RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/271 
25 September 2009 
 (09-4486) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
20 July 2009  
 
 
   
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 20 July 2009  
 
Chairman:  Mr. John Gero (Canada) 
  
Subjects discussed
: Page  
 
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB.........................2  
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations 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 affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products:  Status report by the European Communities..............................................................6  
(e) European Communities – Regime for the importation, sale and distribution of 
bananas:  Second recourse to Article 21.5 of  the DSU by Ecuador:  Status report by 
the European Communities....................................................................................................... ..8 
(f) Brazil – Measures affecting imports of retread ed tyres:  Status report by Brazil .....................11  
2. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  
Implementation of the recommenda tions adopted by the DSB ..........................................12  
(a) Statements by the European Communities and Japan ..............................................................12  
3. United States – Certain measures affect ing imports of poultry from China.....................13  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by China...................................................................13  
4. Korea – Measures affecting the importation of bovine meat and meat products 
from Canada.................................................................................................................... ........14  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada ................................................................14  
5. Proposed nominations for the indicative list of governmental and 
non-governmental panelists ...................................................................................................16  
 WT/DSB/M/271 
Page 2  
 
  1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.80) 
 (b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.80) 
 (c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.55) 
 
(d) European Communities – Measures affecting th e approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status report by the European Communities (WT/DS291/37/Add.18 – WT/DS292/31/Add.18 – WT/DS293/31/Add.18) 
 (e) European Communities – Regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas:  
Second recourse to Article 21.5 by Ecuador:  Status report by the European Communities 
(WT/DS27/96/Add.6) 
 (f) Brazil – Measures affecting imports of retreaded tyres:  Status report by Brazil 
(WT/DS332/19/Add.4) 
 
1. The Chairman
 recalled that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that unless the DSB decided 
otherwise, the issue of implementation of the re commendations or rulings shall be placed on the 
Agenda of the DSB meeting after six months follo wing the date of establishment of the reasonable 
period of time and shall remain on the DSB's Agenda  until the issue was resolved.  He proposed that 
the six sub-items under Agenda item 1 be considered separately. 
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropria tions Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.80) 
2. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS176/ 11/Add.80, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US Section 211 Omni bus Appropriations Act of 1998. 
3. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 9 July 2009, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DS U.  As had been noted in that 
status report, a number of legislative proposals th at would implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings in this dispute had been introduced in the current Congress, which had convened in 
January 2009.  The US administration was workin g with the US Congress to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. 
4. The representative of the European Communities  said that, at the present meeting, the 
United States was presenting its eightieth status repor t on its lack of progress in the implementation of 
the DSB's ruling in this dispute.  The EC understood that there were various bills before the House of 
Representatives and the Senate that could lead to a solution to this long-standing dispute.  The EC 
hoped that the new US authorities would now take steps to finally implement the DSB's ruling. 
5. The representative of Cuba  said that, like the US statement, the eightieth brief status report 
before the DSB at the present meeting provided no  information and was meaningless to delegations 
who had been awaiting something conc rete for more than seven years.  He noted that four years ago, 
the EC and the United States had reached an Unders tanding regarding this dispute, which was vague 
and imprecise, and had been agreed without Cuba 's knowledge.  That U nderstanding had imposed no  WT/DSB/M/271 
 Page 3 
 
