RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/336  
 
6 November 2013  
(13-6127)  Page: 1/18  
Dispute Settlement Body 
30 August 2013    
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD 
ON 30 AUGUST 2013 
Chairman: Mr. Jonathan Fried (Canada) 
Table of Contents 
1   SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB ....................................................................................................................... .... 2 
A.  United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998: Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. 2  
B.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by  the United States ............................................................................ 5  
C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by 
the United States  ............................................................................................................ . 6 
D.  European Communities – Measures affect ing the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by  the European  Union ..................................................................... 6  
E.  Thailand – Customs and fiscal measures on cigarettes from the Philippines: Status 
report by Thailand ............................................................................................................  7 
F.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status 
report by the Unit ed States  ............................................................................................... 8  
2   UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 
2000: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMME NDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB ................ 8  
A.  Statements by the Eu ropean Union and Japan .................................................................. 8  
3   UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING THE CROSS-BORDER SUPPLY OF 
GAMBLING AND BETTI NG SERVICES ................................................................................ 9  
A.  Statement by Antigua and Barbuda regarding the implementation of the 
recommendations and ruling s adopted by the DSB ................................................................ 9  
4   UNITED STATES – MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION, MARKETING 
AND SALE OF TUNA AND TUNA PRODUCTS ..................................................................... 12  
A.  Statement by Mexico ................................................................................................... 12 
5   CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-
PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION ......................................................................................................... 13
 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Union ........................................ 13 
6   COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING  TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, 
APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR .............................................................................................. 14  
A.  Request for the establishm ent of a panel by Panama ........................................................ 14 WT/DSB/M/336 
 
- 2 - 
 
  7   UNITED STATES – CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING (COOL) 
REQUIREMEN TS ............................................................................................................. 15  
A.  Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada: Request for the establishment 
of a pa nel .................................................................................................................... ... 15 
B.  Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Mexico: Request for the establishment 
of a panel  ................................................................................................................... ... 15 
8   CHINA – COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON GRAIN 
ORIENTED FLAT-ROLLED ELECTRICAL ST EEL FROM THE UNITED STATES ...................... 17  
A.  Statement by China ..................................................................................................... 17 
9   STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN RE GARDING SOME MATTERS RELATED TO 
THE APPELLATE BODY .................................................................................................... 17  
10   STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN REGARDING THE ANNUAL REPORT OF 
THE DSB FOR 2013 ......................................................................................................... 18  
 
 1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB 
A.  United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998: Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.129)  
B.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.129)  C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.104) 
 D.  European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.67) 
 E.  Thailand – Customs and fiscal measures on cigarettes from the Philippines: Status report by 
Thailand (WT/DS371/15/Add.16) 
 F .   U n i t e d  S t a t e s  –  A n t i - d u m p i n g  m e a s u r e s  o n  c e r t a i n  s h r i m p  f r o m  V i e t  N a m :  S t a t u s  r e p o r t  b y  the United States (WT/DS404/11/Add.15) 
 
 1.1.  The Chairman noted that there were six su b-items under this Agenda item, which referred to 
status reports submitted by various delegations pu rsuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU. He recalled 
that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that the issue of implementation of recommendations and 
rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DS B meeting after six months following the date of 
establishment of the reasonable period of time and shall remain on the DSB's Agenda until the 
issue was resolved. Once again, he called on delegations to provide informative and up-to-date information about compliance efforts, and to o ffer constructive comments on new developments, 
suggestions and ideas for progress towards the resolution of disputes. With these introductory 
remarks as the guiding philosophy, the Chairman proposed to turn to the first status report on the 
Agenda of the present meeting. 
A.  United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appr opriations Act of 1998: Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.129) 
1.2.  The Chairman drew attention to docu ment WT/DS176/11/Add.129, 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 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998. 
1.3.  The representative of the United States said  that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 19 August 2013, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As noted in the US 
status report, at least five bills had been introduced in the current Congress in relation to the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB. These included H.R. 214, H.R. 778, H.R. 872, H.R. 873, WT/DSB/M/336 
 
