RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DSB/M/41
26 February 1998
(98-0774)
Dispute Settlement Body
22 January 1998
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
22 January 1998
Chairman:  Mr. Wade Armstrong (New Zealand)
Subjects discussed: Page
1. Japan - Taxes on al coholic beve rages .................................................................................. 2
- Mutually satisfactory solutions to the dispute between Japan and other parties
to the di spute ........................................................................................................... 2
2. Australia - Subsidies provided to producers and exporters of automotive leather ............... 3
- Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States ................................ 3
3. Ireland - Measures affecting the grant of copyright and neighbouring rights ...................... 5
- Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States ................................ 5
4. European Communities - Measures affecting the grant of copyright and neighbouring
rights ........................................................................................................................ ............ 5
- Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States ................................ 5
5. Korea - Definitive safeguard meas ure on certain dairy products ......................................... 5
- Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Communities ............... 5
6. Proposed nominations for the indicative list of governmental and non-governmental
panelists ..................................................................................................................... .......... 6
7. European Communities - Regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas...... 6
- Statement by Guatemala regarding implementation of the DSB's
recommendations .................................................................................................... 6
8. Confidentiality of documents in dispute settlement  procedures .......................................... 10
- Statement by the Eu ropean Comm unities ............................................................... 10WT/DSB/M/41
Page 2
Prior to the adoption of the agenda, the item entitled: "Argentina - Measures Affecting
Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel and Othe r Items - Panel Report (WT/DS56/R)" was removed
from the proposed agenda since on 21 January 1998, Argentina had notified the DSB of its decision to
appeal the report (WT/DS56/8).
1. Japan - Taxes on alcoholic beverages
- Mutually satisfactory solutions to the dispute between Japan and other parties to the
dispute
The Chairman said that this item was on the agenda of the present meeting at the request of
Japan.  He added that details concerning the mutually agreed solutions reached by Japan with the
United States, Canada and the European Communities with regard to the implementation of the DSB's
recommendations on this matter had been circulated in three separate documents.1
The representative of Japan said that, as notified to the DSB on 9 and 14 January 1998, his
country and the other parties to the dispute had reached in December 1997 mutually satisfactorysolutions regarding the implementation by Japan of the DSB's recommendations.  On the basis of
these solutions, Japan would adopt certain measures in accordance with the necessary domestic
legislative procedures.  These measures would include: (i) the revision of the current liquor tax
system, which had been amended in March 1997; and (ii) tariff reductions and eliminations on the
applied rate basis, as outlined in detail in the text of the exchange of letters contained in annexes tothe joint notifications.
In particular, Japan would accelerate the liquor tax rate adjustments for whiskies/brandy and
shochu A by five months to be completed by 1 May 1998, and for shochu B by one year to be
completed by 1 October 2000.  In addition, with effect from 1 April 1998, reduced tariff rates would
be applied on brandy, bourbon whisky, rye whisky, other whisky, rum and tafia, gin and geneva,vodka, liqueurs and cordials, as compensation for a longer period of implementation.  These tariffs
would then be eliminated on 1 April 2002.  For this purpose, Japan would submit draft laws to the
Diet convened this month, which would amend the Liquor Tax Law, the Customs Tariff Law and the
Temporary Tariff Measures Law.  His Government would do its utmost to obtain approval by the
Diet.  He noted that the solutions reached by the parties in this case had demonstrated that the disputesettlement mechanism had functioned effectively in securing a "positive solution to a dispute".  He
expressed his Government's appreciation to the part ies involved in this matter for their efforts in
resolving this dispute.
The representative of the United States said that her delegation was pleased that Japan and the
United States had reached an agreement in December 1997 on a final resolution of this long-standing
issue.  The settlement reflected a very satisfactory result by combining the acceleration of Japan's
implementation of the DSB's recommendations with tariff reductions on the products concerned.  The
tax changes and tariff reductions should result in substantially improved market access for imported
distilled spirits in Japan.  However, in order to implement this agreement legislative changes by Japan
would be required.  The United States looked  forward to Japan's enactment of the necessary
legislation and would continue to follow this matter closely.
