RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DSB/M/159
15 January 2004
(04-0122)
Dispute Settlement Body
1 December 2003
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 1 December 2003
Chairman:  Mr. Shotaro Oshima (Japan)
Prior to the adoption of the agenda, the Chairman recalled that, as he had informed Members
by fax on 28 November 2003, the item concerning the adoption of the Appellate Body Report and the
Panel Reports in the case on "United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain
Steel Products" had been removed from the proposed agenda.
Subjects discussed: Page
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB .........................2
(a) United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916:  Status report by the United States .......................2
(b) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Approp riations Act of 1998:  Status report by
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........3
(c) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from
Japan:  Status report by the United States...................................................................................4
(d) Chile – Price band system and safeguard measures relating to certain agricultural
products:  Status re port by Chile.............................................................................................. ...4
2. European Communities – Measures concerning meat and meat products
(Hormones)..................................................................................................................... ...........5
(a) Statement by the European Communities ...................................................................................5
3. United States – Countervailing measures concerning certain products from the
European Communities........................................................................................................... .6
(a) Statement by the European Communities ...................................................................................6
4. United States – Countervailing duty investigation on dynamic random access
memory semiconductors (DRAMS) from Korea ...................................................................7
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Korea .....................................................................7
5. European Communities – Countervailing measures on dynamic random access
memory chips fr om Korea .......................................................................................................8
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Korea .....................................................................8
6. Adoption of the 2003 draft Annual Report of the DSB .........................................................9WT/DSB/M/159
Page 2
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB
(a) United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916:  Status report by the United States
(WT/DS136/14/Add.21 - WT/DS162/17/Add.21)
(b) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropri ations Act of 1998:  Status report by the
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.14)
(c) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:
Status report by the Unit ed States (WT/DS184/15/Add.14)
(d) Chile – Price band system and safeguard measures relating to certain agricultural products:
Status report by Chile (WT/DS207/15/Add.2)
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 four sub-items to which he had just referred be considered separately.
(a) United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916:  Status report by the United States
(WT/DS136/14/Add.21 - WT/DS162/17/Add.21)
2. The Chairman drew attention to docume nt WT/DS136/14/Add.21 – WT/DS162/17/Add.21
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.
3. The representative of the United States said that her country had provided an additional status
report in this dispute on 20 November 2003, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in
the report, legislation repealing the 1916 Act was pend ing in both the US Senate and the US House of
Representatives.  The US administration was continuing to work with Congress to achieve further
progress in resolving this dispute with the EC and Japan.
4. The representative of the European Communities said that, by the end of December 2003, it
would be two years since the expiry of the time-peri od for implementation in this dispute.  During the
period in question, the 1916 Anti-Dumping Act was being used against EC companies, which had to
face substantial costs as a direct consequence of the failure by the United States to stand by its
obligations.  The EC had always considered that retaliation should be a last resort, but the persistinginaction of the United States had left the EC no other option.  The lack of compliance in this
straightforward case sent a worrying signal regarding the readiness of the United States to modify its
domestic law to comply with its WTO obligations.
5. The representative of Japan said that her delegation had taken note of the US status report and
the statement made by the United States at the present meeting.  It was another great disappointment
to Japan that the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this proceeding had
not yet taken place.  Japan had repeatedly requested the United States to have the legislation repealingthe 1916 Act passed during the first session of the 108th Congress.  It was also imperative that the
repealing legislation had the proper retroactive effect to terminate the pending cases, since the 1916
Act caused substantial damages to the respondent Japanese companies, including significant legal
costs.  Without any sign of progress, however, the end of the current Congressional session was near.
Prompt and proper implementation of the DSB's r ecommendations and rulings was critical for the
credibility of the WTO dispute settlement system.  Japan sincerely hoped that the United States would
agree on this.  The United States must report to the DSB in more detail how soon and in what manner
it intended to comply with the DSB's recommendations  and rulings, and must fulfill its obligation byWT/DSB/M/159
Page 3
promptly repealing the 1916 Act with proper retroactive effect.  Finally, while Japan was still
contemplating whether to reactivate the DSU Arti cle 22 arbitration, it also wished to remind the
United States of its right to suspend concessions or other obligations.
6. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular
meeting.
(b) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriat ions Act of 1998:  Status report by the
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.14)
7. The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS176/11/Add.14 which contained the status
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the
case concerning US Section 211 Om nibus Appropriations Act of 1998.
8. The representative of the United States said that her country had provided a status report in
this dispute on 20 November 2003, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The US
administration was continuing to work with the US  Congress with respect to appropriate statutory
measures that would resolve this matter.
9. The representative of the European Communitie s said that the deadline for implementation in
this case would expire at the end of the month, but it appeared that, once again, the United States
would not respect its obligation to comply.  The bill introduced in June 2003 offered a basis for
resolving this dispute to the benefit of all.  This bill would not only remove damaging special interestlegislation, but would also provide a whole scheme of measures that would ensure an effective
protection of intellectual property rights both in Cuba and in the United States.  This bill reaffirmed
the US attachment to ensure adequate protection of intellectual property rights, which should not be
affected by special interest legislation.
10. The representative of Cuba said that on 2 February 2002 the DSB had adopted the rulings and
recommendations in the dispute between the United  States and the EC relating to Section 211.
Although the United States had informed the DSB, at its meeting on 19 February 2002, that it had
intended to implement the recommendations and rulings contained in the Appellate Body Report and
had indicated that it would need a reasonable period of time for implementation, the fact was that
one year and nine months had passed since then without any effective solution.  Cuba – a WTOMember with a significant commercial interest in this case – had, throughout this period, shown
patience with regard to the two additional extensions of the implementation period initially
established by mutual agreement between the EC and the United States.  It should be pointed out that
despite the policy of strengthening the economic, commercial and financial blockade of Cuba pursued
by the United States for over 40 years, the intellectual property rights of US owners had beenrespected and duly protected in Cuba, in the same way as the rights of national owners of other WTO
Member had been protected without discrimination.  This was illustrated by 4,930 US trademarks that
were registered and protected by Cuba and more than 250 trademarks, which were in the process of
being registered.  Furthermore, in fulfilment of  the obligations imposed by international law with
regard to trademarks, Cuba maintained the protec tion of 15 trademarks belonging to the Bacardi
company, the promoter of the Helms-Burton Act and of Section 211, the purpose of which was to
steal the Havana Club trademark from its legitimate owners.
11. Although the United States claimed that it att ached particular importance to matters relating
to intellectual property rights and sought to present itself as its greatest defender, repeatedly
demanding the strict application of the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, it was very far from
maintaining an attitude of reciprocity and respect for the rights of Cuban nationals.  Section 211 of the
Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998, as an extension of the policy of United States of maintaining ablockade against Cuba with regard to intellectual  property, violated the m.f.n. and national treatment
principles, by establishing, on a discriminatory basis, that only Cuban nationals and the successors toWT/DSB/M/159
Page 4
the interests of Cuban nationals who were not US citizens were subject to this provision.  This view
had been endorsed by the findings of the Appellate Body in 2002.  Section 211 was not only
inconsistent with the intellectual property commitments accepted by the United States, but also with
US legislation for the protection of trademarks and trade names, since it conferred the additional
power, which was not recognized in that legislation, of giving the original owner of a trademark who
had legally relinquished it, the right to agree or not to the registration or renewal of a trademark byanother.  Cuba called, once again, upon the United States to implement the DSB's recommendations
before 31 December 2003 and to do so effectively:  i.e. by repealing Section 211.  In this regard, she
referred to what had been stated by Cuba's Foreign Minister, Felipe Pérez Roque, in his statement to
the UN General Assembly on 4 November 2003, namely that:  "a dispute over trademarks and patents
with Cuba should be of no interest to the Government of the United States of America".
12. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed
 to revert to this matter at its next regular
meeting.
(c) United States – Anti-dumping measures on ce rtain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:
Status report by the Unit ed States (WT/DS184/15/Add.14)
13. The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.14 which contained the status
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the
case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan.
14. The representative of the United States said that her country had provided a status report in
this dispute on 20 November 2003, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The US
administration continued to work with the US C ongress to address the recommendations and rulings
of the DSB that had not been addressed by the original deadline of 23 November 2002, and was
working in support of specific legislative amendments that would do so.  She noted that Membersmight be aware that the United States had proposed that the reasonable period for implementation be
modified to end on 31 July 2004, and had requested a DSB meeting for 10 December 2003 in this
connection.
