RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DSB/M/43
8 April 1998
(98-1444)
Dispute Settlement Body
13 March 1998
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 13 March 1998
Chairman:  Mr. Kamel Morjane (Tunisia)
Subjects discussed: Page
1. Election of Chairperson .................................................................................................. 1
2. Turkey - Restrictions on imports of  textiles and clothing products ................................ 2
- Request for the establishmen t of a panel by India ............................................. 2
3. European Communities - Measures concerning  meat and meat products (hormones) .... 7
- Implementation of the reco mmendations of the DSB ........................................ 7
4. India - Quantitative restrictions on imports of agricultural, textile and industrial
products ...................................................................................................................... ..... 10
- Statement by the United States .......................................................................... 10
Mr. W. Lavorel, Deputy Director-General, recalled that in accordance with the Rules of
Procedure if the Chairperson of the DSB was absent from any meeting or part thereof, the
Chairperson of the General Council, and in the latter's absence, the Chairperson of the Trade PolicyReview Body (TPRB), should perform the function s of the DSB Chairperson.  He informed Members
that both Mr. W. Armstrong, Chairman of the DSB and Mr. J. Weekes, the newly elected Chairman of
the General Council, were absent from Geneva.  Mr. M. Akram, current Chairman of the TPRB, who
was also absent from Geneva, had requested him to propose that Mr. C. Lafer chair the meeting until
the election of the new Chairperson.
The DSB so agreed.
1. Election of Chairperson
Mr. C. Lafer recalled that at its meeting on 19 February 1998, the General Council had taken
note of the consensus on a slate of names for chairpersons to a number of WTO bodies, including the
DSB.  On the basis of the understanding reached by the General Council, he proposed that the DSB
elect Mr. Kamel Morjane (Tunisia) as Chairman of this body by acclamation.WT/DSB/M/43
Page 2
The DSB so agreed.
Mr. Lafer invited Mr. Morjane to preside over the proceedings of the meeting.
Mr. Morjane thanked Members for the expression of their confidence in him.  He considered
that this was a recognition of policies of tolerance and moderation pursued by his country as well as
its commitment towards globalization and the opening of the economy.  He wished to ensure
Members of his full cooperation and hoped he would receive their support and understanding.  Helooked forward to the continued support of the Secretariat.
2. Turkey - Restrictions on imports of textiles and clothing products
- Request for the establishment of a panel by India (WT/DS34/2)
The Chairman recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on
13 February 1998, and had agreed to revert to it at the present meeting.  He then drew attention to the
communication from India contained in document WT/DS34/2.
The representative of India recalled that his country's request for the establishment of a panel
to examine this matter had first been made at the DSB meeting on 13 February.  At that meeting,
Turkey had indicated that it was not in a position to join the consensus on the establishment of this
panel.  Therefore, pursuant to the provisions of Article 6.1 of the DSU, India requested that the DSB
establish a panel at the present meeting to examine the unilateral imposition by Turkey, effective
1 January 1996, of quantitative restrictions on imports of a broad range of textiles and clothingproducts from India.  His delegation requested that the panel be established with standard terms of
reference in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of the DSU.