In the exchange of letters, the United States had noted that it was jointly understood that the
acceptance by the United States of Japan's proposal to settle this dispute could not in any way be
interpreted as prejudging the position of the United States with regard to the definition of de minimis
differentials in taxation of products, or the reasonable period of time for implementation.  In
                                                     
1Joint notifications are contained in documents:  WT/DS8/19-WT/DS10/19-WT/DS11/17;
WT/DS8/20-WT/DS10/20-WT/DS11/18;  WT/DS8/17/Add.1-WT/DS10/17/Add.1-WT/DS11/15/Add.1.WT/DSB/M/41
Page 3
particular, this arrangement was without prejudice to the question of whether the tax rates differential
between brown and white spirits that would remain as of 1 October 2000 was a de minimis  differential
or would constitute a de minimis  differential in any other market or under any other factual
circumstances.
The representative of Canada said that his country was pleased that Japan and Canada had
reached a mutually agreed solution on this matter.  It was unfortunate that Japan had not been able to
implement the DSB's recommendations within the established reasonable period of time.  However, a
positive solution had been secured to this dispute which was the aim of the dispute settlement
mechanism as stipulated in Article 3 of the DSU.  Canada looked forward to Japan's effective
implementation of the agreement.
The representative of the European Communities sa id that the key-point was that this dispute
had been settled by agreement amongst the parties.  The Communities had first moved into this
direction and therefore welcomed the fact that other parties to this dispute had also been able to reach
mutually agreed solutions on this matter.  He noted that the Communities had also benefited from the
most recent arrangements which had been notified to the DSB.
The representative of Mexico welcomed the fact that the parties to the dispute had reached
mutually agreed solutions on this matter.  However, in Japan's statement no reference had been made
with regard to tequila.  It was of particular interest to Mexico that tequila be treated in the same wayas other alcoholic beverages.  At this stage, he was not in a position to know whether or not Mexico's
concern was well-founded.  His delegation would be in contact with Japan's delegation in an attempt
to clarify this matter.
The representative of Japan noted that consultations on the subject raised by Mexico had
never been requested.  He reiterated that in this case mutually agreed solutions had been reached with
all of the parties to the dispute.  With regard to  Canada's statement concerning its regret regarding
Japan's implementation of the DSB's recommendations, he believed, as stated by the European
Communities, that it was important that mutually agreed solutions had been found in this case.
Another important aspect was flexibility with regard to the settlement of disputes.  In his view, these
were two key-elements in the DSU.  The narrowin g of tax differences between domestic and imported
spirits would be implemented over a period of time longer than 15 months.  However, through other
measures such as tariff reductions on imported liquors, Japan would more than compensate for this
tax differential so that any adverse effects would be fully offset.
The DSB took note of the statements.
2. Australia - Subsidies provided to producers and exporters of automotive leather
- Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States
(WT/DS106/2)
The Chairman drew attention to the communication from the United States in document
WT/DS106/2 which contained its request for the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 4 of the
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM).
The representative of the United States said that her country had tried to resolve this matter
for a certain period of time without resort to the panel proceedings.  After its original request for
consultations in 1996, the United States had reached an agreement with Australia in November 1996.
However, Australia had immediately provided new compensatory subsidies to its automotive leatherWT/DSB/M/41
Page 4
industry.  Since then, bilateral attempts to resolve this matter had failed.  Thus, the United States had
requested new consultations which had not resulted in a mutually satisfactory resolution of the
dispute.
At the present meeting, the United States requested an immediate establishment of a panel to
examine Australia's subsidies provided to its producers and exporters of automotive leather.  The
subsidies provided to Howe Leather company included a loan of A$ 25 million on preferential andnon-commercial terms and grants amounting potentially to another A$ 30 million.  The United States
considered that these measures had violated Australia's obligations under Article 3 of the
SCM Agreement.  Her country believed that in the light of their terms and the circumstances under
which they had been provided these subsidies constituted subsidies conditioned on export
performance within the meaning of Article 3.1(a)  and footnote 4 of the SCM Agreement.  The
United States believed that these subsidies were inconsistent with Article 3.2 of the SCM Agreement.