- 3 - 
 
  and S. 647. The US Administration would continue  to work on solutions to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. 
1.4.  The representative of the European Union sa id that the EU thanked the United States for its 
most recent status report and statement made at the present meeting. The EU hoped that the US 
authorities would very soon take steps towards implementing the DSB's ruling and resolve this 
matter. 
1.5.  The representative of Cuba said that her co untry noted that the most recent US status report 
only confirmed that the United States had not taken any action to comply with its obligations in 
this dispute. Non-compliance on the part of the United States in this dispute had continued for the past 11 years. Powerful political and economic interests were preventing the United States from implementing the recommendations and rulings adopted by the DSB in February 2002 in the 
Section 211 dispute. On 2 August 2013, the Cuban newspaper Granma had published an article on 
this matter entitled: "La Sucia Guerra del Ron"(The  Rum Dirty War). Granma revealed that the US 
company Bacardi had spent about US$3 million over five years, from 1998 to 2003, to take over 
the Havana Club trademark. In his book entitled "Bacardí y la Larga Lucha por Cuba" (Bacardi and 
the Long Struggle for Cuba), journalist Tom Gjelten had revealed that George W. Bush, at the request of his brother Jeb Bush, had violated international laws including WTO rules and US rules 
recognized by the US Patent and Trademark Office, to use the Havana Club trademark in US 
territory and to sell a supposed Cuban rum. All of  this had been encouraged by well-known Cuban 
exiles and perpetrators of terrorist acts against Cuba such as Pepín Bosch. The Cuban rum trademark war had intensified after the success of the Havana Club Holdings (HCH) company, 
which had been founded in 1993 between the French  company Pernod Ricard and Cuba Ron S.A. 
and whose sales had doubled in the first four ye ars. In 1996, the Franco Cuban company HCH had 
won a lawsuit against Bacardi Martini in a New York court for infringement of the trademark that 
had been registered by Cuba and had been approv ed by the US Patent and Trademark Office since 
1976. In response, Bacardi had continued its plan in 1997 and, among several actions, had succeeded in getting the US Congress to pass a new law, with retroactive effect, to cancel the 
registration of the trademark by the Cuban company CUBAEXPORT in 1976. Section 211 had thus 
been added as an amendment to the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998.  
1.6.  The non-compliance by the United States in  this dispute served the interests of the Miami 
based anti-Cuban faction and its allies in the US Congress, who received considerable financial 
contributions from the Bacardi company in return for ensuring that no changes were made to the 
legislation that provided legal protection for the actions aimed at usurping the trademark of this famous Cuban rum. However, Cuba found it unacceptable that the commitment of the US 
Congress to the magnates and manoeuvring politi cians prevailed over its responsibility to 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Neither was there any justification for the United States to allow its foreign policy priorities towards Cuba to take precedence over its 
obligations under the system of rules that the re st of the WTO Membership respected. As there 
was no excuse for this illegal conduct, Cuba would continue to denounce the US violations, which reflected its customary and proven disregard for th e rules and principles that had been established 
by the international community and international law. Cuba reiterated that the only satisfactory 
solution to this dispute was the full repeal of Section 211. 
1.7.  The Chairman noted that there was a long lis t of speakers under this Agenda item and called 
on delegations to provide suggestions on constructive paths to resolution of this dispute.  
1.8.  The representative of China said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and the statement made at the present meeting. As it had stated at previous DSB 
meetings, China believed that the prolonged situat ion of non-compliance in this dispute was highly 
incompatible with the prompt implementation required under the DSU provisions, in particular 
since the interests of a developing-country Member  were affected. China joined other Members in 
urging the United States to implement the DSB's rulings and recommendations without further delay. 
1.9.  The representative of Brazil said that hi s country thanked the United States for its status 
report regarding implementation in this dispute. Brazil noted that, once again, the United States 
did not report on any progress. Brazil remained concerned about this situation of non-compliance 
with the DSB's recommendations and urged the United States to bring its measures into 
conformity with WTO rules. WT/DSB/M/336 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.10.  The representative of Jamaica said that her country thanked the parties to this dispute for 
the status report and updates. Jamaica, once again, joined other delegations in registering its 
concern about the prolonged non-compliance by the United States in implementing the DSB's recommendations and rulings on Section 211. Jamaica believed that the US failure to comply with 
its obligations was incompatible with the requirement of prompt and effective implementation of 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings as stipulated in the DSU provisions, in particular since the interests of a developing-country Member were affected. Jamaica was also concerned about the 
systemic implications of such non-compliance, in particular since it related to the overall credibility 
of the dispute settlement system and the percei ved overall efficiency of the WTO. Jamaica, 
therefore, reiterated its long-standing position on this matter and joined other delegations in urging the United States to take all the necessary measures to implement the relevant DSB's 
recommendations and rulings without further delay. 
1.11.  The representative of India said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and statement made at the present meeting. India noted that there was no change in the 
situation and, once again, stressed that the prin ciple of prompt compliance was missing in this 
dispute. India renewed its systemic concern about the situation of continued non-compliance, as this undermined the credibility and the confiden ce that Members reposed in the system. India 
urged the United States to report full complia nce in this dispute without any further delay. 
1.12.  The representative of Argentina said that his country thanked the United States for its 
status report and its statement made at the pr esent meeting. Argentina regretted that the US 
status report and the US statement did not provide any substantive information and only 
reiterated that relevant draft legislation had been introduced in the US Congress, as mentioned in 
the previous four DSB meetings. As Argentina had stated several times before, this lack of progress was inconsistent with the principle of prompt and effective compliance stipulated in the 
DSU provisions, in particular since the interests of a developing-country Member were affected. 
Argentina, therefore, joined the request by Cuba as well as the previous speakers and called on the parties to the dispute, in particular the United States, to take the necessary measures so as to 
remove this item from the DSB's Agenda. 
1.13.  The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela said that his country, once again, 
supported Cuba, a developing-country Member that had challenged the inconsistency of 
Section 211. The DSB had adopted its recommendations and rulings on Section 211, however, the 
United States had not yet complied. The situation of non-compliance not only affected Cuba but 
also set a negative precedent for the credibility of the WTO and its ability to solve disputes. Venezuela, therefore, urged the United States to  end this non-compliance and to report on the 
measures it intended to take to terminate this dispute. 
1.14.  The representative of Nicaragua said that his country, once again, supported Cuba's position 
in this dispute with regard to the rights of Cu ban owners of the Havana Club Rum trademark. The 
US status report, which had been submitted for more than 11 years, did not offer any concrete 
steps towards the implementation of the DSB's recommendations. Nicaragua, therefore, once again urged the United States to reconsider its unilateral economic policy against Cuba, which had a negative impact on its economy. As it had already stated on previous occasions, Nicaragua was 
concerned that the US failure to comply with its obligations undermined the credibility and 
effectiveness of the DSB and the multilateral trad ing system. It could also set a precedent that 
could affect other Members, in particular developing countries. Nicaragua hoped that the US 
authorities would introduce the necessary legislative reforms without delay so as to comply with 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
1.15.  The representative of El Salvador said that her country thanked the United States for its 
status report. El Salvador joined previous speake rs in expressing its concern about the lack of 
compliance in this dispute, in particular since the interests of a developing-country Member were affected. El Salvador was also concerned that lack  of compliance affected the multilateral trading 
system. El Salvador urged both parties to find a way of complying with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings so as to end this prolonged dispute. 
1.16.  The representative of Mexico said that, on ce again, his country urged both parties to this 
dispute to take the necessary measures in orde r to comply with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings to the benefit of all Members, as  stipulated in Article 21.1 of the DSU. WT/DSB/M/336 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.17.  The representative of South Africa said that her country thanked the United States for its 
status report, which did not report on any substantial progress since the previous DSB meetings 
with regard to this matter. South Africa, once again, joined the previous speakers in expressing its concern that no concrete progress had been made in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings with regard to Section 211. In that regard, South Africa referred to 
its previous statements made regarding its concern about the systemic effects of non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. South Africa was also concerned about the negative 
impact on the economic interests of a developing-country Member. South Africa, therefore, urged 
the United States to bring its legislation into compliance with the DSB's rulings and recommendations. 
1.18.  The representative of Ecuador said that his country supported the statement made by Cuba 
at the present meeting. Ecuador stressed, once again, that Article 21 of the DSU specifically 
referred to prompt compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings, in particular since the interests of a developing-country Member were affected. Ecuador hoped that the United States 
would step up its efforts in order to promptly comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
by repealing Section 211. In Ecuador's view, the non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute, which had lasted for a long period of time, demonstrated that the WTO 
dispute settlement system had a major shortcoming.   
1.19.  The representative of Uruguay said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report on Section 211. Uruguay regretted that the situation in this dispute had not changed and, 
therefore, urged the United States to implement the DSB's recommendations, as stipulated in 
Article 21 of the DSU, so as to remove this item from the DSB's Agenda. 
1.20.  The representative of Viet Nam said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report. Viet Nam noted that more than ten years had passed since the DSB had adopted its 
recommendations in this dispute. However, the United States had not taken any action to 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Viet Nam, once again, urged the United States to respect the DSB's recommendations so as to up hold the rule of law for the benefit of Cuba, a 
developing-country Member. 
1.21.  The representative of the Dominican Republic said that his country thanked the 
United States for its status report on the im plementation of the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings regarding the inconsistency of Section 211 with Article 42 of the TRIPS Agreement. The 
Dominican Republic, once again, urged the United States to take the necessary internal steps in 
order to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. The prolonged situation of non-compliance undermined the credibility of the WTO.   
1.22.  The Chairman said that delegations had he ard an update from the United States and noted 
that 17 delegations had intervened on this matter. He said that delegations should reflect on ways 
in which they could, at the next meeting, have a forward-looking discussion under this Agenda 
item.  
1.23.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. B.  United States – Anti-dumping measures  on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the Un ited States (WT/DS184/15/Add.129) 
1.24.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.129, which contained the 
status report by the United States on pr ogress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel 
products from Japan. 
1.25.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 19 August 2013, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States had 
addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of anti-dumping margins in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumping duty investigation at issue in this dispute. With respect to the recommendations and rulings of th e DSB that had yet to be addressed, the US WT/DSB/M/336 
 