The representative of Turkey said that prior to addressing some of the issues regarding India's
complaint, he wished to clarify one point which had been raised by India on various occasions.  India
had made references to Turkey's restrictive trade measures, in particular with regard to textiles andclothing.  In his view, these statements could have led to certain misconceptions with regard to
Turkey's trade policies which he wished to correct.  He stated that during the past three years, since
the establishment of the Customs Union, the pace and scope of Turkey's trade liberalization had been
unprecedented.  He believed that no other developing country had implemented, in such a short period
of time, equivalent comprehensive and profound policy changes which provided more favourable andopen access to world competition.  Turkey had taken several measures in many areas in the process of
the establishment of the Customs Union.  However, he only wished to outline the following points:
(i)  with the adoption by Turkey of the EC Common Customs Tariff, the average rate of Turkey's
customs duties vis-à-vis third countries had been reduced from 18 to 5.6 per cent.  These rates would
be further reduced to 3.7 per cent;  (ii)  the reduction in the rates of protection on textiles and clothinghad been even more significant since on average, these rates had been reduced from 37 to around
9 per cent in 1996;  (iii)  all subsidies in the textile and clothing sector had been eliminated;  (iv)  the
level of imports reflected the improved market access conditions in Turkey.  During the first year of
the existence of the Customs Union, overall imports had increased by more than 20 per cent;
(v)  India's exports to Turkey had increased from US$110 million in 1994, to US$255 million in 1996
while, during the same period, its imports from Turkey had decreased from US$78 million to
US$59 million;  (vi)  with regard to Turkey's textile quotas, he noted that none of the textiles andclothing categories which were subject to quantitative restrictions had been fully utilized by any
exporting country.  In the case of India, textile and clothing quotas had been underutilized in both
1996 and 1997.
At the DSB meeting on 13 February, he had outlined his delegation's position with regard to
India's complaint.  He had stated that consultations with India could not have been held due to itsWT/DSB/M/43
Page 3
refusal to recognize the European Communities as a pa rty to this dispute.  At that meeting, Turkey
and the Communities had underlined that India's complaint should have been addressed to both parties
of the Customs Union because the measures in question had resulted from joint decisions by Turkey
and the Communities.  He did not wish to reiterate in detail his statement at the present meeting, but
wished to emphasize that Turkey continued to maintain its position.
The Secretariat had been notified of the Customs Union in a joint communication from
Turkey and the Communities on 22 December 1995 (WT/REG/22/N/1).  The EC-Turkey Association
Council Decision establishing the Customs Union had been notified jointly to the Secretariat on
13 February 1996 (WT/REG/22/1).  This Decision had been taken jointly by the two parties to the
Customs Union and as a result Turkey now applied the Communities' commercial policy.  He drew
attention to Article 12 of the Decision which reflected these points and read as follows:  "From the
date of entry into force of this Decision, Turkey shall, in relation to countries which are not members
of the Community, apply provisions and implementing measures which are substantially similar tothose of the Community's commercial policy set out in the following Regulations".  He noted that
Council Regulation (EC) No. 3030/93 (textile imports under common rules) was specifically
mentioned among those regulations.  The joint responsibility of Turkey and the Communities under
the Customs Union was also noted in other instances regarding the WTO procedures.  He reiterated
that the establishment of the Customs Union had been notified jointly to the Secretariat.  Thediscussions in the Committee on Regional Trade Ag reements on the Customs Union had taken place
with the full participation of both parties.  The te xtile quotas had been notified jointly to the relevant
bodies by the two parties (WT/REG/22/7).
While the joint responsibility of Turkey and the Communities under the Customs Union was
recognized in the WTO, for reasons that were difficult to understand, this was not acknowledged byone Member.  His delegation believed that the DSB should address this issue to enable the panel to
have all the facts during its consideration of this matter.  In accordance with Article 7.3 of the DSU,
his delegation also wished to request the DSB to authorize its Chairman to draw up special terms of
reference for the panel in consultations with the pa rties to the dispute.  In this context, he drew
Members' attention to Turkey's proposal on special terms of reference for the panel which wascirculated in the room.  His delegation continued to hope that it would be possible to reach an
amicable solution to this dispute with India.
The representative of the European Communities said that as he had stated at the DSB
meeting on 13 February, Turkey's textile regime was a direct result of a joint decision by the EC-
Turkey Association Council implem enting the final phase of the Customs Union which had replaced
the previous separate customs territories of the two partners with a single customs territory.  As a
result, Turkey's textile regime had been brought in line with that of the Communities, in order to meet
the criteria for a customs union contained in Article XXIV:8 of GATT 1994.  This meant, inter alia ,
the application of substantially the same duties and other commercial regulations regarding trade with
third countries.  The Communities considered that in establishing the Customs Union, the parties had
respected their obligations under Article XXIV of GATT 1994.  He noted that this matter was
currently under examination by the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereafter referred toas the Committee).