Therefore, her delegation requested an immediate establishment of a panel to examine this matter inlight of the SCM Agreement.
The representative of Australia expressed his Government's disappointment with regard to the
United States' action to request the establishment of a panel on the specific assistance package
provided by Australia to the Howe Leather company.  His country considered that the issue of
assistance to the company had been settled to the mutual satisfaction of both parties when Australiahad implemented a package of measures, described as new subsidies by the United States in its
statement, which it had considered met the United States' position.  The impact on the United States'
industry was insignificant.  It was difficult to understand the trade interests that would justify the need
for the United States to pursue this case in the WTO.
In Australia's view, the US request for the establishment of a panel (WT/DS106/2) raised
certain problems.  His country believed that this request was inadequate.  He noted that Article 4 of
the SCM Agreement required that the request for consultations should include a statement of available
evidence with regard to the nature of the subsid y in question.  The US request for consultations
(WT/DS106/1) had not contained such a statement beyond simple assertion that the measures were
inconsistent.  Similarly, the US request for a panel (WT/DS106/2) had not contained any explanationof the basis for the United States' view, beyond simple assertions.  Article 4 of the SCM Agreement
required the complaining party to identify the nature of the subsidy in question.  The United States'
request for a panel appeared to be broader in scope than its request for consultations.  However,
Australia accepted the US request on the understanding that the panel's examination and its terms of
reference would be based on the measures that had been discussed during the consultations pursuantto WT/DS106/1, namely, the subsidies provided to Howe Leather.
The representative of the United States said  that the US request for consultations, dated
10 November 1997, had met the requisite standards of Article 4.2 of the SCM Agreement.  She noted
that  Article 4.2  related solely to requests for consultations not to requests for the establishment of a
panel.
The DSB took note of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the
accelerated procedures pursuant to Article 4.4 of the SCM Agreement with standard terms of
reference.WT/DSB/M/41
Page 5
3. Ireland - Measures affecting the grant of copyright and neighbouring rights
- Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States (WT/DS82/2)
4. European Communities - Measures affecting the grant of copyright and neighbouring rights
- Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States (WT/DS115/2)
The Chairman proposed that the DSB take up the above-mentioned items together since they
pertained to the same matter.
The representative of the United States said that her country requested that the DSB establish
a single panel to examine both complaints by the United States against Ireland and the European
Communities regarding the legal regime in Ireland for the protection of copyright and neighbouringrights.  The grounds for these requests had been specified in documents WT/DS82/2 and
WT/DS115/2.  Consultations had been held with Ireland and the Communities on this matter but had
failed to produce a mutually satisfactory solution to this dispute.
With effect from 1 January 1996, developed-country Members had been required to comply
with their obligations under the TRIPS Agreemen t.  Both Ireland and the Communities were more
than two years behind in implementing these obligations.  Due to the lack of adequate and effective
intellectual property protection in Ireland, US copyright owners had suffered significant economic
losses.  The United States appreciated that efforts were underway to bring the legal regime in Ireland
into compliance with the TRIPS Agreement.  However, it remained concerned about the currenttimetable for the completion of this project.  In the view of the United States, this timetable did not
reflect the importance of expeditious compliance with the TRIPS Agreement.  Members could not
implement their WTO obligations at their own pace.  It was critical that all Members comply fully
with their obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.  In the view of the overriding importance of this
issue, the United States requested that the DSB establish a panel to examine these matters.  She notedthat the establishment of a single panel would be without prejudice to the rights that the United States
would enjoy if two separate panels had been established.
The representative of the European Communities noted that the two items were under
consideration together.  In the Communities' view this was an appropriate way of proceeding because
the two requests had been identical in terms of substance.  This procedure  was also appropriate from
the Communities' standpoint as it corresponded to the internal organization of the Communities and
their member States regarding the subject matter under the review, namely the TRIPS Agreement.
His delegation was not in a position to accept the US request for the establishment of a single panel at
the present meeting.  The Communities required more time in order to discuss some proceduralquestions with the United States and to consider questions to be submitted to the panel.  As indicated
by the United States, efforts were underway to seek a solution and given that all parties agreed that
legislative changes were necessary, the Communities did not consider it usual to request the panel to
give a ruling on timing of such changes.
