RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DSB/M/123
6 May 2002
(02-2538)
Dispute Settlement Body
17 April 2002
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 17 April 2002
Chairman:  Mr. Carlos Pérez del Castillo (Uruguay)
Subjects discussed: Page
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB.........................2
(a) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United
States......................................................................................................................... ..................2
(b) United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916:  Status report by the United States.......................2
2. Mexico – Measures affecting te lecommunications  services...................................................3
(a) Request for the establishment of  a panel by the United States ...................................................3
3. Argentina – Definitive anti-dumping duties on poultry from Brazil ...................................4
(a) Request for the Establishm ent of a panel by Brazil....................................................................4
4. United States – Sunset review of anti-dumping duties on corrosion-resistant
carbon steel flat prod ucts from Japan ....................................................................................5
(a) Request for the establishm ent of a panel by Japan .....................................................................5
5. United States – Definitive safeguard measures on imports of circular welded
carbon quality line pi pe from Korea.......................................................................................6
(a) Statement by Korea concerning a reasonable period of time for implementation of the
DSB's recommendations  and rulings ..........................................................................................6
Prior to the adoption of the agenda, India recalled that on 4 April 2002 it had requested that
the item concerning the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU in the case on"European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India"
be included on the DSB agenda.  Subsequently, there had been an exchange of communications
between the EC and India on this matter.  In light of this, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure
for meetings of the General Council and the DS B, India wished to amend the proposed agenda
contained in WT/DSB/W/190 and requested that the item pertaining to the above-mentioned case beremoved from the proposed agenda.
The DSB so agreed.WT/DSB/M/123
Page 2
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB
(a) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copy right Act:  Status report by the United States
(WT/DS160/18/Add.3)
(b) United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916:  Status report by the United States
(WT/DS136/14/Add.3 - WT/DS162/17/Add.3)
1. The Chairman recalled that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that "unless the DSB decides
otherwise, the issue of implementation of the recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the
agenda of the DSB meeting after six months following 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".  He proposed that the two sub-items to which he had just referred be considered separately.
(a) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyri ght Act:  Status report by the United States
(WT/DS160/18/Add.3)
2. The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS160/18/Add.3 which contained the status
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the
case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act.
3. The representative of the United States said that on 4 April 2002, his country had provided an
additional status report on the dispute under consideration, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the
DSU.  As noted in that report, the United States had been engaged in discussions with the EC in an
effort to find a positive and mutually acceptable re solution to this dispute.  In light of those
discussions, the arbitration proceedings in this case had been suspended at the joint request of theparties in order to facilitate efforts to reach a positive resolution.
4. The representative of the European Communities said that the EC and its member States had
read with interest the US status report in an effort to understand the status of implementation of the
DSB recommendations and rulings in this dispute, and found that the status report contained nothing
more than a reference to the productive discussions which had been held between the United Statesand the EC.  Since those discussions did not relate to the issue of compliance, one could only
conclude that the United States had not made any progress towards compliance with its obligations
under the TRIPS Agreement.  The EC hoped that at the next meeting the United States would be more
cooperative and would provide more information in its status report.
5. The representative of Australia said that at previous meetings, his country had registered
concerns about continued delay in the US implementation in this case, as well as with regard to the
discriminatory nature of the proposed compensation arrangements that Australia understood had beenreached between the United States and the EC.  At the present meeting, he wished to take this
opportunity to register these concerns once again and to reiterate Australia's expectation that any
compensation arrangements reached between the parties would be applied on a non-discriminatory
basis.
6. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed
 to revert to this matter at its next regular
meeting.
(b) United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916:  Status report by the United States
(WT/DS136/14/Add.3 - WT/DS162/17/Add.3)
7. The Chairman drew attention to docume nt WT/DS136/14/Add.3 – WT/DS162/17/Add.3
which contained the status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's
recommendations in the case concerning the US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916.WT/DSB/M/123
Page 3
8. The representative of the United States said that on 4 April 2002 his country had provided an
additional status report on this dispute, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in that
report, on 20 December 2001, the proposed legislation H.R. 3557 had been introduced in the US
Congress.  That legislation would repeal the 1916 Act and would provide that no judgments pursuant
to actions under such Act shall be entered on or after 26 September 2000 that were inconsistent withthe legislation.  The United States continued to work with Japan and the EC in order to reach a
mutually satisfactory resolution to this dispute.
9. The representative of the European Communities said that the EC had agreed to request the
Arbitrators to suspend their work in order to give the US Congress the necessary time to adopt the
proposal of Chairman Thomas to repeal the 1916 Act and to terminate pending cases.  However, the
EC noted that the US Congress had still not made  progress towards the enactment of that proposal.
The EC was concerned by this continued lack of compliance.  It expected that the proposal to repealthe 1916 Act and to terminate pending cases would be enacted before the date agreed on by the parties
to the dispute with regard to the reactivation of the arbitration proceeding, and that the new judge in
charge of the Iowa case, which involved two Eur opean companies, would not decide to resume his
proceedings.
