RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/173 
30 August 2004 
 (04-3594) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
20 July 2004  
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 20 July 2004  
 
Chairperson:  Ms Amina Mohamed (Kenya) 
 
  Prior to the adoption of the agenda
, the representative of Canada  said that his country wished 
to withdraw the request for the establishmen t of a panel in the case on: "United States – 
Determination of the International Trade Commi ssion in Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada" 
(WT/DS310/2) from the agenda of the present DSB meeting. While Canada was withdrawing this 
item from the present meeting, it reserved its rights under the Understanding on Rules and Procedures 
Governing the Settlement of Disputes with respect to  the request for the establishment of a panel and, 
specifically, Canada did so on the understanding that , should Canada choose to include the request as 
an item on the agenda of a future meeting of th e Dispute Settlement Body, the Dispute Settlement 
Body shall treat the agenda item as its second consid eration of the request and establish a panel at that 
meeting, pursuant to Article  6.1 of the Understanding. 
  The Chairperson
 proposed that the DSB agree that  the item entitled:  "United States – 
Determination of the International Trade Commi ssion in Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada:  
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Ca nada" (WT/DS310/2) be removed from the proposed 
agenda, as requested by Canada. 
  The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  that the item entitled:  "United States – 
Determination of the International Trade Commi ssion in Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada:  
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Ca nada" (WT/DS310/2) be removed from the proposed 
agenda.  
 
Subjects discussed : Page  
 
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB.........................2  
(a) United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916:  Status report by the United States.......................2  
(b) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........3  
(c) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan:  Status report by  the United States...................................................................................4  
(d) United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  Status report 
by the Unite d States ........................................................................................................... .........5  
 
  WT/DSB/M/173 
Page 2  
 
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916:   Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS136/14/Add.28 – WT/DS162/17/Add.28) 
 (b) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.21) 
 (c) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.21) 
 
(d) United States – Continued dumping and subsid y offset act of 2000:  status report by the 
United States (WT/DS217/16/Add.6 – WT/DS234/24/Add.6) 
 1. The Chairperson
 recalled that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that "unless the DSB decides 
otherwise, the issue of implementation of the re commendations or rulings shall be placed on the 
agenda of the DSB meeting after six months follo wing the date of establishment of the reasonable 
period of time pursuant to paragraph 3 and shall remain on the DSB's agenda until the issue is 
resolved".  She proposed that the four sub-items  to which she had just referred be considered 
separately. 
(a) United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS136/14/Add.28 - WT/DS162/17/Add.28) 
2. The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/D S136/14/Add.28 – WT/DS162/17/Add.28, 
which contained the status report by the United St ates on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning the US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916. 
3. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided an additional status 
report in these disputes on 8 July 2004, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in the 
report, legislation repealing the 1916 Act was pendi ng in both the US Senate and the US House of 
Representatives. On 29 January 2004, HR 1073, whic h would repeal the 1916 Act, had been reported 
favourably out of the Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives.  On 
30 June 2004, Ambassador Zoellick had written a letter to the leadership of the US House of 
Representatives urging the passage of repeal legislation "at the earliest opportunity".  The US administration was continuing to work with the Congress to achieve further progress in resolving 
these disputes with the EC and Japan. 
4. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the EC wished to thank 
Ambassador R. Zoellick for his letter urging to repeal of the 1916 Anti-Dumping Act.  The EC 
welcomed the reaffirmation by the US administra tion of its commitment to comply with the WTO 
ruling regarding the 1916 Anti-Dumping Act.  Nevert heless, it was seriously disturbing that almost 
four years after condemnation of the 1916 Act, the EC  was still at the stage of "urging" support for 
repeal of the Act.  Again, the US status report di d not show any concrete pr ogress.  The EC strongly 
hoped that the US administration's call would be h eard and that the Congress would finally give some 
evidence that it was not simply ignoring the US inte rnational obligations.  The EC recalled that it 
might adopt, at anytime, a specific anti-dumping legisl ation applicable to US products pursuant to its 
right to suspend the application to the United St ates of its obligations under the GATT 1994 and the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
5. The representative of Japan  said that his country remain ed gravely concerned over the 
prolonged non-implementation by the United States of  the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
proceeding.  Such a long delay in the implemen tation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
seriously undermined the credibility of the WTO dispute settlement system.  At the 22 June 2004  WT/DSB/M/173 
 Page 3 
 