 
  deadline on the infringer for compliance with its oblig ations and the EC had undertaken not to seek 
authorization from the DSB to suspen d concessions "at this stage", until  the EC "at some future date 
decided to request the DSB authorization to susp end concessions".  In other words, the July 2005 
Understanding had removed the pr essure exerted on the United States by eliminating reasonable 
periods of time for compliance, making it easier to postpone indefinitely the implementation of the 
DSB's rulings and recommendations in this dispute.   In the absence of an independent supervisory 
body in the WTO, which would be responsible for enforcing the recommendations of panels and the 
Appellate Body, the DSB had to oversee the impl ementation of rulings.  Hence, Members were 
exercising their rights at each DSB meeting and had called on the United States to comply with those rulings and to repeal Section 211.  All Members bor e that responsibility and must be concerned about 
cases such as the one under consideration, in which the compliance was being postponed indefinitely.   
6. Like on previous occasions, at the present meeti ng, Cuba would inform Members of the state 
of play of legislative proposals related to Section 211.  In this regard, he noted that no change had 
taken place during the first half of 2009.  Bills ai med at lifting the blockade  against Cuba, and thus 
repealing Section 211, had been tabled in Janua ry, March and May 2009.  However, those proposals 
had not even been discussed, which indicated that this matter was not a priority.  Therefore, the 
United States should explain to other Members the na ture of the US administration's work with the 
US Congress, to which the United States had referred in  its status reports and statements.  Cuba noted 
with regret that, in March and June 2009, Bills had been tabled  for the purpose of disguising and 
perpetuating Section 211 by means of cosmetic adjustments, which would allegedly bring the 
United States into line with the rulings of the Appellate Body.  Those bills had been tabled by 
anti-Cuban members of the US Congress who, in appealing for support, had relied on the idea that 
"property rights must be respected".  Cuba recalled that the HAVANA CLUB trademark had been 
registered on US territory until 1973 by the comp any Arechavala, which had then abandoned it and 
had failed to renew it.  The application by CUBA EXPORT to register the trademark had not been 
opposed by third parties, and it had been granted to that Cuban company in 1976, together with 
exclusive rights.  However, when Bacardí had shown a strong interest in usurping this Cuban 
trademark of international renown, the US Congress had decided arbitrarily to approve legislation, 
which had retroactively branded these intangible assets as illegitimate. 
7. He pointed out that the US blockade against Cuba, together with S ection 211, constituted a 
unilateral sanction of extraterritorial character, wh ich violated fundamental principles and rights under 
international law, such as:  the principles of national and most-favoured-nation treatment under the 
WTO Agreements;  the independen ce and sovereign equality of States;  the right of peoples to 
self-determination;  non-interference;  the right of St ates to dispose freely of their natural wealth and 
resources;  and the right of nationalization.  The United States should not expect any concession or gesture on Cuba's part in exchange for eliminat ing its arbitrary, illegal and failed policies and 
legislations, which had been condemned by the international community.  To-date, Cuba had 
respected the registration of US trademarks, despite th e fact that most of them were not used in Cuba 
due to the US blockade, and that they could have lapsed for non-use, in accordance with the 
legislation in force.  Nor had Cuba enacted la ws providing for non-recognition of trademarks 
originating in the United States, despite the illegal US blockade.  Cuba urged the parties to this 
dispute to take immediate action to repeal Section 211, rather than to promote another disguised 
illegal Act.  Cuba hoped that both the EC and the United States would provide details, at the next 
DSB meeting, on steps, progress and a time-table for compliance, as required under the DSU 
provisions.  
8. The representative of India
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status report 
and its statement.  As stated on previous occasi ons, India remained concerned about the continued 
non-compliance situation in this dispute, which undermined the credibility of the WTO dispute 
settlement system.  India urged the United States to fully and expeditiously implement the DSB's 
recommendations in this dispute. WT/DSB/M/271 
Page 4  
 