The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed
 to revert to this matter.
5. Korea - Definitive safeguard measure on certain dairy products
- Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Communities 
(WT/DS98/4)
The Chairman drew attention to the communication from the European Communities
contained in WT/DS98/4.WT/DSB/M/41
Page 6
The representative of the European Communities said that since this request had been made, bilateral
consultations had been held with Korea.  The Communities believed that these consultations might
lead to a mutually agreeable settlement.  Therefore,  his delegation did not wish to discuss this matter
in detail at the present meeting and requested that the DSB revert to this matter at its next meeting.
The representative of Korea expressed his delegation's regret that the European Communities
had chosen to postpone rather than to withdraw it s request for the establishment of a panel.  Although
Korea believed that its safeguard measure on imports of certain dairy products was in conformity with
its obligations under the WTO Agreement, it had made sincere efforts to seek an amicable and
mutually satisfactory solution to this matter in c onsultations with the Communities in accordance with
Article 3.6 of the DSU.  As a result of the recent intensive consultations, a solution had been worked
out.  On the basis of this solution, the Communities had agreed to withdraw their request for the
establishment of a panel at the present meeting.  His delegation hoped that the Communities would
soon be able to withdraw their request for the establishment of a panel with regard to this matter.
The DSB took note of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next meeting.
6. Proposed nominations for the indicative list of governmental and non-governmental panelists
(WT/DSB/W/69/Rev.1)The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/69/Rev.1 which contained additional
names proposed for inclusion on the indicative list in accordance with Article 8.4 of the DSU.  He
proposed that the DSB approve the names contained therein.
The DSB so agreed.
7. European Communities - Regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas
- Statement by Guatemala regarding impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations
The representative of Guatemala, speaking under "Other Business", said that her country as a
party to this dispute wished to draw attention to the European Commission's proposal regarding the
Communities' banana import regime that would serve as a basis for implementing the DSB's
recommendations.  Guatemala had always respecte d the dispute settlement procedures and had
devoted a significant part of its resources in order to obtain increased access opportunities denied to itfor a considerable period of time.  In this case, her country's confidence in the dispute settlement
system had not been shaken since the Panel and the Appellate Body had condemned the system of
discrimination and preferences not compatible wi th the WTO.  The Commission's proposal would not
bring the European Communities' regime into c onformity with the WTO Agreement, as required
under the new rules with regard to implementation of recommendations.  Although Guatemala had notyet completed its evaluation of all the implications of the proposed regime, at this stage, it wished to
inform the DSB that the provisions contained in the proposal would establish a regime that would be
more discriminatory and restrictive than the current one.
The proposal had ignored the findings with regard to the distribution of quotas by allocating
separate quotas according to the country of origin and had infringed the principle of non-
discriminatory distribution of quotas.  The quota allocated to Latin American countries would restrict
their market access and prevent growth, while ACP suppliers would receive a generous quota above
their historical levels of exports.  Furthermore, the tariff levels contained in the proposal werediscriminatory.  With regard to import licensing, the proposed new system relied on the BananaWT/DSB/M/41
Page 7
Management Committee which had broad powers, and could result in a system that replicated the one
already condemned by the Panel and the Appellate Body.
Guatemala would closely follow developments with  regard to this proposal.  It considered
that member States had means to modify this proposal substantially and hoped that they would
analyse it thoroughly and, at the appropriate time, would make the required changes.  Her country had
brought this matter to the GATT and then to the WTO not once but three times and now should not beobliged to invoke the review provisions provid ed under the DSU.  Guatemala was confident that
member States would implement the DSB's recommendations because it was in their interest as well
as in the interest of other Members to preserve the credibility of the dispute settlement system.  If not,
the future of the WTO would be seriously affected.