10. The representative of Japan said that his delegation had noted the status report provided by
the United States.  As stated at the past DSB meetings, Japan's ultimate goal was to secure prompt
compliance by the United States.  In light of the fact that the United States had shown a willingness to
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings as soon as possible, Japan had requested the
Arbitrator to suspend the proceedings in the case under consideration.  The communication from the
Arbitrator suspending the proceedings had been circulated as document WT/DS162/21.  However, thearbitration proceedings could be reactivated at the request of either party after 30 June 2002, if no
substantial progress had been made in repealing the 1916 Act thereby resolving this dispute.  Bearing
that in mind, Japan again urged the United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations and
rulings as promptly as possible.
11. The representative of Mexico said that his country had participated as a third party in this case
and hoped that a solution could be reached.
12. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular
meeting.
2. Mexico – Measures affecting telecommunications services
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States (WT/DS204/3)
13. The Chairman recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on
8 March 2002 and had agreed to revert to it.  He drew attention to the communication from the United
States contained in document WT/DS204/3.
14. The representative of the United States said that his country was again requesting the
establishment of a panel to examine the measures taken by Mexico affecting basic
telecommunications services.  This request addressed Mexico's failure to implement its GATS
commitments for cross-border telecommunications services.  In particular, as the United Statesdiscussed in greater detail at the 8 March DSB meeting, the US panel request focused on several
measures, including:  (i) a non-cost-oriented 13.5 per cent cross-border interconnection rate;  (ii) an
anti-competitive exclusive mandate to Mexico's dom inant phone company to negotiate this rate;  and
(iii) a discriminatory lack of access for foreign suppliers to leased lines.  These measures, which were
largely embodied in Mexico's anti-competitive International Long Distance Rules, appeared to breachArticles 1 and 2 of the Reference Paper, Article 5 of the GATS Telecom Annex, and Article XVII of
the GATS.  These anti-competitive rules provided Mexico's dominant phone company a governmentWT/DSB/M/123
Page 4
mandate to set high wholesale prices for telephone calls to Mexico.  These rules had resulted in steep
telephone charges that penalized American and Mexican families who sought to maintain
cross-border ties, raised the price of doing business across the border, and burdened US and Mexican
companies with unnecessary costs.  The United States was disappointed that Mexico continued to
maintain these anti-competitive rules, which were out of step with the positive strides Mexico had
made in opening its domestic telecommunications market.  Mexico's current stance was also at odds
with the consensus to repeal these rules which unites the principal Mexican and US telecom
providers, including Mexico's dominant phone company.  The United States regretted that Mexico
had not yet addressed these issues, and that it was, therefore, necessary to move forward with the
panel process.  Nevertheless, as stated previously, the United States remained open to further
discussions with Mexico in an effort to resolve this matter on a mutually agreeable basis.
15. The representative of Mexico said that as his delegation had indicated at the 8 March DSB
meeting, Mexico believed that the panel request of the United States was unclear in many respects and
that it contained several procedural and substantive violations.  He reiterated his country's view that
the United States was trying to invent violations of commitments that had never been undertaken by
Mexico.  He said that these objections would be raised before the Panel.  He noted that since the first
request for consultations by the United States, Mexico had done its best in an effort to meet the USconcerns, going beyond its WTO obligations.  It was Mexico's understanding that the main telephone
companies involved in this dispute had reached a sa tisfactory agreement.  For these reasons, Mexico
was surprised that the United States continued to pursue its panel request.  In Mexico's view, this was
a simple negotiating manoeuvre rather than a legitimate dispute.  Therefore, the United States was in
violation of Article 3.2 of the DSU which provided that the dispute settlement system "…is a centralelement in providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system".  This system
should not be an instrument by which Members might help their companies to negotiate better terms
for a particular trade transaction by obliging other Members to adopt measures that were not covered
under their commitments.
16. The representative of Australia said that his c ountry considered that the issues raised in the
dispute under consideration would be of fundamental importance both in the context of the GATS and
in relation to the telecommunication sector.  Australia was currently considering whether or not it
should participate as a third party in this case.
17. 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.
18. The representatives of the European Communities, Canada , Cuba , Guatemala , Japan  and
Nicaragua reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings.
3. Argentina – Definitive anti-dumping duties on poultry from Brazil
(a) Request for the Establishment of a panel by Brazil (WT/DS241/3)
19. The Chairman recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on
8 March 2002 and had agreed to revert to it.  He drew attention to the communication from Brazil
contained in document WT/DS241/3.
