RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DSB/M/144
21 March 2003
(03-1621)
Dispute Settlement Body
26 February 2003
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 26 February 2003
Chairman:  Mr. Shotaro Oshima (Japan)
1. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000
(a) Statements of intentions pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU in respect of implementation of
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB
1. The Chairman said that this item was on the agenda of the present meeting at the request of
Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the European Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mexico
and Thailand.  He recalled that an exchange of views concerning this agenda item had already taken
place at the 19 February 2003 DSB meeting under "Other Business".  He then invited the
representatives of the respective countries to speak.
2. The representative of Australia said that under Article 21.3 of the DSU, a Member was
required to inform the DSB – within 30 days of the adoption of panel and Appellate Body reports – of
its intentions concerning implementation of the recommendations and rulings of those reports.
Australia, together with the other co-complainants had requested this DSB meeting to give the United
States the opportunity to comply with the requiremen t of Article 21.3 in this dispute.  Australia noted
that public comments and actions of the United States indicated that the United States required a
reasonable period of time in which to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  These
comments and actions included:  (i) the US statement at the 27 January DSB meeting, before theReports were adopted, that it intended to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings;  and
(ii) the US administration's plan to repeal the Byrd Amendment in the US budget proposal for fiscal
year 2004.  Australia was willing to negotiate such a reasonable period of time with the United States
jointly with the other co-complainants.  Australia reserved its rights under the DSU accruing from the
adoption by the DSB of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports in this dispute.
3. The representative of Brazil said that his country, together with the other co-complainants,
had requested the present meeting because it considered that the United States was not properly
complying with Article 21.3 of the DSU.  First, the United States had not formally and clearly
informed the DSB of its intentions in respect of implementation of the recommendations and rulings
in this dispute.  Second, the United States remained silent about a reasonable period of time forimplementation.  Brazil considered that the present meeting could give the United States the
opportunity to clarify these two issues.
4. The representative of Canada recalled that at the 19 February DSB meeting, his country had
stated its views on the obligations of the United States under Article 21.3 of the DSU.  Canada stood
fully by those statements, although it did not intend to repeat them at the present meeting.  Turning tothe issue of US implementation, Canada noted the US statements that:  "the United States respects its
WTO obligations" and that it "the United States intends to implement the DSB recommendations andWT/DSB/M/144
Page 2
rulings in a manner that respects the United States' WTO obligations".  Canada welcomed these
statements.  The US administration's budget proposal  for fiscal year 2004, which had been released on
4 February 2003, urged the US Congress to repeal the Byrd Amendment.  The Administration pointed
out that – he noted that he was quoting from the budget proposal – "these corporate subsidies
effectively provide a significant 'double-dip' benefit to industries that already gain protection from theincreased import prices provided by countervailing tariffs."  Canada welcomed the US
administration's efforts to secure the repeal of the Byrd Amendment, as suggested by the Panel
Report.  The next step would be the establishment of the reasonable period of time for the United
States to repeal the Act.  Canada and the other co-complainants would work together in negotiating
with the United States in order to establish the compliance period.
5. The representative of the European Communitie s said that this was an unprecedented event
that the complainants had to call for a DSB meeting to be informed of the intentions of the Member
concerned in respect of implementation of the DSB's ruling.  He recalled that at the 19 February DSB
meeting, the EC had explained in length its reas ons for joining the other co-complainants in their
request for this special DSB meeting and, therefore, it would not repeat its arguments at the present
meeting.  The EC only hoped that the US failure to call for the DSB meeting to inform of its
intentions on implementation would remain an unfortunate isolated event.  Now turning to thesubstance of this meeting, he said that the Panel had found "it difficult to conceive of any method
which would be more appropriate and/or effective than the repeal [to bring the CDSOA into
conformity]".  The EC shared this opinion:  this legislation was condemned per se  and should now be
removed.  For more than two years, dumped or subsidized imports had been hit by a double penalty.
In addition to being subject to often very heavy anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties, they hadsubsidized the domestic products they competed with.  The amounts that had been distributed were
substantial and increasing fast:  from US$231 million in the first distribution to US$330 million in the
second distribution.  Furthermore, three companies obtained half of the offset payments distributed
thus far, which only worsened the distorting effects on competition of the CDSOA measure.  The EC
shared the other complainants' understanding that the repeal of the measure could be securedimmediately and that the United States would need a reasonable period of time to do so.  The EC
reserved its rights under Article 21.3 of the DSU and joined the other co-complainants in their
readiness to negotiate jointly with the United States a reasonable period of time.  This period of time
should be as short as possible.  He noted that Members had agreed that prompt settlement of disputes
was essential to the effective functioning of the WTO.  The CDSOA measure raised immediate and
widespread concerns among WTO partners.  These concerns proved to be right and it was now time to
respond to them.