15. The representative of Japan said that her country regretted and expressed its serious concern
that the United States had reported no specific action towards full implementation in this case.  In
April 2003, the US administration pledged to support specific statutory changes necessary for
compliance.  This fact notwithstanding, the first session of the 108th Congress would be over very
soon without any bills actually introduced.  Japan, once again, strongly urged the United States to
make every effort to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings as soon as possible.  Japan
looked forward to being further consulted by the United States on its concrete plan forimplementation.
16. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed
 to revert to this matter at its next regular
meeting.
(d) Chile – Price band system and safeguard measures relating to certain agricultural products:
Status report by Chile (WT/DS207/15/Add.2)
17. The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS207/15/Add.2, which contained the status
report by Chile on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the case
concerning price band system and safeguard measures relating to certain agricultural products.
18. The representative of Chile said that, pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU, his country had
submitted its third status report on its progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations
and rulings in this dispute.  As stated in the written report, a range of measures had been adopted to
date by Chile, which reflected the DSB's recommendations or rulings in both the form and theWT/DSB/M/159
Page 5
content.  With regard to two of the products at is sue in this dispute, wheat and wheat flour, these
measures would enter into force on 16 December 2003.  The other products at issue, namely, edible
vegetable oils, had been excluded from the price band system as from 25 September 2003.
19. The representative of Argentina said that, in its third status report on progress in the
implementation of the DSB's recommendations in this dispute, Chile had, once again, stated that its
price band system had been brought into line with the DSB's recommendations by way ofLaw 19,897, supplemented by Supreme Decree No. 831 of the Ministry of Finance.  Chile had also
stated that these measures reflected the DSB's reco mmendations both in the form and the content.  In
the light of the above, Argentina could not but reiterate that this legislation – Law 19,897,
supplemented by Supreme Decree No. 831 of the Mi nistry of Finance – had failed to bring the
measure found to be inconsistent into conformity  with the DSB's recommendations.  The reason being
that, as Argentina had stated at the DSB meetings on 2 October and 7 November 2003, the
inconsistency was in the very fact of maintaining such a system.  For this reason, Argentina, once
again, wished to express its dissatisfaction with the measures adopted by Chile and reserved its rights
under the DSU, in particular the possibility of reque sting the initiation of negotiations with a view to
developing mutually acceptable compensation. In this respect, Argentina hereby reiterated the
importance that it had accorded to the search for alte rnative solutions before the end of the reasonable
period of time for compliance to which Chile was entitled pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  Asindicated in previous statements, it was Argentina's in tention to ensure that th is search for alternative
solutions was conducted in the spirit of cooperation which had always characterized a bilateral
relationship between the two countries.
20. The representative of Brazil said that his country had participated as a third party in this
dispute.  He said that it seemed that a new meas ure taken by Chile maintained the elements found by
the Appellate Body to be inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Brazil was
closely following Chile's implementation and hoped that its measures would not maintain certain
specific characteristics such as a lack of transparency of the price band system, the unpredictability of
the level of duties and automaticity, the frequency and the extent to which duties fluctuated.  Brazil
hoped that these elements would not be maintained  in any implementing measures to be taken by
Chile.
21. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular
meeting.
2. European Communities – Measures concerning meat and meat products (Hormones)
(a) Statement by the European Communities
22. The Chairman said that this item was on the agenda of the present meeting at the request of
the European Communities.