- 6 - 
 
  Administration would work with the US Congress with respect to appropriate statutory measures 
that would resolve this matter. 
1.26.  The representative of Japan said that his country thanked the United States for its 
statement and status report submitted on 19 Augu st 2013. Since the content of the report had not 
changed from the previous report, Japan's positi on had not changed either as expressed at the 
previous meetings. 
1.27.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. C.  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS160/24/Add.104) 
1.28.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.104, which contained the 
status report by the United States on pr ogress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act. 
1.29.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 19 August 2013, in accordance with  Article 21.6 of the DSU. The US Administration 
would continue to confer with the EU, and to work closely with the US Congress, in order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter. 
1.30.  The representative of the European Union sa id that the EU thanked the United States for its 
status report and its statement made at the pr esent meeting. The EU referred to its previous 
statements to the effect that it would wish to resolve this dispute as soon as possible. 
1.31.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. D.  European Communities – Measures affect ing the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the Eu ropean Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.67) 
1.32.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.67, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on pr ogress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of 
biotech products. 
1.33.  The representative of the European Union said that the EU, once again, hoped that it would 
continue on the constructive path of dialogue with the United States. In recent DSB meetings, the 
EU had already reported on authorization decisions that had been taken in 2012. Most recently, on 
25 June 2013, the Commission had authorized three versions of oilseed rape products1, following 
the absence of an opinion from the Appeal Committ ee. The details were set out in the EU's written 
statement. In July 2013, the Appeal Committ ee had voted on three authorization decisions2, 
rendering no opinion. The Commission would move to adopt them in the near future. As it had 
been stated many times before, the EU recalled that its approval system was not covered by the DSB's recommendations and rulings. The GMO regulatory regime was working normally as 
evidenced by the approval decisions just mentioned.  
1.34.  The representative of the United States said that his country thanked the EU for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meetin g. As the United States had explained at past 
meetings of the DSB, the United States had substantial concerns regarding EU measures affecting 
the approval of biotech products. At the present meeting, the United States would recall the DSB's 
findings that EU member State bans on biotech varieties approved at the EU-level were inconsistent with the EU's obligations under the SPS Agreement.
3 Those findings included EU 
member State bans on the only variety of biotech corn, known as MON810, that had been 
                                               
1 Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8xRf3. 
2 Maize stack events MON89034 x 1507 x MON88017 x 59122 and GM maize MON89034×1507×NK603 
as well as GM maize MON810 pollen. 
3 Panel Report, European Communit ies – Measures Affect ing the Approval and Marketing of Biotech 
Products, WT/DS291/R, adopted 21 November 2006, paras. 8.24, 8.28.   WT/DSB/M/336 
 
- 7 - 
 
  approved for cultivation in the EU. Despite the DSB's findings that EU member State bans on 
M O N 8 1 0  w e r e  i n  b r e a c h  o f  t h e  E U ' s  W T O  o b l i g a t i o n s ,  s e v e r a l  E U  m e m b e r  S t a t e s  c o n t i n u e d  t o  maintain bans on this biotech product. For example, as the United States had noted at the April 2012 meeting of the DSB, France had renewed a ban on MON810 in March 2012. France had 
taken this action even though Mon810 had been ap proved by the EU, and had repeatedly received 
favourable safety assessments from the EU's own scientific authority. Earlier that month, a French court had recognized that France's ban on MON810 could not be justified. The United States urged 
the EU to take steps to ensure that France, as well as other EU member States, acted in 
accordance with the EU's own approval and the rece nt court decision by lifting all outstanding EU 
member State bans on MON810. As a result of EU delays, the EU measures affecting the approval of biotech products were causing substantial restrictions on trade. The United States urged the EU 
to take steps to address these problems.   
1.35.  The representative of the European Union said that the EU wished to underline that the 
alleged French ban on MON810 had not been addressed in the Panel Report. MON810 was a 
product currently under renewal procedure under the GMO legislation and the EU was reflecting on 
the most appropriate course of action within that framework. 
1.36.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. E.  Thailand – Customs and fiscal measures  on cigarettes from the Philippines: Status 
report by Thailand (WT/DS371/15/Add.16) 
1.37.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS371/15/Add.16, which contained the 
status report by Thailand on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning Thailand's customs and fiscal measures on cigarettes from the Philippines. 
1.38.  The representative of Thailand said that, as indicated in its most recent status report, 
Thailand was continuing to provide additional technical information regarding its implementation, 
as requested by the Philippines during the informal bilateral consultations held in Bangkok in May 2013. Thailand had provided additional confidential information that week, thereby completing 
its response to the Philippines' requests for information regarding the technical issues in this 
dispute. Thailand remained at the Philippines' disposal to answer any further questions the Philippines may have regarding this information. Th ailand was also ready to respond to any further 
requests the Philippines may have regarding any matters of concern that had not been part of the 
original Panel's findings. Thailand looked forward to continuing its discussions with the Philippines 
and to resolving this matter in an amicable manner. 
1.39.  The representative of the Philippines said that his country thanked Thailand for its status 
report and for its statement made at the present meeting. Members were aware of the Philippines' 
continued concerns with Thailand's implementati on of the DSB's rulings and recommendations in 
this case. Members had also witnessed the Philippines' tireless efforts to resolve these issues on a 
bilateral level in order to avoid having to return to litigation. As part of that process, Thailand had 
recently submitted outstanding information that had been promised to the Philippines at the 
bilateral meeting in Bangkok in early May 2013. The Philippines regretted the time it had taken for that information to be provided. The information, which had also been withheld from the importer 
concerned, was relevant in assessing whether one of Thailand's reported implementation measures 
was in conformity with the Customs Valuation Agreement. The Philippines would assess the information promptly. The Philippines also noted that this new information regarding a measure 
taken to comply concerned just one of the outstanding implementation issues that the Philippines 
had raised with Thailand. As the Philippines had noted in June 2013, other issues included the 
ongoing criminal investigations by Thai authorities against a Thai importer of cigarettes from the 
Philippines, Philip Morris Thailand Limited, Thaila nd Branch, regarding alleged under-declaration of 
customs values, which potentially carried criminal fines and imprisonment.  
1.40.  The representative of Thailand said th at her country understood the Philippines concern 
regarding the ongoing investigations under Thai law to the extent that those investigations 
involved Thailand's obligations under the WTO law. Thailand would strive to ensure that it acted in 
a WTO-consistent manner. WT/DSB/M/336 
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.41.  The Chairman welcomed the continued inte nsification of the dialogue between the parties 
with a view to an amicable resolution of this dispute.  
1.42.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
F.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS404/11/Add.15) 
1.43.  The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS404/11/Add.15, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning US an ti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from 
Viet Nam. 
1.44.  The representative of the United States said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 19 August 2013, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. In February 2012, the 
US Department of Commerce had published a modification to its procedures in order to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings regarding th e use of "zeroing" in anti-dumping reviews. 
That modification addressed certain findings in this dispute. In June 2012, the USTR had 
requested, pursuant to Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, that the Department of Commerce take action necessary to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute. The United States would continue to consult with interested parties as it worked to 
address the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. 
1.45.  The representative of Viet Nam said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeting. As Members were aware, the reasonable 
period of time, agreed by the parties to this dispute, had expired 13 months ago. However, the 
United States had not taken any action to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Viet Nam expressed its systemic concerns about the US non-compliance with its obligations. Once 
again, Viet Nam urged the United States to implement, without any further delay, the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings, in particular to revoke the anti-dumping duty that was inconsistent with WTO rules and to uphold the multilateral trade rules for the benefit of Viet Nam's exporters.  
1.46.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela said that his country supported 
Viet Nam's concerns regarding the need for the United States to adopt the necessary measures 
that would put an end to this dispute. 
1.47.  The representative of Cuba said that her country supported Viet Nam. Once again, Cuba 
condemned the fact that the information submitte d by the United States only referred to slow 
legislative procedures and that the United States had not reported on any action taken towards implementing the DSB's recommendations. Cuba noted that the non-compliance in this dispute 
continued and affected the economic and development interests of Viet Nam, a developing-country 
Member. Cuba, therefore, urged the United States to take effective measures in order to implement the DSB's rulings and to remove the measures that violated Viet Nam's rights.   
1.48.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
2  UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMME NDATIONS ADOPTE D BY THE DSB 
A.  Statements by the European Union and Japan 
2.1.  The Chairman said that this item was on th e Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Union and Japan. He then invited the respective representatives to speak. 
2.2.  The representative of the European Union sa id that, once again, the EU requested that the 
United States stop transferring anti-dumping an d countervailing duties to the US industry. Every 
disbursement that still took place was clearly an act of non-compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. The EU renewed its call on the United States to abide by its clear 
obligation under Article 21.6 of the DSU to submit status reports in this dispute. WT/DSB/M/336 
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.3.  The representative of Japan said that, since the distributions under the CDSOA had been 
continuing, Japan, once again, urged the United States to stop the illegal distributions so as to 
resolve this dispute. According to the increase of th e disbursement as a result of the ruling by a US 
domestic court, Japan would increase the scope of  the target goods from one to 13 products as 
well as the tariff rates from 4% to 17.4% for suspension of concessions and related obligations. 
The adjusted measure would be effective on 1 September 2013. Detailed information was contained in document WT/DS217/64. Japan was of the view that the United States was under 
obligation to provide the DSB with a status report in this dispute in accordance with Article 21.6 of 
the DSU. 
2.4.  The representative of India said that his country thanked the EU and Japan for regularly 
bringing this issue before the DSB and for their statements made at the present meeting. India 
shared their concerns and supported their views. India agreed that, until such time full compliance 
was achieved, this matter should continue to remain under the DSB's surveillance. 
2.5.  The representative of Canada said that his country thanked the EU and Japan for having once 
again placed this item on the DSB's Agenda. Canada shared their views that the Byrd Amendment 
should still be subject to monitoring by the DSB un til such time as the United States ceased to 
apply it. 
2.6.  The representative of Brazil said that hi s country thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda. As it had expressed at  previous DSB meetings, Brazil was of the view 
that the United States was under obligation to submit status reports in this dispute until such time that no more disbursements were made pursuant  to the Byrd Amendment. Only then would the 
issue be resolved within the meaning of the DSU an d the United States would be released from its 
obligation to provide status reports in this dispute. 
2.7.  The representative of Thailand said that her country thanked Japan and the EU for continuing 
to bring this item before the DSB. Thailand supported the statements made by the previous 
speakers and continued to urge the United States  to cease the disbursements and fully implement 
the DSB's rulings and recommendations on this matter. 
2.8.  The representative of the United States sa id that, as his country had explained at previous 
DSB meetings, the President had signed the Deficit Reduction Act into law on 8 February 2006. 
That Act included a provision repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. Thus, the United States had taken all actions ne cessary to implement the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings in these disputes. The United St ates recalled furthermore that Members had 
acknowledged during previous DSB meetings that  the 2006 Deficit Reduction Act did not permit 
the distribution of duties collected on goods entered after 1 October 2007. With respect to 
comments regarding further status reports in this matter, as it had already explained at previous 
DSB meetings, the United States failed to see what  purpose would be served by further submission 
of status reports repeating the progress the United States had made in the implementation of the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
2.9.  The DSB took note of the statements. 
3  UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING THE CROSS-BORDER SUPPLY OF GAMBLING 
AND BETTING SERVICES 
A.  Statement by Antigua and Barbuda regarding the implementation of the 
recommendations and rulings adopted by the DSB 
3.1.  The Chairman said that this item was on th e Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Antigua and Barbuda. It was his understanding that the representative of St. Lucia would make a 
statement on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda.  
3.2.  The representative of St. Lucia, speaking on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda, read out the 
following statement: "We are reading the statement pr epared by and on behalf of the delegation of 
Antigua and Barbuda, which has requested that this item be placed on the Agenda for today's meeting. First off, Antigua and Barbuda notes with increasing dismay that the United States continues to refuse to comply with its obligation under the DSU to provide a monthly status report WT/DSB/M/336 
 