 
DSB meeting, Japan had positively taken note of the fact that the US administration had expressed its 
support for the legislation repealing the 1916 Act in  the 2004 Report to the Leaders on the "United 
States – Japan Regulatory  Reform and Competition  Policy", which had been issued in June.  As a 
recent development, Japan had also taken note of Amb assador Zoellick's letter to the leadership of the 
US Congress, referred to in the US status report before the DSB at the present meeting, as an 
important step aiming to secure the implementation.   However, until the day the implementation was 
fully secured, Japan strongly urged the US administration to re-double its effort vis-à-vis  the US 
Congress so that the repealing legislations were approved during the current session of the Congress.  
As stated at the 22 June DSB meeting, it was to Japa n's great regret that the Federal District Court had 
pronounced its final judgment to the effect that  it had upheld the order imposing on a Japanese 
company a payment of damages amounting to US$30 million.  In this light, Japan's call for the 
legislation repealing the 1916 Act w ith proper retroactive effect was all the more pressing.  Even in 
the unfortunate event that the repealing legislations were likely to be passed without retroactive effect, 
Japan strongly urged the United States to take actions  in order to ensure that this WTO-inconsistent 
Act inflicted no further damage upon the Japanese comp anies.  Japan also re quested the United States 
to be more specific when reporting on any further developments regarding the status of all the 
repealing bills of the 1916 Act.  Should the United States fail to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings, Japan had no other option than to proceed to reactivation of the arbitration under 
Article 22 of the DSU, and to exercise its right  to suspend concessions or other obligations. 
6. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(b) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropria tions Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.21) 
7. The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS176/11/Add.21, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning US Section 211 Om nibus Appropriations Act of 1998. 
8. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 July 2004, in accordance with Artic le 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in the report, 
legislation amending or repealing section 211 was pe nding in the US Senate and the US House of 
Representatives.  In this connection, the Senate Judiciary Committee had held hearings concerning 
this legislation in the previous week, on 13 July 2004.  The US administration was continuing to work with the US Congress concerning appropriate statut ory measures that would resolve this matter. 
9. The representative of the European Communities
 said that, for a long time, the United States 
had been advocating for international rules to  guarantee in each country effective and non-
discriminatory protection of intellectual property rights.  The "United States – Cuba Trademark 
Protection Act" pending for adoption in  the Senate and the House fully conformed with that objective.  
It would not only repeal a damaging special interest legislation, but would also provide enhanced and 
effective protection of intellectual property rights bo th in Cuba and in the United States.  The EC 
expected that the US administration would take th is opportunity to put rhetoric into practice and 
support the "US-Cuba Trademark Protection Act" as an appropriate solution to this dispute. 
10. The representative of Cuba  said that the reasonable period of time for compliance with the 
DSB's recommendations, which the EC had granted to the United States in December 2003, would 
expire on 31 December 2004.  This was the th ird reasonable period of time, which had been 
established by the parties to the dispute.  Half of that period had already passed, but there was no sign 
of any effective action being taken to repeal S ection 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998, 
which was the only fair and sound solution.  Cuba not ed with concern that, for 29 months, the United 
States had been applying delaying tactics to avoid br inging its legislation into line with WTO rules.  
Furthermore, this was not an isolated incident, given that a number of disputes, in which compliance WT/DSB/M/173 
Page 4  
 