  9. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
 said that her country noted the 
US status report, and thanked Cuba for its statemen t with which it wished to be associated.  Much had 
been stated about the protracted non-compliance by  the United States with the DSU provisions and 
the TRIPS Agreement.  This case had been under discu ssion in the DSB for more than seven years.  It 
was regrettable that, in spite of the DSB's conde mnation of Section 211 as being contrary to the 
TRIPS Agreement, the measure remain ed in force.  Like other Members, Venezuela noticed that the 
US status reports contained no new information.  Those reports provided no evidence of any change 
nor did they indicate when compliance would take place.  There was not even a change in drafting style.  Thus, Venezuela wondered what the United St ates sought to demonstrate with such an attitude.  
In this connection, Venezuela would wish to rai se some questions:  "Does the United States believe 
that the dispute settlement mechanism is one of the most important elements in a rules-based 
multilateral trading system?  Does the United States believe that the system established by Members 
to ensure compliance with the Agreements guara nteed integrity and fairness in the WTO dispute 
settlement process?".  Venezuela had serious system ic concerns since the United States had shown no 
willingness to meet its obligations.  In 2009, two pr oposals had been introduced in the United States 
with the aim of perpetuating Section 211.  They  contained only a few cosmetic amendments, and 
proposals for the repeal of Section 211 had not even  been discussed.  Venezuela wondered as to why 
the DSB had not been informed by the United Stat es about those developments.  The main reason 
why the DSB functioned reasonably well was due to some Members' actions, both through their active 
participation in the system and their compliance w ith the DSB's decisions.  Venezuela, therefore, 
urged the United States, once again, to finally take action in order to redress the situation.  
10. The representative of Ecuador
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and supported the statement made by Cuba.  On ce again, Ecuador recalled that Article 21 of the 
DSU referred to prompt compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings, in particular with 
regard to issues affecting the interests of developi ng countries.  Ecuador noted that the United States 
closely monitored compliance by all WTO Members with their obligations and had expressed, in 
different WTO Councils and Committees, its system ic concerns with regard to some of the 
commitments undertaken.  Thus, if the United States  wished to promote coherence in the WTO, it 
should be setting an example.  Ecuador, once again,  urged the US administration and the US Congress 
to speed up their compliance with the DSB's recomme ndations and rulings by repealing Section 211.  
11. The representative of Costa Rica  said that his country had noted the US status report.  As had 
been pointed out on other occasions, Costa Rica wi shed to underline the importance of complying 
with Article 21.1 of the DSU, which referred to essential elements for prompt compliance with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings.  Costa Rica hoped that, in the near future, the US administration would find a solution with the US Congress to this  issue, as indicated in the US status report. 
12. The representative of China
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  However, China noted that nothing new had been reported and that there was no indication 
when the matter would be resolved.  As Ch ina had emphasized many times, the issue of non-
compliance seriously damaged the authority of th e TRIPS Agreement and the credibility of the WTO 
dispute settlement system.  China, therefore, s upported the statements made the EC and Cuba, and 
urged the United States to implement th e DSB's decision without further delay. 
13. The representative of Chile  said that, as mentioned at prev ious meetings and taking note of 
the new status report presented by the United States , his country wished to express its deep systemic 
concern with the lack of compliance in this disput e.  Chile believed that this situation seriously 
undermined the multilateral trading system and that the attempts to modify the DSU provisions could 
fail if disputes were prolonged for years.  Chile, once again, urged the United States to take measures 
to comply with the DSB's recommendations.  WT/DSB/M/271 
 Page 5 
 
 
  14. The representative of Brazil  said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report in the Section 211 dispute.  Brazil join ed previous speakers who had expressed systemic 
concerns about the prolonged non-compliance situation in this dispute.  Brazil urged the United States 
to take steps necessary to bring its measures into  conformity with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings.   
15. The representative of Nicaragua  said that her country wished to urge the United States to 
provide more information on the work of the US administration with the Congress with regard to 
appropriate legislative measures to resolve this issue, which dated b ack to  January 2003.  Nicaragua 
also thanked Cuba for its statement.  Nicaragua  regretted that substantive issues had not been 
discussed and that the US status reports contained the same information.  Nicaragua reiterated the 
need for Members to comply with the DSB's re commendations and rulings and to respect their 
commitments.  
16. The representative of Argentina  recalled that Article 21 of the DSU required Members to 
comply with the DSB's recommendations for the benefit of the system.  Paragraph 6 of the above-mentioned Article was fundamental in this regard .  Argentina urged both parties, especially the 
United States, to implement the DSB's recommendations in this dispute.   
17. The representative of the United States
 said that his country had noted the statements and 
would convey them to its authorities.  The United St ates wished to respond briefly to the statements 
made by some Members that this dispute raised concerns for the cr edibility of the dispute settlement 
system, a point the United States had addressed se veral times before.  As had been previously 
expressed, the United States did not believe that t hose concerns were well-founded and it referred 
Members to those earlier statement.  In particular, th e United States noted that, if the situation in this 
dispute were having systemic consequences, one would expect Members to be demonstrating less 
interest in bringing disputes to the WTO, but the fact s did not bear this out.  In fact, on the Agenda of 
the present meeting, there were two requests for th e establishment of a panel, including one by a 
Member expressing concern under this sub-item.  The United States recalled th at it had reiterated its 
intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in its status report and in its statement 
at the present meeting.  
18. The representative of Cuba  said that if the DSB functioned well and if there were no systemic 
concerns, then Members would not wish to modify th e system in order to improve the provisions on 
compliance with the DSB's recommendations and ru lings.  Many Members had complied with their 
obligations in many cases, but three or four cases had remained on the DSB's Agenda for a number of 
years, including  Section 211.  A Member could not cl aim that it was in terested in complying with the 
rules, and that other Members should comply w ith their obligations unde r multilateral agreements, 
and then do something else.  In other words,  Members could not promote policies that they 
themselves could not comply with.  
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.80) 
19. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/ 15/Add.80, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan. 
20. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 9 July 2009, in  accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As of 23 November 2002, 
the US authorities 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 inv estigation at issue in 
this dispute.  Details had been provided in doc ument WT/DS184/15/Add.3.  As stated previously, WT/DSB/M/271 
Page 6  
 
