RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/177 
2 November 2004 
 
 (04-4657) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
18 October 2004  
 
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 18 October 2004  
 
Chairperson:  Ms. Amina Mohamed (Kenya) 
 
  Prior to the adoption of the agenda
, the item concerning the Panel Report in the case on:  
"United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton" was removed from the proposed agenda following the 
US decision to appeal the Report.   
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 Stat es .......................................................................................................... .........5  
2. Canada – Measures relating to exports of wheat and treatment of imported 
grain .......................................................................................................................... .................6  
(a) Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB.................................................................6  
3. United States – Section110(5) of the US Copyright Act.........................................................6  
(a) Statement by the Eur opean Communities...................................................................................6  
4. Amendments to the Working Procedures for Appellate Review .............................................7  
(a) Statement by the Chairperson ................................................................................................... ..7 
 WT/DSB/M/177 
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.31 – WT/DS162/17/Add.31) 
 
(b) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.24) 
 (c) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.24) 
 
(d) United States – Continued Dumping and Subsid y Offset Act of 2000:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS217/16/Add.9 – WT/DS234/24/Add.9) 
 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.31 – WT/DS162/17/Add.31) 
2. The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/D S136/14/Add.31 – WT/DS162/17/Add.31, 
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 her country had provided an additional status 
report in these disputes on 7 October 2004, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  Since then 
the US Congress had taken significant steps toward repealing the 1916 Anti-Dumping Act.  A provision to repeal the 1916 Act was attached to  the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections 
Act of 2004 (H.R. 1047).  The US House of  Representatives had approved H.R. 1047, on 
8 October 2004, shortly after an agreement had been reached between House and Senate conferees.  
The bill was now awaiting final action in the US Sena te.  The Senate was currently in recess, but was 
expected to return to Washington in November 2004.  The US administration would continue to work 
with Congress to achieve further progress in r esolving these disputes with the EC and Japan. 
4. The representative of th e European Communities
 said that it was with satisfaction that the EC 
had learnt that the House of Representatives had recently passed a bill to  repeal the 1916 Anti-
Dumping Act.  The EC hoped that the Senate and the US administration would now take the 
necessary final steps to effectively repeal the 1916 Anti-Dumping Act.  If the 1916 Anti-Dumping Act 
were not repealed by the present Congress, this woul d be an extremely negative sign with regard to 
the commitment of the United States to respect its international obligations.  Finally, the EC recalled 
that it might adopt, at anytime, a specific anti-dumpi ng legislation applicable to US products, pursuant 
to its right to suspend the application to the Un ited States of the obligations under the GATT 1994 and 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
5. The representative of Japan  recalled that at the 27 Septem ber DSB meeting, his delegation 
had expressed disappointment that Ja pan was still awaiting the implementation by the United States of 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings four years afte r their adoption.  At the present meeting, Japan 
could not but register its grave concern since the US  obligation to do away with the WTO-inconsistent  WT/DSB/M/177 
 Page 3 
 