It was evident that India's complaint concerned the Customs Union, not only Turkey.
However, from the beginning, India had denied the Communities and Turkey any possibility to
defend their common policies as the Customs Union.  India had requested consultations under Article
XXIII of GATT 1994 with the objective of excluding the Communities.  It had never accepted to holddiscussions with Turkey and the Communities together.  India had also ignored the ongoing
examination by the Committee.  One could claim that, rather than question the Turkish measure,
India's objective was to influence the Communities' policies or to set a precedent regarding future
policies.  It was not understandable how this approach was conducive to an amicable settlement of
this dispute, and he questioned whether it was in conformity with the spirit of the DSU and theWT/DSB/M/43
Page 4
obligation under Article 3.10 of the DSU.  This matter was of serious concern to the Communities
which considered that their rights of due process under the DSU had not been respected and this was
not acceptable.
It was difficult to understand what advantage India believed it could gain by excluding the
Communities.  Any change affecting the Customs Union could only be decided jointly by Turkey and
the Communities.  He noted that paragraph 12 of the Understanding on the Interpretation ofArticle XXIV of GATT 1994 recognized that the di spute settlement provisions could be invoked in
respect of customs unions.  In the view of the Communities, this meant that since India's complaint
concerned an essential element of the Customs Union, both parties should have been addressed
therein.  At the DSB meeting on 13 February, it had been indicated that India's approach of singling
out Turkey was unsatisfactory.  Some of the arguments made at that meeting were contained in a
letter sent to the Chairman for circulation to DSB members.
The points made by the Communities and Turkey had demonstrated that a number of
problems -- both political and legal -- were involved in this complaint as formulated and pursued by
India.  At this stage, and prior to any decision by the DSB, he wished to put forward a number of
questions for further consideration:  (i)  a customs union meant the substitution of a single customs
territory for two or more separate territories.  In the light of that, was it legally correct to initiate a
complaint against only one member of a customs union when trade policies and measures applied tothe unified customs territory?  (ii)  if a panel were to conclude that the restrictions were not justified
under the WTO provisions, then would this not have a legal effect on the situation of the Customs
Union, and on both parties thereto?  (iii)  was it legally correct for a panel to recommend changes,
either to a policy or to specific measures, which would affect the rights of the Communities -- since
new decisions would have to be taken -- if the Communities had not been able to participate fully inthe panel's proceedings?  (iv)  Article 3.2 of the DSU stated that "recommendations and rulings of the
DSB cannot add to or diminish the rights and obligations provided in the covered agreements",
including the GATT 1994.  How could the DSB adopt any panel's conclusions which would affect the
Communities and be consistent with this provision?  (v)  could the DSB and the panel ignore the fact
that a parallel process had been initiated in the Committee, which had the specific task of consideringfurther interpretations of Article XXIV of GATT 1994, and would also examine the conformity of the
Customs Union with the WTO provisions, and the fact  that both parties to the Customs Union would
defend the agreement in the Committee?
He raised these questions in order to draw attention to certain legal uncertainties involved in
this case, which the DSB would have to take into account if it was to act responsibly.  It would not beuseful to be guided only by a strict reading of the DSU procedures and to discover later serious legal
defects in the decision made or in the enforcement of findings and rulings.  The text of the DSU did
not appear, at this stage of the procedures, to permit the re-establishment of the rights for all the
parties involved that should have been available to them from the beginning, as members of the
Customs Union.  However, the DSB could decide, on a consensus basis, not to establish a panel and
to invite India to enter into consultations with bo th parties to the Customs Union, in accordance with
the principle contained in Article 3.10 of the DSU.  In the view of the Communities, this was the only
way to proceed.  In the absence of a consensus on this proposal, the DSB would have to establish a
panel at the present meeting.  However, since India had limited its complaint to Turkey, the
Communities' rights and obligations under the WTO Agreement could not be affected by the rulings
in this case in accordance with general principles of public international law.