The representative of Mexico said that his delegation had not yet received the proposal with
regard to the modification of the European Communities' banana import regime.  Therefore, it had
been unable to evaluate this proposal and could not determine whether it was in line with the DSB'srecommendations.  Mexico was concerned because, on the basis of informal sources, it understood
that the proposed regime would not abide by the DSB's recommendations.  At the time when
arbitration had been requested to determine a reasonable period of time for implementation, the
Communities had given the impression that they would abide by the recommendations of the Panel
and the Appellate Body.  His delegation hoped that the Communities would implement theserecommendations in conformity with their WTO obl igations and not by creating new provisions
which might not be compatible with the WTO Agreement.  He hoped that at the present meeting or in
the near future, the Communities would demonstrate that the concerns expressed by some delegations
with regard to this matter were not founded.
The representative of Honduras said that although his delegation had not yet received any
official communication from the European Communitie s, his Government had begun its evaluation of
the European Commission's proposal to modify the Communities' banana import regime.  Honduras
was concerned with regard to certain elements of that proposal including those elements that had not
taken due account of the Panel's rulings.  The most obvious inconsistency concerned the distribution
of the quota.  The reports had ruled out separate quotas.  The Commission's proposal had not takenthis into account.  On the contrary, in breach of Article XIII of GATT 1994, it had proposed a highly
restrictive quota for Latin American countries whic h would prevent growth for Honduras.  A separate
quota that would be allocated to the ACP suppliers did not correspond to their historical trade levels.
Honduras had repeatedly stated before the panel that each tonne "illegally" allocated to the ACP
producers constituted a tonne taken away from Honduran producers.
Honduras was also concerned about the reforms envisaged by the Commission with regard to
the administration of licences.  The proposal provided for the extension of powers of the Banana
Management Committee and had not included the parameters under which the system should be
administered.  The Committee's powers would be so broad that it could take measures that were
inconsistent with, and condemned by the Panel.  In other words, it would be able to perpetuate aspects
of the administration of the licensing system that had been found inconsistent with the WTO
Agreement.  The possible results would not meet the expectations of developing countries, whichbelieved that the WTO system protected them against a discriminatory treatment of their exports.
Upon its accession to the WTO, Honduras had believ ed that the system would not allow a developed
Member to harm the rights of a developing countr y.  In the next months his Government would have
to apply to the DSB for the restoration of its righ ts.  Honduras would not have participated in this
difficult, complex and protracted dispute if the illegalities which had been challenged would bereplaced by new illegalities.  It was prepared to avail itself of any procedure or mechanism provided
for in the DSU to ensure that the Communities' ba nana import regime was entirely compatible with
the WTO Agreement by 1 January 1999.WT/DSB/M/41
Page 8
The representative of the United States expressed her delegation's support for the comments
made by the previous speakers concerning th e proposal adopted on 14 January 1998 by the European
Commission concerning the Communities' banana import regime.  The United States was
disappointed that the Commission had once again proposed, as in the current system, to establish
distinct and separate regimes for two groups of developing countries: i.e., one quota for the ACP
countries and a highly restrictive quota for Latin American countries.  The United States had analysedthis dual quota system in the light of the Appellate Body and the Panel reports as well as the terms of
Article XIII of GATT 1994.  The Appellate Body had made it clear that such discrimination was a
violation of Article XIII of GATT 1994 which was not  covered by the Lomé Waiver.  In the light of
this ruling, it was remarkable that in introducing th is proposal the Communities had stated that it was
WTO compatible, quite simply it was not.
At the same time, under this proposal, the important question of how the Communities
intended to administer these quotas had not been specified.  The majority of the DSB'srecommendations were against the Communities' import licensing system.  Given the unfortunate
history of this issue, the United States would have hoped that the Communities' internal proceduresfor fleshing out these crucial details would be sufficient to ensure that the resulting proposal was
WTO consistent.  Any licensing system that continued, in a different form, the discrimination found
by the Panel and the Appellate Body against the Latin American and US banana distribution
companies, was not WTO consistent.  Her country wished to resolve this dispute and urged the
Communities and their member States to reconsider this proposal and eliminate the discriminatory
elements.  The Communities' insistence on WTO inconsistent alternatives could only prolong them
through further proceedings under the DSU.