- 10 - 
 
  to the DSB on its progress, or in this case, lack thereof, on its compliance with the 
recommendations and rulings of DBS in DS285. It seems that the United States somehow does not consider itself bound by the rules of the WTO when it comes to a dispute with a small and vulnerable country such as Antigua and Barbuda. Th at is indeed unfortunate and very hard for our 
country to comprehend, particularly given the oft-repeated statements of the United States 
insisting that other WTO Members comply with their obligations under the WTO agreements. With an irony that has sadly become routine, in just the past few days the USTR announced its intention 
to launch 'investigations' to assess whether certain other WTO Members 'are keeping their markets 
free of trade barriers in accordance with their commitments' under the WTO agreements. From where we sit, this statement beggars belief. Further, it goes without saying that the United States has failed to comply with the recommendations and rulings in DS285 and has made no meaningful 
effort to do so. One can just imagine if the situat ion were reversed and trade violations by Antigua 
and Barbuda had led to job losses for 5% of the population of the United States and loss of 
revenue equivalent to over 40% of GDP. We are inclined to believe that things may have played 
out a bit differently had such been the case. What  is troubling Antigua and Barbuda most at this 
point, however, is the singular and pronounced failu re of the United States to engage with Antigua 
and Barbuda in a meaningful way over the course of this dispute in a way that would bring a fair 
resolution of this matter. While we understand that the delegation from the United States is likely 
to claim to the contrary, the unvarnished truth is that the United States has utterly failed to sit down with Antigua and Barbuda and work with our country as an equal, to engage honestly and 
openly and to seek a sincere and proper resolution to this dispute. Perhaps from the perspective of 
the United States, ignoring Antigua and Barbuda and refusing respectful accommodation has 
simply worked for them. After all, our remote ga ming industry is destroyed and United States 
operators are finding a clean and open playing fi eld as they hungrily expand their own remote 
gaming operations within the borders of the United States. Perhaps our case is like the Cuban 
trademark case relating to Havana Club that has been languishing in this Body, where the United States has similarly not had to face any consequence deriving from its casual dismissal of 
Antigua and Barbuda and our seemingly hollow 'vic tory' at the WTO. No one can complain that 
Antigua and Barbuda lacked patience in this matter;  that there was a rush to judgment; that every 
opportunity was not provided to the United States to honour its obligations before the DSB. If, after ten years, the United States returns to the DSB to make platitudinous statements, and 
cannot summon the political will to settle a trade dispute with one of the smallest economies in the 
world, then Antigua and Barbuda will have no choi ce other than to exercise the only option that 
this Body has provided. Antigua and Barbuda therefore takes this opportunity to inform fellow 
delegations that since obtaining authorization from this Body in January to suspend concessions 
and other obligations to the United States in accordance with Article 22 of the DSU, the United States has yet to make any compensatory offers; has yet to request a substantive meeting; 
has yet to seek any kind of clarification on prop osals made by our side. The silence is deafening, 
and in the silence other voices get heard. In light of these further sad realities, Antigua and Barbuda has no choice but to press ahead with plans to put into effect the authorized suspension of concessions and other obligations. The Government has formed a high-level committee chaired 
by our Attorney General to design, develop and implement the legal and operational frameworks 
for the suspensions. This committee has recently met and its work is proceeding. Antigua and Barbuda will provide further particulars on the activation of the suspensions to this Body at the 
appropriate time. If, as now seems to be the case, Antigua and Barbuda is to get nothing else from 
its ten years of labour and compliance with the rules and procedures of the WTO, perhaps we can realise some much needed, although in context, woefully inadequate, financial compensation for 
our people."  
3.3.  The representative of the Bolivarian Republic  of Venezuela said that, once again, his country 
supported Antigua and Barbuda, a small developing-country Member whose economy was based 
primarily on services, which accounted for 78% of the sectoral composition of its GDP. Thus, any 
restriction on the supply of a service adversel y affected Antigua and Barbuda. The DSB had 
adopted a ruling several years ago recommending that the United States put an end to this 
situation. However, the United States had fail ed to do so. Venezuela, therefore, urged the 
United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations and to submit status reports on 
implementation in this dispute.  
3.4.  The representative of Brazil said that hi s country thanked Antigua and Barbuda for inscribing 
this item on the DSB's Agenda and St Lucia for making the statement on behalf of Antigua and 
Barbuda. As it had expressed before, Brazil was of the view that the WTO dispute settlement system had proved to be a useful tool to reso lve trade disputes among Members through a rules-WT/DSB/M/336 
 
