistent with a number of aspects of the United States' WTO obligations.
Consequently, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the DSU, the GATT 1994 and the
SCM Agreement, Canada wished to reaffirm its request for the establishment of a panel.
7. The representative of  the United States said that her country was disappointed that Canada
had chosen to move ahead with its panel request.  As stated by Canada, the determinations of the US
Department of Commerce were preliminary and subject to change.  Therefore, in the United States'
view, Canada's request for a panel was premature.  The United States believed that the determinations
of the Department of Commerce were fully consistent with the WTO obligations, and it wouldvigorously defend them before the panel.
8. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed
 to establish a panel in accordance with the
provisions of Article 6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference.
9. The representatives of the European Communities and India  reserved their third-party rights
to participate in the Panel's proceedings.
__________