 
 law remained unfulfilled.  Every time Japan  made a statement about this prolonged non-
implementation by the United States, it feared that the world at large cast doubt on the credibility of 
the WTO dispute settlement mechanism.  At previ ous DSB meetings, Japan had noted with hope that 
positive results could be forthcoming after the US  administration's expression of explicit support for 
the legislation repealing the 1916 Anti-Dumping Act in the 2004 "Report to the  Leaders on the US – 
Japan Regulatory Reform and Competition Policy", a nd Ambassador Zoellick's letter to the leadership 
of the US House of Representatives.  Like the EC, Japan also welcomed the fact that on 8 October, 
the House had passed the bill repealing 1916 Anti-Dumping Act. Japan strongly urged the 
US administration to re-double its efforts vis-à-vis  the Congress, so that the necessary legislative 
action be secured during the second session of the 10 8th Congress.  Japan re quested the United States 
to keep reporting to the DSB on any further deve lopments regarding the status of all the bills 
repealing the 1916 Anti-Dumping Act. 
6. At the present meeting, Japan also wished to  register its concern about the damages being 
incurred upon its companies as a result of the 1916 An ti-Dumping Act.  As th ese damages were real 
and current, so was Japan's insistence that legi slations repealing the 1916 Anti-Dumping Act be 
passed with retroactive effect. As previously men tioned by Japan, in May 2004, the Federal District 
Court had passed its judgment upholding the orde r imposing on a Japanese company a payment of 
damages amounting to US$30 million.  It was regrettabl e that, thus far, the United States had failed to 
take any concrete steps to preven t these incidents from recurring, desp ite Japan's persistent call to do 
so.  In this light, once again, Japan called upon the United States to make utmost effort in preventing 
any further damages to be inflicted on the Japanese companies. 
7. 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.24) 
8. The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS176/11/Add.24, 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. 
9. The representative of the United States  said that her country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 7 October 2004, in accordance with Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in the report, 
legislation amending or repealing Section 211 was pending in the US Senate and the US House of 
Representatives, and the Senate had he ld hearings on this legislation in July.  The US administration 
would continue to work with the US Congress con cerning appropriate statutory measures that would 
resolve this matter. 
10. The representative of the European Communities  said that, once more, the US status report 
did not show any progress.  The EC wished to stress again that two bills were pending in the US Congress to provide enhanced and effective protectio n of intellectual property rights both in Cuba and 
in the United States, and in that framework to repeal Section 211.  The enactment of the "US – Cuba 
Trademark Protection Act" would not only remove a special interest legislation and resolve this 
dispute to the benefit of all.  It would also show  that the United States acted to provide effective and 
non-discriminatory protection of intellectual propert y rights, which it had been eager to promote 
worldwide.  The EC expected that the US admi nistration would support the "US – Cuba Trademark 
Protection Act" as an appropriate solution to this dispute. 
11. The representative of Cuba
 said that with the apparent aim of complying with the DSB's 
recommendations, the United States had repeatedly in formed Members, in its most recent status 
reports, of the existence of bills designed to amend Section 211 and had even notified this specifically WT/DSB/M/177 
Page 4  
 
 as follows:  "Legislation amending Section 211 to clarif y that it applies to all nationals was introduced 
in the US House of Representatives on 28 Apri l 2004 (H.R. 4225) and in the US Senate on 
29 April 2004 (S. 2373).  Other bills that woul d, among other things, repeal Section 211 were 
introduced in the House on 17 June 2003 (H.R . 2494) and in the Senate on 9 December 2003 
(S. 2002)."  As repeatedly denounced by Cuba, th e bill H.R. 4225 – introduced in the US Congress by 
Congressman Lamar Smith and co-sponsored by well-known anti-Cuban congressmen and senators 
opposed to the lifting of the blockade, and a versi on of which had been introduced in the Senate 
(S. 2373) by Senator Peter Domenici – had proposed merely cosmetic changes to Section 211, thereby 
maintaining the privileges conferred upon the Bacardi company under that Section. She recalled that 
transparent compliance with obligations was a prer equisite for demanding rights.  Actions to the 
contrary would prove risky.  The abrogation of Section 211 was clearly the only possible solution to 
this dispute in the interests of restoring the credib ility, predictability and trust which must prevail in 
multilateral trade relations in the area of intellectual property.  She noted that just over a month remained until the last of the d eadlines granted to the United States to bring itself into compliance 
with the DSB's recommendations would expire.  However, no decision to eliminate Section 211 had 
yet been taken and the DSB's recommendations still re mained to be implemented.  Cuba hoped that 
the United States would adopt the only fair and sound solution to this dispute, namely the repeal of 
Section 211. 
12. 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.24) 
13. The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.24, 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. 
14. The representative of the United States  said that her country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 7 October 2004, in accordance with Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU.  The US administration 
would continue to work with the US Congress with respect to the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB that had not been already addressed by  the US authorities by 23 November 2002. 
15. The representative of Japan  said that the US status report, which had been circulated as 
WT/DS184/15/Add.24, added little in substance to th e previous one.  As Members were aware, a 
reasonable period of time for implementation in this dispute had been granted on the premise that the 
Member implementing the DSB's recommendations and rulings would make utmost efforts so as to 
secure the implementation within the shortest time po ssible. Yet the fact that the United States had not 
even introduced any legislation after a reasona ble period of time for implementation had been 
extended twice, raised serious concern to Japan;  to say the least.  Japan wished to point out that it had 
agreed to the extension of the reasonable period of  time only because it believed that, during the third 
reasonable period of time, the United States would finally fully implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. 
16. Against such backdrop, Japan noted with surpri se that in the context of a meeting of the 
Negotiating Group on Rules in September, the United States had expressed its objection to the interpretation developed by the A ppellate Body in the case under consideration with regard to 
Article 9.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, namely , on the question of calculation of "all others' 
rate".  Apparently, the United States had also propo sed changes to Article 9.4, while Members were 
still waiting for the legislation being introduced to the Congress to rectify the US law, which the 
Appellate Body had found to be in consistent with Article 9.4 of Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Legally 
speaking, Japan was fully aware th at the WTO negotiations were not linked to the DSB surveillance  WT/DSB/M/177 
 Page 5 
 