6. The representative of Japan said that since her country had expressed its position regarding
this case at the 27 January DSB meeting, and its views concerning the present meeting at the
19 February DSB meeting, she would refrain from repeating them.  The Panel and the Appellate Body
had confirmed that the distribution of the collected anti-dumping duties and countervailing duties to
the related domestic industry was not justifiable under the WTO Agreement.  Therefore, Japan onceagain strongly urged the United States to repeal the Byrd Amendment at the earliest possible time.  In
this regard, Japan noted the statement made by the United States at the 19 February DSB that in fact it
intended to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  Furthermore, as the United States
had not immediately complied with them, Japan, li ke all the other co-complainants, understood that
the United States needed a reasonable period of time in which to comply.  Japan stood ready toengage in negotiations on a reasonable period of time between 11 co-complainants jointly and the
United States.  She reiterated that Japan reserved all its rights under the DSU.
7. The representative of India said that his country was also one of the co-complainants which
had requested the meeting to enable the United St ates to express its intentions in regard of
implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommendations.  India endorsed the views expressed byprevious speakers.  India was also ready to work with the other co-complainants to discuss with the
United States a reasonable period of time.  India had already expressed its views on the ByrdWT/DSB/M/144
Page 3
Amendment at the 27 January DSB meeting and, at that time, it had stated that there was no other way
for the United States to implement the DSB's rulings  except by repealing the Byrd Amendment.  India
continued to maintain this position and was ready to discuss a reasonable period of time.  Like Japan,
India also wished to reserve all its rights under Article 21.3 of the DSU.
8. The representative of Korea said that it was unfortunate that the co-complainants had been
left with no other choice, but to call for this meet ing to be informed by the Member concerned of its
intentions with respect to the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  At the same
time, Korea noted that, at the 19 February DSB meeting, the United States had confirmed its intention
to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings concerning the CDSOA.  Given the Panel's
finding on the ways in which the United States could implement the recommendations, as well as the
fact that the US administration had released earlier this month a budget proposal for the fiscal
year 2004 in an effort to repeal the CDSOA, it was obvious that the United States needed a reasonableperiod of time for implementation.  Korea, together with the other co-complainants, looked forward to
having fruitful discussions with the United States under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU in the next
15 days.
9. The representative of Indonesia said that his country had requested a DSB meeting in order to
ensure that the procedures under Article 21.3 of the DSU were followed.  This Article provided that
the Member concerned had to inform the DSB within 30 days after adoption of the report of its
intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  Indonesia hoped
that the United States would implement immediately the DSB's recommendations and rulings by
repealing the CDSOA.  Indonesia was aware of the effort of the US administration to repeal the
CDSOA, as suggested by the Panel Report.  Howe ver, if the immediate repeal was found to be
impracticable, Indonesia, jointly with the other comp lainants, was ready to negotiate with the United
States a reasonable period of time.
10. The representative of Thailand said that his delegation wished to thank the Chairman for
convening the present meeting in order to consid er this agenda item.  In Thailand's reading of
Article 21.3 of the DSU it was mandatory that a DSB meeting would have to be held within 30 daysafter the panel report was adopted with a view to hearing how promptly the party to the dispute to
which the panel's recommendations were directed intended to implement the DSB's recommendations
and rulings.  Given the fact that the United States had already confirmed its intention to implement the
DSB's recommendations and rulings at the 27 January DSB meeting, Thailand was quite content that
the United States remained committed to do so since this intention had been once again reconfirmed
at the 19 February DSB meeting.  To that end, Thailand wished to re-emphasize, once again, as
indicated in its statement made on the date when the Reports had been adopted, that it was prepared towork with the United States in order to arrive at a mutually agreed reasonable period of time required
by Article 21.3 of the DSU.  During such time unt il the required reasonable period of time was fixed,
Thailand hoped that the United States would do everything in its power, including exercising
administrative action, to prevent further implementation of the CDSOA and, in that context, no
consideration of applications for offset payments under the same legislation would be made.
11. The representative of the United States said that  after listening to the interventions of some of
the complaining parties, the United States remained  as puzzled as ever as to why the complaining
parties had requested this meeting.  He recalled that  the United States had stated its intentions in this
dispute pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU at the 27 January DSB meeting.  It had further confirmed
those intentions at the 19 February DSB meeting, as it had offered to the complaining parties to do.The United States assumed that the complaining parties desired that those already stated intentions be
in fact the intentions of the United States.  In particular, the United States had not heard anything at
the present meeting from the complaining parties th at would indicate that they wished the United
States to change its mind concerning its intentions.  Accordingly, there was no reason to comment
further on those intentions.  With respect to delegations' suggestions at the present meeting thatArticle 21.3 of the DSU precluded a Member from imme diately stating its intentions, and that it wasWT/DSB/M/144
Page 4
necessary to call this unscheduled meeting, the Un ited States wished to refer Members to the US
statements made at the 19 February DSB meeting.  With respect to comments made at the present
meeting concerning the reasonable period of time, the United States noted that nothing in Article 21.3
of the DSU required a responding party to state at a DSB meeting that it needed a reasonable period of
time.  It should be no surprise, however, that in this  dispute the United States would need a reasonable
period of time.  No Member had suggested otherwise.  In conclusion, the United States wished to note
its disappointment that the complaining parties ha d gone forward with this meeting despite the
US invitation at the last meeting that they r econsider the need for holding such a meeting.
12. The DSB took note of the statements.
__________