RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/326  
 
18 February 2013  
(13-0843)  Page: 1/3  
Dispute Settlement Body 
30 November 2012    
 
 MINUTES OF MEETING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD 
ON 30 NOVEMBER 2012 
Chairman: Mr. Shahid Bashir (Pakistan) 
Table of Contents 
1   CHINA – COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON GRAIN 
ORIENTED FLAT-ROLLED ELECTRICAL ST EEL FROM THE UNITED STATES ........................ 1  
A.  Implementation of the re commendations of  the DSB ......................................................... 1  
2   UNITED STATES – COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON 
CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM CHINA ................................................................................... 2  
A.  Request for the establishm ent of a panel by China ............................................................ 2  
 
1  CHINA – COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON GRAIN ORIENTED FLAT-ROLLED ELECTRICAL STEEL FROM THE UNITED STATES 
A.  Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB 
1.1.  The Chairman recalled that in accordance with the DSU provisions, the DSB was required to 
keep under surveillance the implementation of reco mmendations and rulings of the DSB in order to 
ensure effective resolution of disp utes to the benefit of all Members. In that respect, Article 21.3 of 
the DSU provided that the Member concerned shall inform the DSB, within 30 days after the date 
of adoption of the panel or Appellate Body report, of its intentions in respect of implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. He recalled that at its meeting on 
16 November 2012, the DSB had adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as 
upheld by the Appellate Body Report, pertaining to the dispute on: "China – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-Rolled Electrical Steel from the United States". He 
then invited China to inform the DSB of its intent ions in respect of implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations. 
1.2.  The representative of China said that, on 16 November 2012, the DSB had adopted the 
Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report in this dispute. Since no regular DSB meeting was 
scheduled within 30 days after the date of adoption of the Appellate Body Report and the Panel 
Report, in accordance with Article 21.3 of the DSU,  China wished to inform the DSB at the present 
meeting, which was a special DSB meeting, of its intention to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute in a manner that respected its WTO obligations. China 
would need a reasonable period of time in which to do so and stood ready to discuss this matter with the United States. 
1.3.  The representative of the United States said that his country thanked China for its statement 
made at the present meeting indicating that it intended to implement the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings in this dispute. China's anti-dumping  and countervailing duty measures on GOES from 
the United States had been and continued to be  of significant concern. The United States, 
therefore, looked forward to China moving promptly to bring its measures into compliance with its WT/DSB/M/326 
 
- 2 - 
 
  obligations. The United States stood ready to discuss with China, under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, 
a reasonable period of time for implementati on of the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
1.4.  The DSB took note of the statements, and of  the information provided by China regarding its 
intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations. 
2  UNITED STATES – COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN 
PRODUCTS FROM CHINA 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by China (WT/DS449/2) 
2.1.  The Chairman drew attention to the communication from China contained in document 
WT/DS449/2, and invited the representative of China to speak. 
2.2.  The representative of China said that her country regrettably found it necessary to request 
the establishment of a panel in this dispute. On 17 September 2012, China had requested 
consultations with the United States. These consultations had been held on 5 November 2012, 
with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory solution. While the consultations had clarified certain issues between the parties, they had failed to resolve the dispute. Since 2006, the 
United States had launched over 30 countervailing duty investigations against Chinese products, 
affecting more than US$7.3 billion in total. Th e Government of China and Chinese exporters had 
consistently maintained that those investigations were unlawful because the US countervailing 
duty laws did not apply to countries that the United States designated as non-market economies. 
Those views had been confirmed by the decision of  the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
in the Georgetown Steel case and the Federal Circuit's decision of December 2011 in the GPX case. However, in March 2012, the United States had enacted a new law, namely "An Act to Apply the 
Countervailing Duty Provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930 to Non-Market Economy Countries, and For 
Other Purposes" ("P.L. 112-99"), which provided the US Department of Commerce ("USDOC") with statutory authority to apply countervailing duties to imports from non-market economy countries. 
The law stated that this statutory authority applied retroactively to 2006, when USDOC had first 
begun applying countervailing duties to Chinese products in contravention of existing US law. In contrast, the USDOC's legal authority to identify and avoid double remedies did not apply 
retroactively to 2006, and it applied only to "inves tigations and reviews initiated … on or after the 
date of the enactment of this Act", i.e. on or af ter 13 March 2012. China's claims were clear in the 
request for the establishment of a panel (WT/DS4 49/2). China would not repeat those claims, but 
would only highlight some elements. First, the P.L. 112-99 was inconsistent with Article X of the 
GATT 1994. The United States was not administering its trade remedy laws "in a uniform, impartial 
and reasonable manner", and some provisions of the US law had been enforced prior to their 
official publication. Moreover, the absence of lega l authority to identify and avoid double remedies 
in respect of investigations or reviews, initiated between 20 November 2006 and 13 March 2012, 
had prevented the US authorities from ensuring th at the imposition of countervailing duties was 
consistent with Articles 10, 15, 19, 21 and 32  of the SCM Agreement and Article VI of the 
GATT 1994, and from ensuring that the imposition of anti-dumping duties in the associated anti-
dumping investigations and reviews was consistent with Articles 9 and 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994. Therefor e, China respectfully requested that the DSB 
establish a panel, with standard terms of reference as set forth in Article 7.1 of the DSU, to 
examine this matter. 
2.3.  The representative of the United States said that his country was disappointed that China had 
requested the establishment of a panel on this matter and that the legislative measure at issue in 
this dispute, Public Law 112-99, was fully consistent with US WTO obligations. It had been enacted 
in an effort to clarify US law and eliminate any doubt about the authority of the US Commerce Department to take action consistent with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in 
connection with DS379. The United States had acted in good faith in enacting Public Law 112-99, 
and continued to believe that it was consistent with its WTO obligations. Public Law 112-99 had clarified and confirmed US law regarding the applic ation of the countervailing duty remedy to non-
market economies, and had clarified and confir med that the US Commerce Department possessed 
domestic legal authority to take action consistent with the Appellate Body's findings with respect to 
the so-called "double remedy" issue. As China wa s aware, the 19 December 2011 decision of the 
US courts in the "GPX case" had never become final and effective under US law. China was 
assuming that the court's decision carried a weight under the US legal system that it did not. With 
respect to the countervailing duty and anti-dumpi ng proceedings at issue in this dispute, the WT/DSB/M/326 
 
- 3 - 
 
  United States had conducted the proceedings in a manner consistent with the WTO Agreement. 
The WTO Agreements permitted Members to levy a countervailing duty to offset injurious subsidies bestowed by another Member on the manufacture, pr oduction, or export of goods in or from that 
Member's territory. For those reasons, the United States was not in a position to agree to the 
establishment of a panel. 
2.4.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter. 
 
__________