The representative of Panama said that his country welcomed the news that the European
Commission had recommended specific action to modify the Communities banana regime and that the
Commission had stated that this reform would be und ertaken in such a way as to comply with all the
recommendations of the Panel and the Appellate Body .  His country had not yet received an official
notification regarding the content of the proposal.  The initial reports received from informal sources
provided some grounds for hope that the Commission would comply at the end of the process with the
explicit obligations which it had assumed and for which it had been granted a reasonable period of
time.  The same sources suggested caution both with re gard to the content as well as to the fact that
they had been provided by third parties.  Accordingly, his delegation did not wish to make a statementon the substance of the proposal, beyond saying that Panama shared the concerns expressed by the
previous speakers.  He reiterated that Panama expected that the modification of the Communities'
banana import regime would be in conformity w ith all the recommendations of the Panel and the
Appellate Body.  Given the paucity of information made publicly available on the current proposal,
his country hoped to receive shortly an official communication from the Communities.  Meanwhile,Panama would continue to weigh the situation and assess possible avenues.
The representative of Ecuador wished to associate his delegation with the concerns expressed
by the previous speakers with regard to the proposed banana import regime for the European
Communities.  Ecuador had paid attention to the efforts undertaken by the European Commission inorder to comply with the recommendations and conclusions of the Panel reports and the Appellate
Body report adopted by the DSB on 25 September 1997.  Ecuador considered that the new regime
contained in the Commission's proposal could no t and must not diverge from the basic WTO
principles, in particular the principle of non-discrimination, and should not ignore the DSB's
recommendations, nor worsen the already restrictive and discriminatory regime underRegulation 404/93.  He reiterated that Ecuador was ready to cooperate with the Communities to work
out a satisfactory solution that would be entirely compatible with the WTO rules for trade in goods
and services and would meet the interests of the part ies directly involved in this lengthy dispute.  On
14 January 1998, the Commission adopted a proposal aimed at regulating banana imports into the
Communities.  This proposal should rectify those aspects which remained in violation with themultilateral rules and principles with regard to market access and import licensing and violated theWT/DSB/M/41
Page 9
provisions of the Lomé waiver.  In view of the inadequate information made available by the
Communities, this was Ecuador's initial reaction.  This lack of information should be remedied
immediately for the sake of transparency.
The representative of the European Communities acknowledged that under the DSU
provisions Members had the right to raise the issu e of implementation at any time, however, for the
convenience of his delegation and other delegations, it would have been preferable if this matter hadbeen placed on the agenda rather than raised under "Other Business".  He thanked the previous
speakers for recognizing, which was implicit in their statements, that the Commission had acted with
a considerable speed in making a new proposal.  The Communities were on schedule as they had
indicated to their partners during the bilateral discussions and arbitration, and had kept their promises
as far as time was concerned.  At the present meeting, he only had two comments.  Since this matter
was being considered under "Other Business" he did not wish to enter into substance.  First, what had
been announced was a set of proposals from the European Commission to the Council of Ministers tobe discussed in the European Parliament.  This was not a final set of decisions.  Members were free to
take their own view regarding the conformity of th is proposal with the WTO rules.  The Communities
did not expect to be characterized as acting in violation with the WTO Agreement at this early stage
in their legislative process when no final decisions had yet been taken.
Second, while the DSB had a role in monitori ng the implementation phase, following the
adoption of the reports and the agreement on the reasonable period of time, the centre of gravity
regarding the implementation had now shifted to the Communities' authorities in Brussels.
Discussions and decisions concerning a new regime w ould be taken there.   Therefore, if delegations
had comments which they wished to bring to the attention of his authorities, they should address them
to the Communities' authorities in Brussels. In accordance with the DSU provisions he would present,in due course, a status report to the DSB on the progress in implementation.  His delegation was also
ready to receive any views or written representations.  Since many delegations had stated that they
had not been formally given information of the full content of the proposal, an information meeting
would be held to this effect.  This meeting would be  held as soon as possible, but he had been asked to
wait until the finalization of the process in Brussels.  He ensured all delegations that the Communitieshad carefully examined the Panel reports and the Appellate Body report and believed that the proposal
was consistent with the DSB's recommendations.  The Communities were working in good faith and
to the best of their abilities therefore it was premature to consider that this proposal was inconsistent
with the WTO Agreement without having received any explanation from the Communities.