- 11 - 
 
  based system. However, the credibility and the effectiveness of the system depended on the 
premise that the mechanism worked for the benefit of all Members, regardless of their size or level of development. In that regard, Brazil, once ag ain, encouraged both parties to the dispute to 
engage in effective negotiations with a view to reaching a mutually agreed solution to this long-
standing dispute, in line with the DSB's rulings on this matter. 
3.5.  The representative of Jamaica said that her country wished to be associated with the 
statement made by St. Lucia on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda. Jamaica remained consistent in 
calling for a timely conclusion to this protracted di spute, especially in light of the clear DSB's ruling 
in favour of Antigua and Barbuda. Jamaica reiterated its call for all WTO Members to fully comply with their obligations, including those arising fr om the DSB's rulings. Jamaica underscored that, 
particularly for small vulnerable economies within the WTO, it was important that the integrity of 
the dispute settlement mechanism be preserved as a critical component of a rules-based system 
governing international trade. Jamaica, once again, called on both parties to the dispute to redouble their efforts to achieve a just and lasting solution in the interest of the multilateral 
trading system. 
3.6.  The representative of Cuba said that her country supported the statement made by St. Lucia 
on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda. Cuba regretted that, for a long period of time, the same 
Member had, once again, failed to meet its ob ligations. The continued non-compliance violated the 
rights of a small delegation and St. Lucia had me ntioned the figures that showed the impact of 
such non-compliance on the economy of a small country, Antigua and Barbuda. This was an unjustified failure to comply with the DSB's re commendations and rulings. Cuba, therefore, urged 
the United States to end to this long-standing dispute which, as mentioned by several delegations, 
questioned the effective functioning of the DSB. Cu ba called on the United States to resolve this 
matter as quickly as possible. 
3.7.  The representative of the Dominican Repub lic said that his country supported the statement 
made by St. Lucia on behalf of Antigua and Barbud a and called for a resolution of this dispute, 
which affected a small developing-country Member. The Dominican Republic noted that many 
small vulnerable economies had relied on the disp ute settlement mechanism to defend their trade 
interests. The Dominican Republic, therefore, urged the United States to engage in dialogue with 
Antigua and Barbuda so as to resolve this matter. Failure to resolve this dispute would have a negative impact on the ability of the system to solve trade disputes.   
3.8.  The representative of Argentina said th at his country thanked Antigua and Barbuda for 
inscribing this item on the DSB's Agenda. Howeve r, Argentina regretted that there had been no 
progress on the matter. Argentina, therefore, expressed its renewed concern about the systemic 
implications of protracted failure to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings, in 
particular since the interests of a developing-country Member were affected. Article 21.1 of the DSU clearly stated that "prompt compliance with recommendations or rulings of the DSB is 
essential in order to ensure effective resolution  of disputes to the benefit of all Members". 
Argentina, therefore, joined previous speakers who had expressed similar concerns and urged the parties to this dispute to redouble their efforts to reach a fair and equitable solution to this long-standing dispute. 
3.9.  The representative of the United States said that his country remained committed to 
constructive dialogue with Antigua to resolve this matter. While Members were aware that the 
United States had invoked the GATS process to withdraw the gambling concession at issue, the 
United States remained of the view that a nego tiated resolution was the best outcome here, and 
would continue with those efforts. The United States had recently received a new proposal from Antigua and Barbuda, which it was reviewing carefu lly, and looked forward to further discussion in 
the near future. 
3.10.  The DSB took note of the statements. WT/DSB/M/336 
 
- 12 - 
 
  4  UNITED STATES – MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION, MARKETING AND 
SALE OF TUNA AND TUNA PRODUCTS 
A.  Statement by Mexico 4.1.  The Chairman said that this item was on th e Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Mexico. He then invited the representative of Mexico to speak. 
4.2.  The representative of Mexico said that on 9 July 2013, the United States had published in the 
Federal Register a measure to comply with the DSB's rulings and recommendations. As the 
United States had reported at the June DSB meeting, that measure had entered into force on 
13 July 2013, the date of expiry of the reasonable period of time for implementation that had been 
agreed between Mexico and the United States. That new US measure did not comply with the WTO ruling since it maintained two separate regulato ry regimes. The first one consisted of highly 
effective provisions agreed at international level to protect dolphins in the zone where Mexico 
fished (Eastern Pacific Ocean). The second one consisted of an unregulated measure without any enforcement mechanism that had been established outside of the Eastern Pacific Ocean where 
fleets such as the US fleet operated, resulting in a high level of dolphin mortality and causing harm 
to the marine ecosystem due to the fishing methods used in those fishing zones. As Mexico had previously stated, the new measure unfortunately did not remove discrimination against Mexican 
tuna, nor did it address the damage caused to the environment and dolphins by fishing fleets from 
other countries in other oceans. Contrary to the US view, Mexico considered that the new measure adopted under the "dolphin-safe" labelling regime was inconsistent with the DSB's rulings and recommendations. On 2 August 2013, Mexico and the United States had reached an understanding 
regarding the procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU. That understanding had been 
circulated to the DSB. Pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU, Mexico considered that this dispute had not yet been resolved and, therefore, requested th at this item be inscribed on the DSB's Agenda 
for the present meeting. Mexico continued to examine the measure and to consider all the legal 
options available to it in order to find an effective solution to this dispute, including the suspension of concessions and/or other obligations. Mexico urged the United States to implement measures 
that would comply with the DSB's rulings and recommendations. 
4.3.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela said that his country supported 
the statement made by Mexico and urged the United States to find a satisfactory solution to this 
dispute and to comply with the DSB's rulings. 
4.4.  The representative of the United States said  that, as his country had informed the DSB at the 
July meeting, it had amended its dolphin-safe labelling requirements so as to bring those 
requirements into compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. The amended 
regulations enhanced documentary requirements for certifying that no dolphins had been killed or 
had been seriously injured when tuna were caught so that they also now covered tuna caught in oceans other than the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). Those changes ensured that consumers 
were not misled or deceived about whether the tuna in a product labelled "dolphin safe" had been 
caught in a manner that caused harm to dolphins. In sum, that final rule brought the United States into compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings within the reasonable period of time agreed to by Mexico and the United States. The rule demonstrated that the United States could 
prevent consumer deception and protect dolphins consistent with WTO rules. 
4.5.  The Chairman said that, having completed it ems 2, 3 and 4 of the present Agenda, he wished 
to offer one observation because, in the course of those three Agenda items, some delegations had 
raised questioned as to why those items were on the Agenda. Aside from the fact that the Agenda 
had been adopted by consensus at the beginning of the meeting, he simply wished to remind delegations that, under Article 21.6 of the DSU, th ere was a clear statement by the negotiators of 
that section, which stated that the issue of implementation of the recommendations or rulings may 
be raised at the DSB by any Member at any time, following the adoption of the Reports by the DSB. That was in addition to the requirement that  the issue of implementation shall be placed on 
the DSB Agenda after six months following the date  of establishment of the reasonable period of 
time and shall remain there until the issue was resolved. That was why there was at times a 
succession of additional items. 
4.6.  The DSB took note of the statements. WT/DSB/M/336 
 