23. The representative of the European Communitie s said that at the 7 November DSB meeting,
the United States and Canada had declared that they considered that the measures taken by the EC to
comply with the Hormones rulings were still not WTO-consistent.  Moreover, they had officially
stated their intentions to maintain the suspension of  concessions in relation to the EC's exports.  In the
EC's view, this was a patent case of "disagreement as to the existence or consistency with a coveredagreement of measures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB", as
described in Article 21.5 of the DSU.  It was cl ear that an adjudicatory procedure would have to
decide on this disagreement.  The EC considered that Canada and the United States should initiate
multilateral procedures to determine whether the EC was in compliance.  The EC was ready to discuss
with them more in detail on how to address this matter appropriately.WT/DSB/M/159
Page 6
24. The representative of Canada said that, at the 7 November DSB meeting, Canada had put
forward a suggestion for bilateral discussions concerni ng the justification for the EC's position that it
had complied with the WTO ruling.  However, the EC had not responded to Canada's suggestion for
further bilateral discussions.  Canada said that it was for the EC to establish that it had complied with
the WTO rulings and continued to be open to discussions with the EC regarding its justification for its
position.  At this point, however, Canada did not see any basis for the removal of its retaliationmeasures nor for taking any other action.
25. The representative of the United States said that she would transmit the statement made by the
EC at the present meeting to her authorities for their consideration.  As had been explained at the
7 November DSB meeting, the United States failed to see how the revised EC measure could be
considered to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this matter.  The United States
had always been ready to discuss with the EC any matters regarding its compliance with the DSB's
recommendations and rulings.  The United States wo uld be pleased to discuss with EC officials any
outstanding issues regarding the EC's ban on certain beef produced in the United States, including
their reactions to the detailed points that the Un ited States had raised in its statement at the
7 November DSB meeting.  With regard to the sugge stion made by the EC at the present meeting that
multilateral proceedings be initiated, the United States would be happy to discuss this suggestion with
the EC along with other procedural options.
26. The DSB took note of the statements.
3. United States – Countervailing measures concerning certain products from the
European Communities
(a) Statement by the European Communities
27. The Chairman said that this item was on the agenda of the present meeting at the request of
the European Communities.
28. The representative of the European Communities said that the EC would like to reiterate its
concern with the treatment of the four "sunset review" cases where the US Department of Commerce,
despite the clear WTO ruling, had refused to examine the nature of the privatizations which meant
that measures would remain in force.  More generally and more importantly, the EC noted that in thecase under dispute, the Department of Commerce had taken the position that once a privatization had
been found to take place for a price below market value, the whole of the subsidy passed through to
the privatized firm, and not just an amount in proportion to the under-pricing of the firm.  This
basically assumed that the firm in question had been given away for free.  The EC had serious doubts
on the WTO compatibility of this aspect of the US  methodology.  Discussions were ongoing between
DG Trade and the Department of Commerce to explore the possibility for a mutually acceptable
solution.  However, the EC reserved its rights to initiate compliance proceedings.
29. The representative of the United States said that, as her delegation had indicated at the
7 November DSB meeting, the United States had complied with the DSB's recommendations and
rulings in this dispute.  The United States was disappointed to hear that the EC had some concerns
regarding some of the revised determinations.  The United States would be happy to discuss with the
EC possible approaches to the EC's concerns.  In this, as in all disputes, the United States was alwaysopen to discussions aimed at solving, rather than litigating, problems.
30. The representative of Brazil said that his country had participated as a third party in this
dispute.  Brazil's companies were also "victims" of the application of the inconsistent methodology.
They now had to wait for the legal opportunity to request a revision of this methodology, a delay
which entailed further export losses and additional costs to demonstrate before the Department ofCommerce what the Appellate Body had already declared to be WTO-inconsistent.  Brazil was alsoWT/DSB/M/159
Page 7
concerned that some of the new factors established by the Department of Commerce to determine
whether market distortions existed at the time of privatization might be overly broad and might
unfairly influence the presumption of a fair market value.
31. The DSB took note of the statements.
4. United States – Countervailing duty investigation on dynamic random access memory
semiconductors (DRAMS) from Korea
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Korea (WT/DS296/2)
32. The Chairman drew attention to the communication from Korea contained in document
WT/DS296/2.
