RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/340  
 
14 March 2014  
(14-1602)  Page: 1/3  
Dispute Settlement Body 
18 December 2013    
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD 
ON 18 DECEMBER 2013 
Acting Chairman: Mr. Mario Matus (Chile) 
Prior to the adoption of the agenda, the Deputy-Director General, Mr. K. Brauner, said that, in the 
absence of Amb. Jonathan Fried, Chairman of the DSB, he had the pleasure to open the meeting of 
the Dispute Settlement Body. He recalled that in accordance with the Rules of Procedure for meetings of WTO bodies, if the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body was absent from any 
meeting or part thereof, the Chairperson of the General Council or in the latter's absence, the 
Chairperson of the Trade Policy Review Body shall perform the functions of the DSB Chairperson. If 
the Chairpersons of the General Council and the Tr ade Policy Review Body were also not present, 
the DSB shall elect an interim Chairperson for that meeting or that part of the meeting. In light of 
this he proposed that Amb. Mario Matus of Chile be elected as an interim Chairman to preside over the proceedings of the present meeting.  
 
The DSB so agreed. 
Table of Contents 
1   UNITED STATES - ANTI-DUMPING  AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ON 
LARGE RESIDENTIAL WASH ERS FROM KOREA ................................................................. 1  
A.  Request for the establishm ent of a panel by Korea ............................................................ 1  
2   EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – DEFINI TIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON 
CERTAIN IRON OR STEEL FA STENERS FROM CHINA ......................................................... 2  
A.  Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by China: Request for the establishment of 
a panel  ...................................................................................................................... ... 2 
 
 1  UNITED STATES - ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ON LARGE RESIDENTIAL WASHERS FROM KOREA  
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Korea (WT/DS464/4) 
1.1.  The Chairman drew attention to the co mmunication from Korea contained in document 
WT/DS464/4, and invited the representative of Korea to speak. 
1.2.  The representative of Korea said that, on 5 December 2013, his country had filed its panel 
request in the dispute concerning anti-dumping and countervailing measures imposed by the 
United States on large residential washers from Korea. As explained in detail in the panel 
request, Korea believed that the measures were inconsistent with the US obligations under the 
WTO Agreements. More specifically, Korea challenged the legality of: (i) the use by the USDOC of zeroing "as applied" and "as such" in applying th e second sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement; (ii) the use by the USDOC of  "targeted dumping" methodology "as applied" 
and "as such"; and (iii) the determination and calc ulation by the USDOC of countervailing duties.  WT/DSB/M/340 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.3.  At the present meeting, Korea wished to highlight a number of aspects of the USDOC 
"targeted dumping" methodology, which it believed  were in contravention of the US obligations 
under the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Among other things, 
Korea considered that: (i) the USDOC failed to find "a pattern of export prices which differ 
significantly" within the meaning of Article 2.4.2,  and failed to provide a reasoned explanation as 
to why certain export prices constituted a "pattern"; (ii) the USDOC used statistically unsound rules to define a "pattern" of export prices that "differ significantly"; (iii) the USDOC applied the 
average-to-transaction comparison to all of the export transactions, rather than applying it only 
to the subset of export transactions for which "targeted dumping" was found; (iv) the USDOC failed to determine separately the amount of dumping in the targeted subset for which "targeted dumping" was found; and (v) the USDOC failed to provide a reasoned explanation of why the 
pattern of price differences could not be "taken  into account appropriately by the use of a 
weighted average-to-weighted average comparison" and gave no explanation of why it could not be "taken into account appropriately by the use of a transaction-to-transaction comparison".  
1.4.  Korea and the United States had held consultations on 3 October 2013. While the 
consultations had been helpful in understanding ea ch other's respective positions on this matter, 
they had not led to a mutually satisfactory resolution of this dispute. The US measures were 
having a significant adverse impact on Korean exports to the United States. Korea, therefore, 
respectfully requested that a panel be establishe d with the standard terms of reference, as set 
forth in Article 7.1 of the DSU. 
1.5.  The representative of the United States said that his country was disappointed that Korea 
had chosen to request the establishment of a panel with regard to this matter. As the 
United States had explained to Korea, the measures identified in the request were fully consistent with the US obligations under the WTO Agreement. Further, the request described 
certain issues that were not measures and were, therefore, not subject to WTO dispute 
settlement. For example, in addition to challe nging the results of a completed anti-dumping 
investigation, the request purported to address future determinations in other types of 
proceedings that had not even been initiated. Fo r these reasons, the United States was not in a 
position to agree to the establishment of a panel at the present meeting.  
1.6.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter. 
2  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – DEFINITIVE  ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN 
IRON OR STEEL FASTENERS FROM CHINA 
A.  Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by China: Request for the establishment of a 
panel (WT/DS397/18) 
2.1.  The Chairman drew attention to the co mmunication from China contained in document 
WT/DS397/18 and invited the representative of China to speak. 
2.2.  The representative of China said that, on 28 July 2011, the DSB had adopted the Appellate 
Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, in this dispute. The 
Reports had concluded that Article 9(5) of the EU  Basic AD Regulation and the definitive anti-
dumping measure on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China were inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the WTO Agreement. The DSB had 
recommended that the EU bring its measures into  conformity with its obligations under these 
Agreements. On 11 October 2012, the EU had in formed the DSB that it had adopted measures 
necessary to comply with the DSB's recommendat ions. The measures were set out in the EU's 
status report (WT/DS397/15/Add.3). China considered that the measures taken by the EU had 
failed to bring the EU into compliance with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994. In particular, China consider ed that the measure, taken by the EU to 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in relation to the anti-dumping duties on 
imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China through Council Regulation (EU) No. 924/2012 of 4 October 2012, did not fully and correctly implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings and that it was not consistent with various provisions of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement and of the GATT 1994, as set out in detail in document WT/DS397/18. WT/DSB/M/340 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.3.  Pursuant to the Agreed Procedures between China and the EU (WT/DS397/16), on 
30 October 2013, China had initiated procedures under Article 21.5 of the DSU by requesting consultations with the EU. These consultations had been held on 27 November 2013. They allowed a better understanding of each party's position. However, they had failed to settle the 
dispute. At the present meeting, China had no ch oice but to request the establishment of a panel 
under Article 21.5 of the DSU, with standard term s of reference as set forth in Article 7 of the 
DSU. Pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, China also requested that, if possible, the DSB refer 
the matter to the original Panel. According to Paragraph 2 of the Agreed Procedures between 
China and the EU, China noted that the EU had to accept the establishment of a panel at the first DSB meeting at which China's request under Article 21.5 of the DSU would appear on the Agenda. 
2.4.  The representative of the European Union said that the EU had engaged constructively and 
in good faith during the consultations in order to address China's questions and concerns. The 
EU, therefore, regretted that China decided to take this step. The EU was convinced that its 
challenged measures were fully in line with WTO rules. In particular, the EU had ensured a full 
implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in the "Fasteners" Dispute. Pursuant 
to Agreed Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU between the EU and China, the EU 
accepted the establishment of an Arti cle 21.5 panel at the present meeting. 
2.5.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, to 
refer to the original Panel, if possible, the matter raised by China in document WT/DS397/18. 
The Panel would have standard terms of reference. 
2.6.  The representatives of Japan and the United States reserved their third-party rights to 
participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
__________