He believed that Turkey and the Communities had put forward a number of substantial
arguments, in a detailed manner, which had not yet been examined or discussed by Members.
Members should have the time to carefully examine the text of the Customs Union's decision
regarding Turkey's future policy in the textiles sector, which had been circulated at the present
meeting.  He fully supported the points made in respect of that decision and its bearing regarding thisWT/DSB/M/43
Page 5
case.  Delegations might also wish to examine other texts that had been circulated at the present
meeting.  In the view of the Communities, it would be reasonable to enable Members to reflect on this
difficult problem.  The Chairman might also consider it appropriate to hold informal consultations
with various interested parties.  Since the DSU pr ovided for a decision at the present meeting, this
discussion could be adjourned for a short period of time, two or three days, to allow for such
reflection and consultations.
The representative of India  said that the basis regarding his country's request for a panel was
contained in document WT/DS34/2.  With regard to Turkey's comment that the measures had been
taken jointly by the Communities and Turkey, he pointed out that under Article 3.3 of the DSU, India
had the right to identify the Member whose measure, in its assessment, had impaired benefits accruing
to it.  The measure in question had been imposed by Turkey and therefore India had invoked dispute
settlement procedures against Turkey.  He also dr ew attention to Article 3.8 of the DSU which stated
that where there was an infringement of the obligations assumed under a covered agreement, theaction was considered, prima facie , to constitute a case of nullification or impairment.  Therefore, the
existence of the quotas was ipso facto  an infringement of Turkey's ob ligations.  With respect to the
request for special terms of reference, he reiterated that India's position was to seek standard terms of
reference pursuant to Article 7.1 of the DSU and his delegation could not agree to special terms of
reference.  With regard to the Communities' propos al to adjourn the meeting, he pointed out that
India's request for a panel was within the existing provisions of the DSU.  The Communities could
raise their arguments before the panel once they becam e a third party to this dispute.  He reiterated
India's request that a panel be established at the present meeting with standard terms of reference.
The representative of the European Communities said that they did not contest the right of
India to make and pursue its complaint in acco rdance with the DSU provisions.  However, the
question was whether this complaint was legally correct.  He noted that in the letter to the Chairman,
it had been stated that the Communities believed that India's complaint against Turkey was
fundamentally misdirected.  Therefore, it would not be out of line with the procedures if the DSB did
not take a decision right away as proposed by the Communities because the request for a panel had
been incorrectly addressed only to Turkey.  He believed that Members should be fully informed of thesituation on which they had to take a decision.  At this stage, a number of arguments had been made
and some papers had been circulated which demonstrated that there was a problem.  This problem was
exceptional, namely, the Customs Union and its conformity with the WTO Agreement was questioned
and only one party to the Customs Union was challenged.  His delegation wished to ensure that the
arguments made by Turkey and the Communities had been understood as well as problems of theCommunities which were excluded from the procedures.  He reiterated that the third-party status of
the Communities in this dispute was inadequate.  He questioned how the Communities could defend
their situation if they would only be limited to one submission and could not participate in the panel's
proceedings.  India had stated that the Communities' arguments should be raised before the panel.  He
questioned how the Communities would be able to do this in a manner which would reflect their
interest which thus far had not been taken into account.  He recognized India's rights to proceed in this
way but found it difficult to understand why it could not proceed differently in order to considerarguments and seek a solution which would take into account the Communities' position.  The
Communities had made various proposals which would enable them to become a full party in the
panel.  They did not seek to avoid the panel but to fully participate therein.  He failed to understand
why India did not agree to the proposal to adjourn the meeting.  He hoped that India would agree to
the proposed procedures, in an effort to find a solution which would enable the Communities to fullyparticipate in the panel.