- 13 - 
 
  5  CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-D UMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE 
STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Union (WT/DS460/4) 
5.1.  The Chairman drew attention to the comm unication from the European Union contained in 
document WT/DS460/4, and invited the representative of the European Union to speak. 
5.2.  The representative of the European Union said  that, regrettably, the EU found itself left with 
no choice but to request the establishment of a pa nel in this dispute. While the consultations had 
been helpful in clarifying a number of questions concerning the Chinese measures, they could not 
resolve the dispute. The EU believed that the an ti-dumping duties imposed on imports of steel 
tubes from the EU were inconsistent with the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and were thus unjustifiably hampering access to the Chinese market. The EU regretted that China had not 
signalled any intentions to remove those measures. The EU was therefore seeking the 
establishment of a level playing field by ensuring that China respected its WTO obligations. The EU noted that the matter in this dispute was the same as in DS454 where a panel had already been 
established and composed. In light of Article 9.3 of  the DSU, the EU indicated that it would agree 
to the same panelists as in that dispute and was ready to engage with a view to harmonizing the 
timetable for the two cases. 
5.3.  The representative of China said that his country was disappointed that the EU had requested 
the establishment of a panel in this dispute. On 17 and 18 July 2013, China had held consultations 
with the EU in good faith; it had introduced the relevant facts and had answered the EU's questions. The WTO Agreements permitted Members to levy on any dumped product an anti-
dumping duty in order to offset or prevent dumping. With respect to the investigations at issue in 
this dispute, the investigating authorities of China had found that the imports of high-performance stainless steel seamless tubes from the EU cons tituted dumping and that the dumped imports 
caused material injury to the domestic industry of China. As a result, China had decided to levy an 
anti-dumping duty on the dumped high-performance stainless steel seamless tubes from the EU. The imposition of the anti-dumping measure was consistent with China's obligations under the 
WTO rules. At Japan's request, the DSB had recently established a panel in DS454 to examine the 
similar measure now challenged by the EU. In order to allow the proceedings in the two disputes to be promptly harmonized, China could agree to the establishment of a panel in DS460 at the present meeting. China confirmed that the panelists  in DS454 could be accepted in this dispute. 
China hoped that this would reduce the burden on  the Panel, the Secretariat and the parties.  
5.4.  The representative of Japan said that, since the EU's claims under DS460 were related to the 
same Chinese anti-dumping measures on the Hi gh-Performance Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes 
("HP-SSST"), Japan was ready to cooperate with the harmonization of the procedures under 
Article 9.3 of DSU. In that regard, Japan reiterat ed its position that the delay of the procedures 
should be avoided and requested the cooperat ion from the EU and China on this matter. 
5.5.  The representative of China said that hi s delegation noted that the EU had accepted the 
panelists in the DS454 dispute. Therefore, China wi shed to confirm that it could also accept the 
same panelists in this dispute.  
5.6.  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. 5.7.  The representatives of India, Japan, Kore a, Turkey and the United States reserved their 
third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
5.8.  The Chairman said that at this point he wished to make a few observations. He said that it 
had been brought to his attention in this matter that several times in the past the DSB had 
established a single panel under Article 9.1 of the DSU rather than under Article 9.3 of the DSU. 
The DSB had done that even on a number of occa sions where there had been a time lag, up to 
three or four months between the time of the first request to establish a panel and the second request from another country. When that had occurred, Members had been given a further ten days to reserve third-party rights, even with the single panel. That had triggered in his mind, 
having read Article 9.1 and 9.3 of the DSU, the need to undertake further research on the DSB's WT/DSB/M/336 
 
- 14 - 
 
  past practice. With the assistance of the Secretariat, what was discovered was that in the past, in 
each and every case where a single panel had in effect been kept for the second complainant, no action had taken place on the part of the panel or the parties to the dispute in question. In the two disputes before the present DSB meeting, however, the panel had already been composed on 
29 July 2013, following acceptance of the first requ est for panel establishment. Thus far, the DSB 
had never established a single panel under Article 9.1 of the DSU under the circumstances that were before the present meeting. It was against this backdrop that, at least in his view, it seemed 
that the request for the establishment of a new pa nel had been or was being properly treated as 
an Article 6 matter, keeping in mind that Article 9.3 of the DSU stated that wherever possible, the 
same panelists should be used, as each of the three parties had said, so as to streamline procedures. Article 9.3 of the DSU stated that "if more than one panel is established to examine 
the complaints related to the same matter, to th e greater extent possible, the same persons shall 
serve as panelists on each of the panels and the timetable for the panel process in such disputes 
shall be harmonized". He thanked the EU, China and Japan for their cooperation on this matter. He 
noted that the relationship between Article 9.1 and 9.3 of the DSU was an interesting point of 
drafting that went back to the Uruguay Round, and was of the view that some delegations may wish to reflect on further in the future. The trigger point seemed to be the point of establishment 
of the first panel but practice had been up to, but not including, the point of composition following 
establishment. He offered those comments as personal observations and not as the Chair's definitive interpretive ruling. 
5.9.  The DSB took note of the statements.  
6  COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL 
AND FOOTWEAR 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Panama (WT/DS461/3) 
6.1.  The Chairman drew attention to the communication from Panama contained in document 
WT/DS461/3, and invited the representative of Panama to speak. 
6.2.  The representative of Panama said that th e purpose of the panel request, as could be seen 
from the documents circulated, was a compound tariff that Colombia imposed on the importation 
of certain textiles, apparel and footwear. Panama was referring the matter to the DSB because neither the consultations nor the many other efforts that had been taken bilaterally, including at the presidential level, had led to a mutually ag reed solution. In Panama's view, the measure at 
issue was clearly inconsistent with Colombia's WTO obligations. This was a matter of great 
importance for Panama's export sector, in that it  significantly affected its exports. The measure 
threatened to cause irreparable damage in the latter months of the marketing year, and it was 
therefore urgent to find a prompt solution to th is dispute. Panama, therefore, hoped that the DSB 
would establish a panel at the present meeting in order to examine this dispute. Panama also hoped that the panel would issue a prompt decision with respect to the consistency of Colombia's 
measure with its WTO obligations. Meanwhile, Pana ma remained willing to engage in constructive 
discussions with Colombia in order to arrive at a mutually agreed solution. 
6.3.  The representative of Colombia said that her country objected to Panama's panel request. In 
Colombia's view, the measure in question was not inconsistent with WTO provisions. Colombia 
regretted Panama's disapproval of Decree No. 0 74 of 2013, but considered this Decree to be 
consistent with its WTO obligations. The Decree provided for the application of a mixed specific and ad valorem  tariff. Colombia believed it had the right to  apply this type of tariff since, according 
to Appellate Body case law, the GATT Article II ob ligation did not limit a Member's ability to apply 
the type of tariff it considered most appropriate.  In that respect, Colombia agreed with the legal 
opinion of the Advisory Centre on WTO Law, which it had requested before Decree No. 074 was 
issued. Colombia not only considered its measures to be consistent with the obligations arising 
from its WTO Membership, but believed that the measures were essential for its trade policy, for compliance with its customs regulations, and for secu rity reasons. These last two policy objectives 
could be met legitimately in accordance with the WTO Agreements. The security aspect was also 
vital to Colombia, as WTO Members were well aware.  With regard to the possibility of a mutually 
agreed solution, Colombia was more than willing to address Panama's concerns. Colombia had made this clear at the consultations held on 25 July 2013 and in the various exchanges between 
Colombian and Panamanian officials in which the possibility of reaching a mutually agreed solution 
was discussed. Colombia emphasized that those discussions had been conducted at the highest WT/DSB/M/336 
 