by the United States with the DSB's decisions w as pending, had been examined since January 2004 
under the agenda item related to surveillance of im plementation.  This situation had given rise to 
mistrust in the DSB and had adversely affected the credibility of the WTO.  Its significance earned it a 
mention in the annual report: "... developing countries have complained that it has been difficult for 
them, in certain circumstances, to ensure complian ce with DSB recommendations on the part of larger 
trading partners given that developing countries have  little effective economic leverage that they can 
apply in such cases ...".  WTO Members had freely accepted to adhere to a rules-based multilateral 
system. Confidence and certainty that all Member s would abide by such rules was conducive to 
multilateralism; the systematic failure to respect  WTO's rules and principles, on the other hand, 
encouraged arbitrariness and unilateralism. She recalled that Section 211, as approved on 
21 October 1998 by the US Congress, did not recogni ze in US territory trademark and trade name 
rights related to Cuban interests and indeed striped Cuban natural and legal pe rsons of their trademark 
rights in the United States by preventing the rightf ul owners of such marks both from defending them 
before US courts and from renewing their registratio n.  The determination that Section 211 violated 
basic principles, such as nati onal treatment and most-favoured -nation treatment, served as 
confirmation of the US discriminatory treatme nt of Cuban nationals. Consequently, the 
recommendation that the United States abide by its commitments to these principles under the WTO 
was also a call for the elimination of its hostile polic y towards Cuba.  Her delegation wished to stress 
that the continued validity of a measure such as S ection 211, which violated the intellectual property 
rights of third countries, called into question the stan ce of the United States which, for years, had tried 
to set itself up as an advocate of intellectual prope rty rights within the WTO, but was yet again 
revealing its double standards to the international community.  There was no reason for this law to 
remain in force more than two years after the DSB's decision.  In light of this, Cuba would, once again, urge the United States to comply with its obligations as a Member of the WTO by repealing 
Section 211. 
11. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(c) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.21) 
12. The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.21, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan. 
13. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 July 2004, in accordance with Artic le 21.6 of the DSU.  The US administration was 
continuing to work with the US Congress with re spect to the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB that had not been addressed by 23 November 2002. 
14. The representative of Japan  said that, as stated at the 22 June 2004 DSB meeting, the end of 
the reasonable period of time for the US implementati on in this proceeding was fast approaching.  In 
such a context, it was a cause of great concern and dismay that there had been no concrete signs of 
progress toward the full implementation on the part of the United States.  At the June DSB meeting, Japan had taken note of the US administration's st ated commitment to work towards securing the 
implementation, as expressed in the "Third Repor t to the Leaders on the United States – Japan 
Regulatory Reform and Competition Policy".  Since then Japan was aware of no significant 
movement on the part of the United States. Japan, therefore, urged the US administration to re-double 
its effort vis-à-vis  the US Congress so that bills amending the relevant anti-dumping statutes would be 
introduced for consideration and passage during the current session of the 108th Congress.  As Japan had repeatedly stated, the longer the United States delayed the implementation, the more the credibility of the WTO dispute settlement system would be compromised. Japan urged the United  WT/DSB/M/173 
 Page 5 
 