33. The representative of Korea said that his country had serious concerns regarding the
provisional countervailing duties and final countervailing duty order imposed by the United States on
7 April and 11 August 2003, respectively, against dynamic random access memory semiconductors
(DRAMS) originating in Korea.  Since Korea considered these measures by the US Department ofCommerce and the ITC to be inconsistent with the United States' obligations under the relevant
provisions of the GATT 1994 and the SCM Agreement, Korea had requested consultations with the
United States regarding these determinations pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU, Article 30 of the SCM
Agreement and Article XXII of the GATT 1994.  These consultations had been held with the United
States on 20 August 2003 and on 1 October 2003, but had been unable to resolve the dispute betweenthe parties.  Korea believed that the panel would find that the United States had acted inconsistently
with its obligations under Articles 1, 2, 10, 12, 14, 15, 19, 22 and 32 of the SCM Agreement, as well
as Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994.  Accordingly, Korea requested the establishment of a panel
pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, and Article 30 of the SCM
Agreement regarding the Department of Commerce and ITC determinations and the resultingcountervailing duty order imposed on DRAMS from Korea with the standard terms of reference under
Article 7 of the DSU.
34. The representative of the United States said that her country was disappointed that Korea had
chosen to pursue this matter further by requesting the establishment of a panel.  The United States was
also surprised that Korea had chosen to pursue this matter in light of the overwhelming evidenceregarding the Korean Government's subsidizati on of the troubled Korean DRAMS producer, Hynix.
Specifically, the Korean Government directed banks and other institutions to provide financing to
Hynix on non-commercial terms.  For example, Woori Finance Holdings Co. Ltd. was a Korean
financial institution whose affiliated companies were involved in the Hynix bail-out.  Korea would
have the United States believe that those companies made their financing choices wholly on the basisof commercial considerations.  However, in the prospectus that Woori had filed with the US
Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the filing requirements of the US Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Woori explained to investors how the Korean Government could distort a
company's investment decisions: "Through its policy guidelines and recommendations, the Korean
government has promoted and, as a matter of policy, may continue to attempt to promote lending by
the Korean financial industry to particular types of  borrowers.  For example, the Korean government
has in the past announced policy guidelines requesting financial institutions to participate in remedialprograms for troubled corporate borrowers ... .  [T]hese or any future government policies may
influence us to lend to certain sectors or in a manner in which we otherwise would not in the absence
of that policy."  Essentially, what Woori was tell ing potential investors who read that prospectus was
that in the past, the Korean Government had pressu red financial institutions like Woori to provide
support to particular companies on non-commercial terms, and that the Government might directWoori do so again in the future. In light of statem ents like these, claims by the Korean Government
that it had not directed financing to Hynix rang hollow.  The United States firmly believed that theWT/DSB/M/159
Page 8
determinations Korea sought to challenge were supported by evidence and were otherwise fully
consistent with the WTO obligations of the United States.
35. Turning from substance to procedure, the United States believed that Korea's panel request
was deficient in that it sought to cover matters on which the parties had not consulted.  Specifically,
with respect to the preliminary injury determination by the US International Trade Commission and
the US Department of Commerce's countervailing duty order, Korea had never identified theprovisions of the SCM Agreement (or any other WT O Agreement, for that matter) with which these
actions had been allegedly inconsistent.  As a result, with respect to these two actions, Korea's
consultation request failed to indicate the "legal basis for the complaint", as it was required to do by
Article 4.4 of the DSU.  The United States had pointed out these problems to Korea in a timely
manner.  Korea could have fixed the problems and made consultations possible simply by submitting
a new request for consultations identifying the WTO provisions with which the two US actions were
asserted to be inconsistent.  However, Korea had refused to do so.  For the foregoing reasons, theUnited States was not in a position to agree to the establishment of a panel.
36. The representative of Korea said that first he wished respond to the procedural aspects raised
by the United States at the present meeting.  He noted that any procedural objections that the United
States might have with regard to Korea's panel request, could be addressed before the Panel.  Nothing
in the DSU required the identity between a request for consultations and a request for panelestablishment.  To the extent that parties had actually consulted a claim or a measure, the claim or
measure was legitimately the subject of a request for panel establishment even if it was not included
in the request for consultations.  With regard to the legal basis of Korea’s request for panel
establishment, the DSU required Korea's request for es tablishment to be in writing, to identify the
specific measures at issue, and to provide a brief summary of the legal basis of its complaint.  Korea
had met all of these requirements. With respect to the measures at issue, Korea’s request identified
"determinations" by the Department of Commerce and the ITC.  These determinations made up the
order.  The request specifically offered citations for those determinations.  It provided specific
citations to the Department of Commerce's provisional and final determinations in the Federal
Register, as well as to its decision memorandum.  The request also provided a specific citation to theITC's material injury determination in the Federal Register, and to the ITC's report.