- 15 - 
 
  level, with direct contact between the Ministers of Trade and Heads of State of both countries. 
Colombia remained convinced that those discussions would take a more positive turn and that the two countries would soon be able to resolve jointly the concerns in question. Colombia recalled that, under Article 3.7 of the DSU, Members were required, before bringing a case, to exercise 
their judgement as to whether action under those procedures would be fruitful. In line with that, 
Colombia believed that, with the necessary will, th ere was a good chance that an agreement would 
be reached, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the DSU. This would avoid initiating 
dispute settlement proceedings which would burden each of the parties, other Members and the 
WTO itself. Furthermore, the purpose of the dispute settlement mechanism was precisely to secure a positive solution to the dispute. Colombia believed that, in this case, the parties could agree to such a solution. For that reason, Colombia, once again, urged Panama to continue negotiating an 
agreement that was satisfactory to both parties, and objected to the panel request which it 
considered premature in the context of th e development of discussions with Panama. 
6.4.  The Chairman noted two different legal vi ews and said that he had also heard a common 
spirit of a willingness to continue an exchange of  views and dialogue with a view to reaching an 
amicable solution.  
6.5.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter. 
7  UNITED STATES – CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING (COOL) REQUIREMENTS A.  Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by  Canada: Request for the establishment of a 
panel (WT/DS384/26) 
B.  Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Mexico: Request for the establishment of a 
panel (WT/DS386/25) 
7.1.  The Chairman proposed that the two sub-it ems to which he had just referred be considered 
together. He then drew attention to the communication from Canada contained in document 
WT/DS384/26 and invited the representative of Canada to speak. 
7.2.  The representative of Canada said that, as had been set out in detail in document 
WT/DS384/26, Canada requested the establishment of a panel, under Article 21.5 of the DSU, to 
determine the consistency with the WTO Agreement of the measure taken by the United States to 
comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in the "US - COOL" dispute. Canada would have preferred not to have taken this step. However, the amendments that had been made by the United States in May 2013 to the COOL measure had further aggravated, rather than remedied, 
the national treatment violation found by the Panel and the Appellate Body. Since 2002, when the 
United States COOL measure had first been proposed, Canada had consistently raised concerns regarding its impact on the competitive position of Canadian cattle and hogs in the US market. 
After the COOL measure's entry into force, first through the Interim Final Rule in 2008 and later 
through the Final Rule of 2009, Canada had initiated dispute settlement proceedings, the results of which had been adopted by the DSB on 23 July 2012. In the reports adopted by the DSB, both the 
Panel and the Appellate Body had found that the COOL measure was inconsistent with Article 2.1 
of the TBT Agreement because it had accorded im ported livestock treatment less favourable than 
that accorded to like domestic livestock. The United States was granted until 23 May 2013 to bring the COOL measure into compliance with its WTO obligations. On 8 March 2013, the United States 
had published proposed amendments to its COOL regulations and had invited comments. In its 
comments, and in other representations to the United States, Canada had stated its view that those amendments would not bring the COOL measure into compliance with the US WTO 
obligations. Canada's comments and concerns had been echoed by a wide range of industry actors 
across North America, who had also emphasized the harm that the amended COOL measure would 
cause to their operations. Canada was disappointed that its concerns, and those of many others, 
had not been taken into account in the amendments to the COOL regulations that had been 
issued, as a Final Rule, on 23 May 2013. Instead, the amended COOL measure issued on 23 May 2013 expanded the labelling requirements and it did so in a manner that would result in increased segregation and costs for firms using animals born or raised outside of the 
United States, or the meat produced from such animals. By increasing the discrimination 
previously found by the Panel and the Appellate Body, the effect of the amended COOL measure 
was diametrically opposed to what the United States  had been required to do to bring itself into WT/DSB/M/336 
 
- 16 - 
 
  compliance. Therefore, as had been outlined in  document WT/DS384/26, Canada disagreed with 
the United States that the amendments to the COOL measure complied with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
7.3.  Canada considered that the amended COOL measure remained inconsistent with the US 
obligations under the WTO Agreement. Specifically, Canada considered that this measure was 
inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TB T Agreement, and Articles III:4 and XXIII:1(b) of 
the GATT 1994. The fact that Mexico would express similar views, and was at the present meeting 
making a similar request for a compliance panel, was testament to the harm that this measure 
was having on the North American trade in liv estock. Canada recalled that on 10 June 2013 
Canada and the United States had notified to the DSB an understanding that had been reached between them regarding the procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU.
4 That Agreement 
provided that Canada was not required to hold consultations with the United States prior to 
requesting the establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU. Consequently, Canada requested that a panel be established under Article 21.5 of the DSU, with standard terms of 
reference, to determine whether the amended COOL measure complied with the US WTO 
obligations. 
7.4.  The Chairman then drew attention to the communication from Mexico contained in document 
WT/DS386/25 and invited the representative of Mexico to speak. 
7.5.  The representative of Mexico said that, on 23 May 2013, the United States had published a 
measure in the Federal Register which, the United States believed, brought it into compliance with 
the DSB's rulings and recommendations in the "US - COOL" dispute. However, the published 
measure was even stricter than the original one. The new measure would cause even greater harm 
to Mexican cattle exports as well as greater and more serious trade distortions, as it unnecessarily increased costs for the livestock sector. The Panel and the Appellate Body Reports had recognized 
that requiring meat product labels to specify whether the meat was derived from cattle born in 
Mexico involved segregation practices that affect ed Mexican livestock throughout the production 
chain, resulting in high costs that were transf erred to Mexican producers and encouraged the US 
market to use US livestock for the processing of meat products. This dispute had begun in 2008 
and, in spite of the fact that Mexico had obta ined favourable ruling, exports of Mexican cattle 
continued to be subject to measures that affected conditions of competition in the US market. On 13 June 2013, Mexico and the United States had notified the DSB of the Agreed Procedures under 
Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU in relation to this dispute. Mexico would continue to challenge the 
discriminatory practices of the United States within the WTO framework and would seek to ensure that it complied fully with its international obligations. In light of the foregoing, Mexico requested 
that a compliance panel be established, under the Agreed Procedures between Mexico and the 
United States, to determine whether the new Country of Origin Labelling measure, issued by the United States on 23 May 2013, complied with the rulings and findings of the Panel and Appellate 
Body and with the other provisions of the WTO covered agreements, or whether it still failed to 
meet such obligations. Mexico urged the United States to adopt measures that fully complied with the DSB's rulings and recommendations and to refrain from applying measures that unduly distorted trade. 
7.6.  The representative of the United States said that his country was disappointed that Canada 
and Mexico had requested the establishment of a panel on this matter. The US Department of 
Agriculture's May 2013 final rule ensured that US consumers were provided with detailed and 
accurate origin information for muscle cuts of meats in order to allow consumers to make informed 
purchasing decisions. Under the final rule, country of origin labels must include information about where each of the production steps (i.e., born, raised, slaughtered) had occurred for covered 
muscle cut commodities derived from animals that ha d been slaughtered in the United States. That 
final rule brought the United States into compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute within the period determined by  the WTO arbitrator. While the United States was 
fully prepared to defend the amended COOL measure in a compliance proceeding, it remained 
prepared to work in a constructive manner with Canada and Mexico outside the framework of 
litigation to address their respective concerns wi th the US COOL program. For those reasons, the 
United States was not in a position to agree to the establishment of a panel. 
                                               