The Chairman drew attention to Article 21.6 of the DSU concerning the surveillance of the
implementation of adopted recommendations or rulings.  This Article included a number of elements
and stated, inter alia , that the issue of the implementation of recommendations or rulings might be
raised in the DSB by any Member at any time foll owing their adoption.  Furthermore, it stated 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 the
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 recalled that the establishment of the reasonable period of time
in this case had been undertaken by the arbitrator in document WT/DS27/15 which had been
circulated on 7 January 1998.  Therefore the six-month period would begin on 7 January.
Furthermore, at least 10 days prior to such a meeting, the Member concerned shall provide the DSB
with the status report in writing of its prog ress in the implementation of the recommendations or
rulings.  It was therefore expected to have a status report on the implementation of the DSB's
recommendations six months after the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time, and
under Article 21.6 of the DSU it was possible for the issue of implementation to be raised in the DSB
by any Member at any time.  This was an important issue and he did not seek to inhibit the rights of
delegations but he wished to draw attention to rule 25 of the Rules of Procedure concerning mattersWT/DSB/M/41
Page 10
under "Other Business" since this raised the question of the ability of delegations to be able to
contribute to discussions on such an important issue.
The representative of Norway said that in his delegation's view, substantive matters of this
importance should be placed on the agenda as regular items and should not be raised under "Other
Business".  This would enable delegations not directly  involved in the matter to be prepared in order
to be able to contribute to a discussion.  At the present meeting the discussion had only taken place
amongst the parties to the dispute.
The DSB took note of the statements.
8. Confidentiality of documents in dispute settlement procedures
- Statement by the European Communities
The representative of the European Communities expressed his delegation's concern about the
breach of confidentiality regarding the Panel on European Communities - Measures affecting
importation of certain poultry products.2  A private law firm, based in Brussels, advising the
Government of Brazil had sent a document to some of the main importers of poultry meat into theCommunities.  This document contained highly sensitive business data which had been submitted by
the Communities to the Panel, at its request, after the end of its second substantive meeting.  This
information had been submitted to the panel on the understanding that the principles of confidentiality
would be respected with regard to such documents and in the Panel's deliberations as provided for in
Article 18.2 of the DSU.  In the Communities' view, the provisions of Article 18.2 of the DSU, thefirst and the second sentence thereof, forbade a party to a dispute from disclosing statements or
written submissions or any other document submitted during the procedures.  This principle was also
reflected in Appendix 3 to the DSU and in the working procedures which had been adopted in specific
panels.  The Communities wished to place on the record their concerns that the strict conditions of
confidentiality required under Article 18.2 of the DSU be in future fully respected by all parties.  TheCommunities believed that mutual confidence was essential with regard to the dispute settlement
procedures.
The representative of Brazil said that he had no intention of addressing this issue and that he
had been informed at very short notice that the European Communities would raise this matter.
However, since some substantive points had been indicated, he was compelled to make comments
with regard to this matter.  Brazil was fully aware of the confidentiality provisions under the DSU.
He recalled that on another occasion, his delegation had raised under "Other Business" an important
systemic concern, namely that a party had provided information directly to a panel without being
invited to do so, thereby violating the provisions of Article 13 of the DSU.  In this particular case, thedocument, as indicated by the European Communities, had been presented after the second
substantive meeting of the Panel and without any opportunity for comments.  He did not wish to enter
into the substance of this document but this was a Catch-22 situation.  He believed that this matter
should be considered during the review of the DSU, namely how could a delegation or a party
comment on business data provided after the proceedings of a panel if it had not participated directly
in the trade of a specific product.  For the sake of clarity and transparency, as well as for the sake of
substantive information to the Panel it had been necessary to consult with those directly involved intrade.  The information which had been submitted was not confidential but contained calculations and
data.  The Government of Brazil which was not a trader, had no means to confirm the veracity of the
data presented therein.  He regretted having given details about something that might be characterized
                                                     
2WT/DS69.WT/DSB/M/41
Page 11
as confidential, but since the Communities had raised  the issue of breaching confidentiality of the
Panel procedures, he had been compelled to make such comments.
The DSB took note of the statements.
__________