37. With regard to the substantive aspects of the US statement, it was true that the stakes of the
Korean Government in the financial institutions had increased as a result of the Asian financial crisis
and the consequent financial restructuring.  As discussed in the course of the consultations, however,
the financial institutions had acted in accordance with commercial considerations or calculations.  Hisdelegation did not believe that Korea's arguments in this regard would sound hollow to the panel.
38. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed
 to revert to this matter.
5. European Communities – Countervailing measures on dynamic random access memory
chips from Korea
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Korea (WT/DS299/2)
39. The Chairman drew attention to the communication from Korea contained in document
WT/DS299/2.
40. The representative of Korea said that his country, once again, had similar serious concerns to
those raised under the previous agenda item regarding the provisional and definitive countervailing
duties on imports of dynamic random access memory semiconductors (DRAMS) originating in Korea
imposed in this instance by the EC on 24 April and 22 August 2003 respectively.  Since Korea
considered the provisional and definitive countervailing duties imposed by the EC against DRAMSfrom Korea to be inconsistent with the EC's ob ligations under the relevant provisions of theWT/DSB/M/159
Page 9
GATT 1994, and the SCM Agreement, it had requested consultations with the EC regarding these
measures pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU, Article 30 of the SCM Agreement, and Article XXII of
the GATT 1994.  Consultations had been held with the EC on 21 August and 8 October 2003.  These
consultations, however, had failed to resolve the dispute between the parties.  The Government of
Korea believed that the panel would find that the EC had acted inconsistently with its obligations
under Articles 1, 2, 10, 12, 14, 15, 19, 22 and 32 of the SCM Agreement, as well as Article VI:3 ofthe GATT 1994.  Accordingly, Korea was requesting the establishment of a panel pursuant to
Article 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, and Article 30 of the SCM Agreement
regarding the EC's provisional and definitive countervailing measures against DRAMS from Korea
with the standard terms of reference pursuant to Article 7 of the DSU.
41. The representative of the European Communities said that the issue of the Korean subsidies
and their impact on the semiconductor market had been discussed almost exhaustively between the
EC and Korea in the context of the countervailing  duty investigation.  Moreover, the EC had supplied
to Korea further explanations of its measures in the context of two rounds of consultations in Geneva.
The EC regretted to see that Korea still wished to pursue this dispute in the WTO.  In the light of the
above, the EC did not agree to the establishment of the panel requested by Korea at the present
meeting.
42. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter.
6. Adoption of the 2003 draft Annual Report of the DSB (WT/DSB/W/244 and Add.1)
43. The Chairman said that in pursuance of the procedures for an annual overview of WTO
activities and for reporting under the WTO contained in document WT/L/105, he was submitting for
adoption a draft text of the 2003 Annual Report of the DSB contained in document WT/DSB/W/244
and Add.1.  This report covered the work of the DSB since the previous Annual Report contained inWT/DSB/29 and Add.1 and Corr.1, which had subse quently been updated in document WT/DSB/34
to cover work in the first half of 2003 until 24 June.  For practical purposes, the overview of the state
of play of WTO disputes covering the period from 1 January 1995 to 31 October 2003, prepared by
the Secretariat on its own responsibility, was included in the addendum to this report.  He said that at
the present meeting, he wished to propose that following the adoption of the Annual Report, the
Secretariat be authorized to update this Report under its own responsibility in order to include actions
taken by the DSB at the 21 November meeting as well as at the present meeting.  The updated Annual
Report of the DSB would then be submitted for consideration by the General Council at its meeting
on 15 December.  Finally, it was his understanding that the Secretariat had received some comments
of a typographical nature on the draft Annual Report , which would be taken into account in the final
version of the Annual Report.
44. The DSB took note of the statement and adopted  the draft Annual Report contained in
WT/DSB/W/244 and Add.1 on the understanding that it would be further updated by the Secretariat. 1
__________
                                                     
1 The Annual Report was subsequently circulated in document WT/DSB/35 and Add.1.