4 WT/DS384/25. WT/DSB/M/336 
 
- 17 - 
 
  7.7.  The Chairman said that, although the parties concerned had agreed on a sequencing 
agreement, they had not agreed beyond saying that the provisions of, and the procedures of 
Article 21.5 of the DSU shall be applied and thus it was open to a Member to say it needed more time and there was an opportunity to consult. For that reason, the DSB would not take any 
decision but would, instead, take note of the statements, and depending on further discussions, 
may find itself reverting to these matters at its next meeting. 
7.8.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to these matters. 
8  CHINA – COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON GRAIN ORIENTED FLAT-
ROLLED ELECTRICAL STEEL FROM THE UNITED STATES 
A.  Statement by China 8.1.  The representative of China, speaking under "Other Business" said that at its meeting on 
16 November 2012, the DSB had adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report in the 
dispute: "China – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-Rolled Electrical Steel from the United States" (DS414). On 3 May 2013, the WTO Arbitrator had determined that 
the reasonable period of time for China to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in 
this dispute was eight months and 15 days, which had expired on 31 July 2013. On 31 July 2013, the Ministry of Commerce of China had published the Announcement on the Implementation of the 
WTO Rulings against Grain Oriented Flat-rolled Electrical Steel (Announcement [2013] No. 51). 
Thus, China had come into full compliance within the reasonable period of time. His country wished to confirm that China and the United States had concluded a sequencing agreement in this dispute on 19 August 2013, which had been circulated as document WT/DS414/14. With respect to 
the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute, China believed that 
it had taken all necessary steps to bring the measure into full compliance. At the same time, China remained open to further discussions with the United States to discuss any concerns that the 
United States may have. 
8.2.  The DSB took note of the statement. 
9  STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN REGARDING SOME MATTERS RELATED TO THE 
APPELLATE BODY 
9.1.  The Chairman, speaking under "Other Busi ness", said that regarding the appointment of a 
new member to the Appellate Body, as all Members should be aware, as of the present meeting, 
four candidates had been nominated for one position in the Appellate Body. The nominations had 
been submitted by the following delegations: Kenya, Cameroon, Australia and Egypt. As it had 
been agreed by the DSB pursuant to its decision of 24 May 2013 contained in WT/DSB/60, the last day for nominations was 30 August 2013. Pursuant to that DSB decision, a Selection Committee 
had been established to carry out the selection process. Consistent with past practice, the 
Selection Committee was composed of the Chairs of the General Council, the Goods Council, the Services Council and the TRIPS Council as well as  of the Director-General and the Chair of the 
DSB. He also recalled that the DSB had agreed to request the Selection Committee to conduct 
interviews with candidates and to hear the vi ews of delegations in September/October and to 
make its recommendation by no later than 7 November 2013. That would enable the DSB to take a decision on the appointment at its regular meet ing in November, which had been rescheduled for 
25 November 2013. After the deadline of 30 August expired later that day, he would be in contact 
with members of the Selection Committee to reconfirm the process that would be followed and to agree on a specific timetable for interviews, as well as to set aside time to hear the views of 
delegations on the candidates before making a final recommendation. As soon as the timetable for 
the process was agreed, he would send a fax to all delegations with an update on the process and he would ask the Secretariat to make the necessary arrangements to set up appointments for the 
Committee to hear the views of delegations. As in the past, delegations were also free to make 
their views known to the Selection Committee in writing. Any such written communication should be sent to the Chairman of the DSB in care of  the C-TNC Division. A de adline for written comments 
would be communicated to delegations shortly by fax. Consistent with past practice, delegations 
wishing to meet with the candidates were invited to contact directly the Missions of the respective 
nominating Members in order to make appropriate arrangements. Delegations may wish to wait for 
the dates of when the candidates would be in Geneva before contacting the nominating Missions. WT/DSB/M/336 
 
- 18 - 
 
  Regarding the reappointment of Mr Peter Van den Bossche, he informed delegations that he was 
continuing his consultations on the possible reappointment of Mr. Van den Bossche for a second four-year term as an Appellate Body member. 
9.2.  The DSB took note of the statement. 
10  STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN REGARD ING THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DSB 
FOR 2013 
10.1.  The Chairman, speaking under "Other Business", recalled that, at the July 2013 DSB 
meeting, he had presented to delegations a draft revised version of the Annual Report of the DSB 
which was in a new format to make it more readable and more accessible to a broader Membership. He had presented the draft as a room document. At that meeting, he had explained that the principal motivation for making changes was to produce a text that would be in line with 
the request of the General Council made in 2012 to  all Chairs of the WTO Bodies to work with 
Members, in order to reduce the overall volume of official documents submitted for production, 
thereby reducing translation and printing costs. He had invited delegations to comment and had 
received some constructive comments endorsing the overall approach and offering a few 
refinements. In particular, he thanked Mexico and the United States for offering thoughtful comments, which were mainly of an editorial nature. He had taken those comments into account 
and, together with the Secretariat, had further revised the draft which was being distributed at the 
present meeting. He reminded delegations that the Annual Report of the DSB was prepared in 
pursuance of the "Procedures for an Annual Overview of WTO Activities and for Reporting under the WTO" set out in WT/L/105. The 2013 Report would be presented for adoption in its final 
version and in the three languages of the WTO at the DSB meeting on 22 October, following which 
it would be submitted to the General Council at its meeting on 5/6 November. The General Council would then take note of the Report and submit it to MC9, which would undertake an overview of 
WTO activities on the basis of Annual Reports from the General Council and from other WTO 
bodies. He urged delegations with any further comments on the draft Report to inform him as soon as possible.  
10.2.  The DSB took note of the statement.  
__________