The representative of Turkey said that it was his understanding that India had not accepted
Turkey's request for special terms of reference.  He regretted that it had not been possible for his
delegation to take up this issue with India in detail and to present its arguments.  He could not see the
reasons for India's lack of understanding.  He asked India to reconsider its position and to engage in a
constructive dialogue at least during the next 20 days in accordance with Article 7.3 of the DSU.  TheWT/DSB/M/43
Page 6
representative of Turkey said that if a panel was established and if its rulings went against Turkey it
would be difficult to implement necessary changes within the Customs Union because the policies
and decisions in this regard had to be taken join tly with the Communities.  If the Communities could
not participate in the panel he could not see how it w ould be possible to persuade them that the panel's
recommendations would be binding on them as well.
The representative of Mexico  said that his delegation believed that under the DSU provisions
it was possible to make a complaint against one member of a customs union if that member had taken
a measure which was in a breach of its WTO obligations.  However, the European Community was
the only customs union recognized as a Member of the WTO.  Other customs unions or free trade
areas were not considered as Members.  Therefore, the legitimacy of making a complaint against a
member of the Customs Union could not only be considered in those cases which involved the
Communities, the only entity that could act as a WTO Member.  However, it was up to the
complainant to decide on this matter.  If a measure had been taken by the Customs Union, thecomplaint would have to be made against the Co mmunities.  The important question related to a
situation in which a measure would be taken by one party to the Customs Union which was also a
Member of the WTO.  It seemed necessary to cl arify this matter and to examine the situation
carefully, so as to avoid any misunderstandings.
The presentative of India recalled that his country was fully within its rights to request the
establishment of a panel under the provisions of Article 4.3 of the DSU since Turkey had not entered
into consultations on this matter.  The DSB had been informed of the details regarding this situation.
He reiterated that since the measure had been imposed by Turkey, India had requested a panel to
examine Turkey's measure.  He pointed out that unl ess parties to the dispute agreed otherwise, this
panel should have standard terms of reference in accordance with the provisions of Article 7.1 of theDSU.  He therefore requested that the panel be established at the present meeting with standard terms
of reference.  With regard to the points raised by  the Communities, he did not wish to enter into detail
at the present meeting, as some of the points could amount to the amendment of the DSU.
The Chairman said that the Communities had raised  two issues.  First, they proposed that the
meeting be adjourned in order to hold consultations.  Second, they wished to be considered a party to
this dispute.  He recalled that, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU, a panel should be established
at the latest at the DSB meeting following that at which the request first appeared as an item on the
DSB's agenda, unless at that meeting the DSB decided by consensus not to establish a panel.  At
present, it appeared that it was not possible for the DSB to reach a consensus on the proposal made by
the Communities.  Therefore, in the light of Article 6.1 of the DSU, there was no alternative but toproceed with the establishment of the panel proposing that the DSB take note of the statements made.
The DSB took note of the statements and agreed
 to establish a panel in accordance with the
provisions of Article 6 of the DSU.
The representative of the European Communities expressed his delegation's disappointment
that, although this was a Member-driven organization, only a few Members had participated in the
debate.  In his view, delegations had not been given the time to consider the issues involved in this
matter.  He thanked Mexico for the statement and asked which Member should be involved when ajoint decision had been taken by two parties, and noted that India had not answered all the
Communities' questions.  He proposed that the Chairman transmit to the Panel all the statements made
at the present meeting, including the papers circulated in the room.
The representative of Turkey inquired about the terms of reference of the Panel.  His
delegation had made a request for special terms of reference which had not been accepted by India.
He drew attention to Article 7.3 of the DSU which provided for consultations on the terms ofWT/DSB/M/43
Page 7
reference of the panel.  He asked the Chairman to clarify this matter.  He expected that all statements
concerning this matter would be forwarded to the Panel for consideration.
The Chairman recalled that Article 7.1 of the DSU provided that panels should have standard
terms of reference unless the parties to the dispute agreed otherwise within 20 days from the date of
the establishment of the panel.  He would therefore remain available to assist the parties in any
consultations which might be held on this matter.