 
States to seriously consider the systemic ramifica tions of such consequences resulting from delays in 
implementations. 
15. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(d) United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS217/16/Add.6 – WT/DS234/24/Add.6) 
16. The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/D S217/16/Add.6 – WT/DS234/24/Add.6, 
which contained the status report by the United St ates on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning the US Conti nued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. 
17. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report on 
8 July 2004, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in the report, on 19 June 2003, 
legislation to bring the Continued Dumping and Su bsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) into conformity with 
US WTO obligations had been introduced in the US  Senate (S. 1299).  On 10 March 2004, legislation 
repealing the CDSOA had been introduced in the US House of Representatives (H.R. 3933).  In 
addition, on 2 February 2004, the US administration had, once again, proposed repeal of the CDSOA, 
in its budget proposal for fiscal year 2005.  The US  administration was continuing to work with the 
Congress to achieve further progress in resolving these disputes with the complaining parties. 
18. The representative of the European Communities  said that the EC noted, once again, that the 
US status report did not show any progress on impl ementation.  This questioned the credibility of the 
US commitment to comply with its WTO obligations  all the more that this was not an isolated 
example.  The EC noted that all matters under ite m 1 of the agenda of the present meeting were 
related to implementation due by the United States.  And, in all those cases, status reports month after 
month, and for years, had shown no or very little progress.  Worse, in this case, repeated statements 
had been made questioning the need to implem ent the recommendations as well as some initiatives 
were made to rewrite the WTO rules to put them into  conformity with US legislation.  The EC urged, 
once again, the United States to show commitment to  its international obligations and to respect of 
other Members' rights by implementing without fu rther delay the ruling and recommendations on the 
CDSOA. 
19. The representative of Chile  said that like the current status report of the United States, which 
did not vary  from the previous one, Chile's statement would have not much to add to what it had been 
pointed out ever since the expiry of the reasonable period of time for compliance by the United States 
with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  Chile  was concerned that, just a few days before 
adjourning before its summer recess, the US Congr ess had not even given the slightest indication as to 
how and when the pending bills would be discussed.  This was particularly significant in an election 
year such as this when legisl ative work was severely disrupte d. Furthermore, the process of 
distributing offset payments for the fiscal year 20 04 was already underway so as to avoid the delays, 
which had occurred in the past. Such "diligence" on th e part of the US administration stood in marked 
contrast to its non-existent efforts to achieve progress in the legislative debate.  Therefore, Chile asked 
that the United States, in its next status report, provide further details on the consultations which it 
claimed were being held in the US Congress, in pa rticular regarding the next legislative steps for 
securing the earliest repeal of  the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA).  
Chile noted that the Arbitrator's decision determin ing the level of nullification and impairment was 
imminent and would enable Chile and seven ot her Members to suspend concessions and other 
equivalent obligations.  Chile hoped that the repe al of the CDSOA would make recourse to this 
extreme measure unnecessary. 
20. The representative of the Canada  said that his country, once again, noted the status report of 
the United States and its continued failure to comply  with its WTO obligations with regard to the WT/DSB/M/173 
Page 6  
 
Byrd Amendment.  The DSB had ruled on this disp ute over one year ago.  The lack of any progress 
by the United States to bring itself into conform ity with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB 
remained an ongoing concern to Canada.  The parties to the dispute were currently awaiting the ruling 
of the WTO Arbitrators on the level of retaliation that Members could impose on the United States for its failure to repeal the Byrd Amendment.  Th e Canadian objective was not  retaliation and Canada, 
therefore, urged the United States to comply with its  international trade obligations. It should repeal 
the Byrd Amendment and end this dispute. 
21. The representative of Japan
 said that his country had taken note of the status report of the 
United States, but with a strong sense of disappointment  that there had been no development in terms 
of implementation of the DSB's recommendations a nd rulings.  While Japan was still waiting for the 
award of the Arbitrator, it could not but reiterate its position that a top priority remained that the 
United States did not loose any more time to rep eal the WTO-inconsistent CDSOA and fulfilled its 
obligation to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
22. The representative of Korea  said that his country wished to thank the United States for its 
status report and noted that no progress had been  made on this matter since the introduction of 
legislation to repeal CDSOA in both the US Senate and the House of Representatives.   Korea, as a 
co-complainant, had concerns about the US conti nued failure to comply with the recommendations 
and rulings of the DSB.  Although Korea was reluctan t to make a seemingly unfruitful eco to the other 
parties' statements, it would like again to urge the United States to promptly repeal its CDSOA and to 
comply with its WTO obligations in the hope that the last few drops could lead to an overflowing of the bowl. 
23. The representative of India
 said that his country thanked the United States for the latest report 
regarding implementation of the DSB's recommend ations in the United States – CDSOA dispute. 
Unfortunately, this report showed no progress by the United States; it was in fact a repetition of the 
report of the previous month.  India had received no encouraging reports that could lead it to believe 
that there had been any progress towards repeal of the CDSOA, th ereby enabling the United States to 
comply with the DSB’s recommendations. India urged the Unites States to make better progress 
towards compliance, so that reso rt to suspension of concessions a nd other obligations  would not be 
necessary. 
24. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
 
__________