  with respect to the DSB's recommendations and rulings  that had not already been addressed by the US 
authorities by 23 November 2002, the US administration would work with the US Congress with respect to appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter.  
21. The representative of Japan
 said that his country thanked the United States for its statement 
and its status report.  Japan noted the statement made by the United States that it had taken certain 
measures to implement part of the DSB's recommend ations in November 2002.  Japan hoped that the 
United States would soon be in a position to report to the DSB tangible progress for the remaining part of the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  A full and prompt implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings was "essential to the effective functioning of the WTO and the 
maintenance of a proper balance of th e rights and obligations of Members".
1  Japan called on the 
United States to fully implement the DSB's recommendations in this long-standing dispute without 
further delay. 
22. 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.55) 
23. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/ 24/Add.55, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act. 
24. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 9 July 2009, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  On 13 July 2009, the EC 
Trade Commissioner and the US Trade Represent ative had met and announced that they had 
exchanged ideas on this dispute.  The US administrati on would continue to conf er with the EC, and to 
work closely with the US Congress, in order to reach  a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter. 
25. The representative of the European Communities  said that the United States had again 
reported non-compliance and that the EC was, once ag ain, disappointed.  The EC remained ready to 
work with the US authorities to wards the complete resolution of this case, and hoped that its 
continuing disappointment could be brought to an end soon. 
26. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(d) European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status report by the European Communities (WT/DS291/37/Add.18 – WT/DS292/31/Add.18 
– WT/DS293/31/Add.18) 
27. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/D S291/37/Add.18 – WT/DS292/31/Add.18 – 
WT/DS293/31/Add.18, which contained the status report by the European Communities on progress 
in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the case concerning the EC's measures affecting the approval and mark eting of biotech products. 
28. The representative of th e European Communities
 said that the EC regulatory procedures on 
biotech products continued to work as foreseen in the legislation.  Twenty-one GMO products had 
been authorized in the EC since th e date of establishment of the Panel.  Others were being processed 
in accordance with applicable la w (e.g. the authorization of three GM maize events, MON89034, 
                                                      