The representative of India  pointed out that under the DSU provisions the DSB was not
required to forward documents to the Panel.  An y relevant documents should be submitted to the
Panel by the parties to the dispute.
The representative of Japan, the Philippines , the United States , Thailand  and Hong Kong,
China reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings.
The representative of Hong Kong, China recalled that his delegation had previously expressed
an interest in this matter.  Turkey's quantitative restrictions applied also to imports of textile and
clothing products from certain other suppliers, including Hong Kong, China.  Although its trade in the
specific items was not significant, his delegation had a substantial interest in systemic terms.  The
Turkish quotas had serious implications with regard to the rights under the GATT 1994 and the
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.  His delegation had raised this matter in the DSB in 1996.
Given the context in which these restrictions had been introduced, his delegation had recognized theirintrinsic relationship with the general subject of regional trade agreements.  In order to ensure full
consideration of the systemic implications, his delegation had decided to pursue its interest with the
framework of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements.  Against this background and
recognizing the important questions of conformity of the measure with the WTO obligations, his
delegation intended to participate in the work of the Panel as a third party.
The representative of the United States said that her delegation had noted the points made by
the Communities and Turkey.  The United States had reserved its rights to participate in the Panel's
proceedings in order to address some of the issues to be raised before the Panel.
The DSB took note of the statements.
3. European Communities - Measures concerning meat and meat products (hormones)
- Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB
The Chairman said 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 should inform the DSB, within 30 days after the date ofadoption 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 on 13 February, the DSB had adopted the
Appellate Body Report on "European Communities - Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products
(Hormones)", as well as the Panel Reports on th e same matter as modified by the Appellate Body
Report.
The representative of the European Co mmunities reiterated the commitment of the
Communities to the DSU rules and principles as well as to the dispute settlement mechanism.  This
commitment had been strengthened by the Report of the Appellate Body on this matter.  In particular,
the Communities welcomed and were reassured by the clarification contained in the Report regarding
the interpretation of the rights and obligations of Members in areas of vital importance and ofWT/DSB/M/43
Page 8
considerable sensitivity such as health which constituted particular responsibilities of governments
towards their citizens.  Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, the Communities had the obligation, at
the present meeting, to inform the DSB of their in tentions in respect of the implementation of the
DSB's recommendations.  He confirmed that the Communities intended to fulfil their obligations
under the WTO Agreement in respect of this matter.  In conformity with this, the Communities had
initiated the process to examine the options for comp liance with the view to implementing in as short
a period of time as possible.  For this process, the Communities would require a reasonable period of
time.  He therefore proposed that the parties to the dispute seek agreement, pursuant to Article 21.3(b)
of the DSU, regarding a reasonable period of time in which to state their intentions to fulfil their
obligations.  He hoped that, at the present meeting, it would be possible to avoid a debate with regard
to what was required under Article 21.3 of the DSU and what were the Communities' intentions.
There had never been any doubt that the Communities intended to bring their regime into full
conformity with their WTO obligations whatever the language of the information provided to theDSB.  He recalled that similar statements on intentions in regard of implementation had also been
used in the past by other delegations, including India, Canada, the United States and Japan.  In
general, delegations had stated their intentions in broad terms.  Where this was possible, they had
given details of the process and, in some cases, initial steps towards implementing.  He hoped that it
would be possible to avoid a debate that the Communities' intentions were not clear because nointernal decisions had yet been taken.  His delegation was not in a position at the present meeting to
enter into more detail, and reiterated that the Communities would require a reasonable period of time
since they could not begin to implement immediately.  The Communities would enter into discussion
with the other parties to the dispute as soon as possible.
The representative of the United States said that  this was an important juncture in the dispute
settlement process.  Her delegation welcomed the Communities' statement.  It was important for the
integrity and viability of the dispute settlement mechanism that Members complied with the DSB's
recommendations.  In this case, the Communities' obligations were clear.  In accordance with the
rulings, the ban had not been supported by scientific evidence nor by any of the risk assessments
presented during the proceedings.  All the risk assessments that had been conducted had proved that
the six hormones in question were safe.  This meant that compliance with the DSB's recommendations
required the Communities to remove the ban on the importation of meat produced with the use of any
of the six hormones to promote growth.