20. The representative of Brazil said that this was the second time his country was requesting the
establishment of a panel to examine definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of poultry from
Brazil imposed by Argentina through Resolution No. 574 of 21 July 2000.  As the situation had not
evolved since the 8 March DSB meeting when the panel request was on the agenda for the first time,
Brazil wished to reiterate its request for the establ ishment of a panel.  Brazil considered that the
anti-dumping measures in question were inconsiste nt with several provisions of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement and, as a result, had nullified and impaired the benefits accruing to Brazil under thatWT/DSB/M/123
Page 5
Agreement.  Brazil claimed that the Argentinean authorities had violated, at least, Articles 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 9 and 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Annex 11 of the same Agreement and Article VI of
the GATT 1994.  These inconsistencies were related to:  (i) the application presented by the domestic
industry to initiate an investigation;  (ii) the initiati on of the investigation;  (ii) the investigation itself;
(iii) the final affirmative determination of dumping, injury and causal relationship;  (iv) and theimposition and collection of anti-dumping duties.  These measures, which had been in force for
almost two years, had significantly impacted upon Brazil's exports of poultry to Argentina and
continued to do so.  Therefore, pursuant to Arti cle XXII of the GATT 1994, Article 6 of the DSU and
Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Brazil was requesting that a panel be established at the
present meeting to examine this matter, with standard  terms of reference as set out in Article 7 of the
DSU.
21. The representative of Argentina said that as had been indicated at the 8 March DSB meeting
his country continued to believe that the measure concerned was consistent with WTO rules.
However, Argentina was fully aware that since Brazil's request was on the agenda for the second time,
a panel would have to be established at the present meeting.  Argentina still hoped that it would be
possible to find a mutually acceptable solution to this dispute.
22. 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.
23. The representatives of the European Communities, Guatemala , Paraguay  and the United
States reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings.
4. United States – Sunset review of anti-dumping duties on corrosion-resistant carbon steel
flat products from Japan
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Japan (WT/DS244/4)
24. The Chairman drew attention to the communication from Japan contained in document
WT/DS244/4.
25. The representative of Japan said that his country had requested the establishment of a panel to
examine the US sunset review of anti-dumping duties on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products
from Japan.  As Japan's claims were contained in its panel request, he did not wish to reiterate them at
the present meeting.  He noted that these claims included, among other things, the WTO inconsistency
of the US laws, regulations, administrative proc edures, including the US Department of Commerce
Policy Bulletin and practices, as well as their ap plications to the imports from Japan.  The United
States had initiated the so-called sunset review automatically without sufficient evidence, had set
unjustifiably high standards for the withdrawal of the anti-dumping measure, and had opted for an
inappropriate method of calculation of the dumping ma rgins.  All of these US actions had resulted in
the continuation of the measure in question.  In its injury analysis, the United States had undertaken
cumulative assessment without examining the existence of required conditions.  The consultation,
which had been requested by Japan in January 2002, had been held on 14 March 2002.  However, no
mutually satisfactory solution had been reached.  Consequently, Japan was requesting that a panel be
established at the present meeting.
26. The representative of the United States said that his country was disappointed that the
consultations with Japan had not resulted in the reso lution of this dispute.  The United States could
not agree to the establishment of a panel at the present meeting as it disagreed with Japan's allegations
concerning the US measure.  In particular, Japan was alleging breaches of obligations that did not
exist.  For example, Japan suggested that Arti cle 11.3 included requirements for self-initiation that
were simply not there.  Similarly, Japan argued for a non-existent de minimis standard in sunset
reviews, and argued incorrectly that the concept of negligibility applied in sunset reviews.  Japan wasWT/DSB/M/123
Page 6
also incorrect in contending that a cumulative assessment could not be made in sunset reviews.
Japan's other allegations concerning the Anti-Dumping Agreement and US law equally lacked merit.
The United States believed that in general, and as applied to the anti-dumping duty order in question
on Japanese steel, its sunset review regime fully  complied with the US obligations under the Anti-
Dumping Agreement and the other WTO Agreements.  The United States was confident that should apanel be established, it would so agree.  It urged Japan to reconsider its approach to this matter.
27. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed
 to revert to this matter.
5. United States – Definitive safeguard meas ures on imports of circular welded carbon
quality line pipe from Korea
(a) Statement by Korea concerning a reasonable period of time for implementation of the DSB's
recommendations and rulings
28. The representative of Korea, speaking under "Other Business", recalled that the Appellate
Body and the Panel Reports in the case under consideration had been adopted at the 8 March DSB
meeting.  However, the United States had still not provided information on a reasonable period of
time for implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this regard.  He noted that in
accordance with Article 21.3 (b) of the DSU, only three days remained before the expiry of the 45-day
period within which the parties should reach agreement on a mutually acceptable reasonable period oftime.  He recalled that at the 5 April meeting, the United States had informed the DSB of its intentions
to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this case.  He noted that implementation in
this case would not require any legislative changes and could be accomplished through administrative
means.  Therefore, the reasonable period of time should be as short as possible.  Korea hoped that the
parties would be able to agree on a reasonable period of time by Monday, 22 April 2002, the date ofexpiry of the 45-day period from the date of th e adoption of the Panel and the Appellate Body
Reports.
29. The representative of the United States said that his delegation was surprised that Korea had
raised this issue at the present meeting.  He further stated that Korea was aware that the United States
had been in contact with Korea on this matter and would provide further responses within the nextfew days.
30. The DSB took note of the statements.
__________