 
 of implementation of recommendations and rulings re garding specific disputes.  Accordingly, Japan 
trusted that such an objection to the Appellate B ody's interpretation, or the proposal to amend the 
provision with respect to which th e US measure had been found to be  WTO-inconsistent, were in no 
way indicative of the US intention to comply fully w ith its WTO obligations.  In this spirit of trust, 
Japan urged the United States, once again, to act in good faith by first and foremost rectifying the 
WTO-inconsistent law, at the earliest opportunity.  If the United States fell short of fully-fledged 
implementation by the end of the reasonable period of  time, Japan would have no option, but to make 
recourse to the DSU provisions. 
17. 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.9 – WT/DS234/24/Add.9) 
18. The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/D S217/16/Add.9 – WT/DS234/24/Add.9 
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. 
19. The representative of the United States  said that her country had provided a status report on 
7 October 2004, in accordance with Article 21.6 of th e 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 would continue to work with 
Congress to achieve further progress in resolving these disputes with the complaining parties. 
20. The representative of the European Communities  said that, once again, the United States had 
not been in a position to report on any progress towards the implementation of the DSB's recommendation in this dispute.  Actually, the most  recent event in this dispute was that the United 
States had started a new round of illegal disburse ments under the CDSOA on 1 October.  The EC 
recalled that, following the Arbitrators' decision, it might now seek and obtain the authorization of the 
DSB to suspend the application of tariff concessions or other obligations to the United States, at any 
time.  The EC hoped that this would not be necessa ry.  But, if no progr ess was achieved within a 
reasonable period of time, the EC would exercise its rights.  The EC called on the US administration to convey to the US Congress the importance for the US credibility in the WTO of respecting the 
rights of other Members without further delay. 
21. The representative of Japan
 said that to Japan's dismay, the status report of the United States 
contained no progress at all since the 27 September DSB meeting.  It had already been a great disappointment to the eight complaining parties as well as to the whole WTO membership that they had been obliged to have recourse to Article 22 of  the DSU due to the US failure to implement the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings in this proceeding.   Now that the decision of the Arbitrators, 
pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU, had been  issued, the United States must reflect on the 
implications of that decision very seriously, a nd must secure the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings by way of repealing the CDSOA without any further delay. 
22. The representative of Canada
 said that his country, once again, noted the status report of the 
United States and was disappointed and concerned that  the United States had failed to bring itself into 
compliance with the WTO rulings in this dispute.  As noted during the previous DSB meeting, the 
WTO Arbitrators had ruled that Canada and seven  other WTO Members could retaliate against the 
United States for its failure to repeal the WTO- inconsistent Byrd Amendment.  To date, over WT/DSB/M/177 
Page 6  
 