The United States was concerned by widespread reports that the Communities intended not to
alter the ban but to search for a means to justify it by undertaking a new risk assessment or possibly
even multiple risk assessments.  She emphasized that this was not implementing the DSB's
recommendations.  In the past, the Communities had numerous opportunities to present scientific
evidence to support the ban.  Yet, they had not been able to develop any scientific evidence to support
the ban during the more than ten-year period that this ban had been in effect.  If the Communities onlyintended to conduct another risk assessment, when all of the available scientific evidence and risk
assessments had indicated that meat from anim als produced with growth promotion hormones was
safe, then one could only assume that the Commun ities were not committed to fulfilling their WTO
obligations.  Article 21 of the DSU stated that :  "Prompt compliance with the recommendations or
rulings of the DSB is essential in order to ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of allMembers." This language served not only to requir e timely relief to the complaining Member, but to
ensure the success and integrity of the dispute settlement mechanism.  The key signal of the
Communities' intentions lay in the answer to th e question of whether the Communities could assure
Members that if the results of any further studies were what everybody expected them to be -- that
there was not sufficient scientific evidence to maintain the ban -- the Communities would promptly
rescind the ban, and if so,  precisely how long would it take to rescind the ban.WT/DSB/M/43
Page 9
A reasonable period of time was not a right but was only available if immediate compliance
was impracticable.  Furthermore, the reasonable period of time was only for the purpose of
implementing the DSB's recommendations.  This period of time, which the United States expected to
negotiate with the Communities pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, was not the time in which the
Communities were to consider how to avoid comp lying with the DSB's recommendations.  In the
consultations on the length of the reasonable period of time, the United States hoped to gain greaterand more specific reassurances regarding the Communities' intentions.  Her delegation's position on
this matter would be shaped in part by the Communities' plan for compliance.
The representative of Canada said that pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, the Communities
were required to state their intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations
with regard to this matter.  At the present meetin g, the Communities had stated that they would fully
implement their WTO obligations.  One of the Communities' international obligations was the
"prompt compliance with the recommendations or ruli ngs of the DSB", as provided for in Article 21
of the DSU.  Canada expected that the Communities would implement their obligations by promptly
complying with the DSB's recommendations with regard to this case.
Compliance with the recommendations and rulings was a sine qua non  of the dispute
settlement system.  In accordance with the DSU, compliance " is essential in order to ensure effective
resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members".  Compliance was also critical in order tomaintain the integrity of the dispute settlement mechanism and to achieve predictability and stability
for the multilateral trading system.  However, Canada was disappointed that the Communities had not
provided the DSB with an indication of the time-pe riod, other than to state that a reasonable period of
time was required within which they intended to comply with the DSB's recommendations.  Canada
was surprised that the Communities were not able to implement the DSB's recommendations
immediately as required by the DSU, and wished to know why immediate implementation was
"impracticable" in this case.  The Communities had stated that they were currently examining options
for compliance.  It was her delegation's understanding, although not from the statement made by the
Communities at the present meeting, that the Communities had decided to undertake another risk
assessment.  In Canada's view, given that the existing internationally recognized risk assessments hadconfirmed the safety of beef produced with growth-promoting hormones, there was no need for
another risk assessment.  Canada did not expect the results of any new risk assessment, which in any
case should be conducted in an expeditious and transparent manner, to alter the conclusions reached
by the existing risk assessments regarding the safety of beef produced with growth-promoting
hormones.  Canada believed that even if the Communities conducted a risk assessment, this shouldnot prevent them from taking the necessary measures to comply with the DSB's recommendations.
It was not sufficient to merely indicate that a reasonable period of time was required.  Her
delegation looked forward to having the Communities' views on what they considered to be a
reasonable period of time.  Canada hoped that in the very near future, the parties would achieve a
mutual understanding as to what constituted a reasonable period of time.  Canada believed that it was
in the interest of all to reach an agreement and to avoid having the reasonable period of time
established through arbitration, as provided for in the DSU.  Her delegation looked forward todiscussions with the Communities in the near futu re both with regard to the time-period for the
implementation of the DSB's recommendations, and the manner in which the Communities intended
to implement the DSB's recommendations.
The DSB took note of the statements and of the information provided by the Communities
regarding their intentions to implement the DSB's recommendations.WT/DSB/M/43
Page 10
4. India - Quantitative restrictions on imports of agricultural, textile and industrial products.
- Statement by the United States
The representative of the United States, speaking under "Other Business", recalled that in
July 1997, Australia, Canada, the European Communities, New Zealand, Switzerland and the
United States had requested consultations with India regarding its quantitative restrictions on imports.
His delegation had been informed that Australia, Canada, the European Communities, New Zealandand Switzerland had reached bilateral settlements with  India resolving their disputes and providing for
a phase-out of import restrictions.  In accordance with Article 3.6 of the DSU "Mutually agreed
solutions to matters formally raised under the consultations and dispute settlement provisions of this
Understanding shall be notified to the DSB and to the relevant Councils and Committees, where any
Member may raise any point relating thereto."  However, none of these five settlements had been
notified.  She asked India and the five complaining parties that had reached settlements in these
disputes, when the mutually agreed solutions would be notified to the DSB.  These disputes weresignificant as they affected a substantial amount of trade from all India's trading partners.  Her
delegation believed that the United States was not the only Member that would like to be informed
about the outcome.  The United States could only presume that the solutions to these disputes would
be applied on an m.f.n. basis, but would like to be certain.  She inquired about the problems that were
preventing the parties to the disputes from notifying the solutions, and whether those problems wouldbe addressed so that the notifications could be submitted as soon as possible.
The representative of India recalled that at a DSB meeting in 1996,
1 he had made a statement
on Article 3.6 of the DSU wherein he recognized that under that Article, mutually agreed solutions
should be notified to the DSB and to the relevant Councils and Committees.  India's trading partners,
referred to by the United States, had already in formed the DSB of the fact that mutually agreed
solutions had been found.  The main reason that these solutions had not been notified thus far was that
India had hoped that a mutually agreed solution could also be reached with the United States since all
consultations on this matter had been initiated at the same time. If this had happened India would have
notified mutually agreed solutions with all the tr ading partners that had simultaneously invoked the
DSU procedures on this matter.  Such a course of action would have facilitated easy reference for all
Members and would have enabled them to analyze the details of such mutually agreed solutions in a
comprehensive manner.  He said that the mutually  agreed solutions that India had reached with its
trading partners would be applied on an m.f.n basis.   He noted that Article 3.6 of the DSU did not
specify any deadline regarding such notifications.
He had not been informed whether the United States had notified a mutually agreed solution
on "EC - Duties on Imports of Grains", which was implicit in its communication to the DSB in
document WT/DS13/8.  He did not wish to imply th at the lack of notification by one Member should
condone the lack of notification by another Member.  He wished to state that the trading partners
which had reached mutually agreed solutions with India had insisted on early notifications.  He was
therefore responsible for this delay which was partly  due to the fact that a mutually agreed solution
with the United States had not been finalized and partly due to the current situation in India.  He was
fully aware of the responsibility to notify the solutions and would do so as soon as possible.  Heproposed that the Secretariat prepare a factual note listing those cases in which the DSB had been
informed of the existence of mutually agreed solutions and whether such solutions had been notified.
2
                                                     
1 WT/DSB/M/15.
2 This information was subsequently provided in an informal note (no. 1772).WT/DSB/M/43
Page 11
The representative of Mexico supported the proposal made by India that the Secretariat
prepare a factual note listing those cases in which notifications of mutually agreed solutions were still
pending.
The DSB took note of the statements.
__________