 US$2.8 billion of Canadian softwood lumber duties had been collected and stand to be disbursed 
under the Byrd Amendment.  The adverse impact of the Byrd Amendment on trade had been and 
continued to be a serious concern for Canada.  Cana da had no choice, but to continue to take the 
necessary steps to protect and defend its interests.  It was time for the United States to end this dispute and comply with its WTO obligations by repealing the Byrd Amendment. 
23. The representative of Chile
 said that given that the United States had had nothing new to 
report for several months, neither did Chile have an ything to add at the present meeting, except to 
reiterate that it hoped to see prompt compliance by the United States.  Failing that, Chile would have 
to make use of its rights of last resort. 
24. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
2. Canada – Measures relating to exports of wheat and treatment of imported grain 
(a) Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB 
25. The Chairperson  recalled that, in accordance with th e DSU provisions, the DSB was required 
to keep under surveillance the implementation of r ecommendations 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 in form 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.  She reca lled that at its meeting on 27 September 2004, the 
DSB had adopted the Appellate Body Report and th e Panel Report, as upheld by the Appellate Body 
Report, in the case on:  "Canada – Measures Relatin g to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of Imported 
Grain".  She then invited Canada to inform the DSB of its intentions in respect of implementation of 
the DSB's recommendations. 
26. The representative of Canada  said that his country was naturally disappointed with the 
findings of the Panel that certain measures relating to the transport and handling of grain in Canada 
were not consistent with the WTO Agreement.  Ne vertheless, Canada fully intended to implement the 
rulings of the DSB in that respect.  The US challe nge related to legislative and regulatory measures;  
and so, implementation would require both legislativ e and regulatory changes.  Canada would need a 
reasonable period of time to implement these changes and looked forward to discussing with the United States such a reasonable period of time. 
27. The representative of the United States
 said that her country welcomed the statement of 
Canada that it intended to implement the recommenda tions and rulings of the DSB in this dispute.  
The United States hoped that Canada would remove its WTO-inconsistent measures promptly.  The 
United States noted that measures that were both consistent with Canada's national treatment 
obligation and would meet Canada's stated policy objectives were clearly available.  The United 
States looked forward to hearing more a bout Canada's plans in this regard. 
28. The DSB took note  of the statements, and of the information provided by Canada regarding 
its intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations in this case. 
3. United States – Section110(5) of the US Copyright Act 
(a) Statement by the European Communities 
29. The representative of the European Communities , speaking under "Other Business", said that 
for one year now, the DSB had not received any status report from the United States concerning the  WT/DSB/M/177 
 Page 7 
 
 
 implementation of the DSB's recommendations a nd rulings in the dispute "United States – 
Section 110(5) of the Copyright Act" (WT/DS160) .  The European Communi ties was not aware of 
any legislative initiative or otherwise any steps take n by the United States to bring its legislation in 
conformity with the TRIPS Agreement.  The EC ve ry much regretted this long-standing situation of 
lack of compliance by the United States with its obligation under the TRIPS Agreement.  However, 
the EC trusted that the US administration would make every effort to put an end to this worrying 
situation through an amendment of the relevant provisions of the US Copyright Act.  The EC wished to ask the United States to start providing status reports to the DSB concerning any progress in the 
implementation of the DSB's recommendations a nd rulings in the above-mentioned dispute. 
30. The representative of the United States
 said that the parties to the dispute had concluded a 
mutually satisfactory temporary arrangement rega rding this matter in June 2003 (WT/DS160/23).  
The temporary arrangement covered the period through 21 December 2004.  The United States 
intended to consult with the EC with a view toward s reaching a resolution of this matter.  The United 
States could confirm that, as previously agreed  with the EC, the United States would resume 
providing status reports on this ma tter at the next DSB meeting. 
31. The DSB took note  of the statements. 
4. Amendments to the Working Procedures for Appellate Review  
(a) Statement by the Chairperson 
32. The Chairperson , speaking under "Other Business", drew Member's attention to a 
communication from the Appellate Body concerning amendments to the Working Procedures for 
Appellate Review .  She said that that communication, which had been circulated on 7 October 2004 in 
document WT/AB/WP/W/9 was available in the meeti ng room at the present meeting.  As indicated 
in that communication, having taken into account th e comments made by delegations on the proposed 
amendments, set out in document WT/AB/WP/8, a nd having completed consultations with the 
Director-General and the Chairperson of the DSB, pursuant to Article 17.9 of the DSU, the Appellate 
Body had prepared the final version of these amendm ents.  In that context, she thanked Members for 
the interest shown in this matter and for their detailed comments, which she had transmitted to the 
Appellate Body.  It was her understanding that th e Appellate Body had considered all of these 
comments and had taken them into account in prepar ing the final version of the amendments.  As 
specified in that communication, these amendments w ould enter into effect for appeals initiated after 
1 January 2005.  Appeals initiated before that da te would be unaffected by the new rules.  The 
Appellate Body would circulate a re vised, consolidated version of the Working Procedures 
immediately after they had come into effect. 
33. The DSB took note  of the statement.  
 
__________