1 Article 3.3 of the DSU.  WT/DSB/M/271 
 Page 7 
 
 
  MON88017 and 59122xNK603, would be discussed at th e regulatory Committee that week).  The EC 
expressed its satisfaction with the constructive approach  taken by both Canada and Argentina.  In the 
case of Canada, the constructive discussions held thus far had resulted in a mutually agreed solution to 
this dispute.  In light of the benefits obtai ned from both the EC and Canada from the informal 
dialogue held thus far, the parties had decided, as part  of that solution, to continue such dialogue in a 
more formal setting.  This would allow the two pa rties to continue discussions on issues of mutual 
interest in such a sensitive area.   The EC was also satisfied with the extension, for the eighth 
consecutive time, of the reasonable period of time with Argentina until 31 December 2009. 
29. The representative of Argentina  said that his country thanked the EC for its statement.  As 
stated by the EC, the work done thus far was appr eciated, but Argentina still had some questions and 
would continue to discuss them with the EC in the constructive manner, as it had done so in the past. 
30. The representative of Canada  said that her country thanked the EC for its statement.  Canada 
was also pleased to note that it had reached a mutua lly agreed solution with the EC.  It was Canada's 
understanding that the mutually agreed solution had b een circulated to Members by the Secretariat on 
17 July 2009.  Canadian and EC officials had worked  well together over the past six years and Canada 
anticipated that this good relationship would continue through dialogue on biotech market access 
issues that would be formed under the mutually agreed solution.  Howe ver, Canada remained 
concerned about continuing member State acti ons on the cultivation and marketing of EC-wide 
approved biotech products, particul arly the ban on T25 by Austria that had been found to be in 
violation of the EC's obligations under the SPS Agre ement.  Canada also remained very concerned 
about the slow and uncertain EU approval process  for GM products.  Canada trusted that those 
concerns would be part of the dialogue on biotech  market access that had been established through the 
mutually agreed solution. 
31. The representative of the United States  said that his country thanked the EC for its status 
report and its statement.  As the DSB had been in formed, the EC and Canada had announced an end to 
their bilateral dispute, without prejudice to thei r positions on whether the EC had implemented the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings.  Members would recall that there were important differences 
between the dispute brought by Canada and the di spute brought by the United States.  Unfortunately, 
there was no resolution of the dispute between the EC and the United States.  First, the dispute 
brought by Canada addressed only four product-specifi c instances of undue delay.  Each one of those 
four products was a variety of oilseed rape, used  in the production of what was commonly known as 
Canola oil.  In contrast, the dispute brought by the United States was much broader in scope, covering 
all of the types of products backed up in the EC approval pipeline as of May 2003, when the dispute 
had been initiated.  In particular, the dispute brought by the United States addressed 25 instances of 
product-specific undue delay, coveri ng a broad range of crops, including soybeans, maize, oilseed 
rape, cotton, and beets.  As a result of continuing de lays in the approval of these types of products, the 
EC backlog of pending applications had increased fr om about 25 in 2003 to approximately 50.  As a 
consequence of the delays and the resulting backlo g, products of agricultural biotechnology widely 
consumed and grown in the United States and othe r countries were banned from entry into the EC.  
Furthermore, the dispute brought by Canada covere d only some of the bans adopted by EC member 
States on biotech products approved by the EC prior to  its adoption of a general moratorium in 1999.  
In contrast, the dispute brought by the United States covered all of the EC member State bans as of May 2003.  Most notably, the dispute brought by the United States – but not th at brought by Canada – 
covered Austria's ban on a maize variety known as MON810, which was the only biotech crop 
currently approved to be grown in the EC.  As th e United States had noted in past DSB meetings, 
Austria continued to ban the cultivation of this produ ct, and that ban had now spread to additional EC 
member States.  Those bans had been maintained a nd adopted despite the fact that the DSB had found 
that Austria's ban on this product amounted to a breach of the EC's obligations set out in the SPS 
Agreement.  In sum, the broader set of issues ra ised in the dispute brought by the United States had 
not been addressed satisfactorily.  As had been note d by the United States in the past, as a result of the WT/DSB/M/271 
Page 8  
 
  EC's actions and the backlog in pending applications, US producers were shut out of what historically 
had been major US export markets for maiz e and other important agricultural products. 
32. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the GMO regulatory regime had 
not been the subject of the original Panel's findings and neither had been its "operation" nor the status 
of specific applications not dealt with in the origin al Panel was covered by this Agenda item.  In any 
event, the GMO regulatory regime was working normally.  Its functioning should not be rigidly 
assessed purely quantitatively and in abstract, in terms of number of authorizations per year, since this 
was dependent on various product and case specific elements and, in particular, on the quality of 
applications and on the time needed by appli cants to answer requests from EFSA on additional 
scientific information.  The speedy author ization process of GM soybean MON89788 (Roundup 
Ready 2), with a decision adopted only four months  after EFSA had issued its opinion, showed that 
the EC authorization procedures performed satisf actorily once a complete application was filed. 
33. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(e) European Communities – Regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas:  
Second recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Ecuador:  Status report by the European 
Communities (WT/DS27/96/Add.6) 
34. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS27/ 96/Add.6, which contained the status 
report by the European Communities on progr ess in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in the case concerni ng the European Communities' regime for the 
importation, sale and distribution of bananas. 
35. The representative of the European Communities  said that, as indicated in previous DSB 
meetings, his delegation stood ready to implement the recommendation made in the Panel Report by 
means of modifying its bound duty.  The EC still hoped that this rebinding could be made in the 
context of a comprehensive agreement with Latin American suppliers, an agreement that had been 
sought since the EC initiated GATT Article XXVIII negotiations back in 2004.  The EC was fully 
committed to finding very soon a final solution to th is long-standing "banana saga".  As indicated in 
its previous status report, the EC was fully engage d in negotiations with all Latin American supplying 
countries with the view to concluding promptly such  a comprehensive agreement.  The EC hoped that 
those negotiations could soon lead to a satisfactor y agreement.  The requests made to the EC to 
simply sign tel quel  the draft agreement established in th e margins of the 2008 July Ministerial 
Meeting had simply disregarded the fact that the signature of that agreement was subject to the 
successful adoption of DDA Agriculture modalities.  Having said that, the EC was now engaged in 
negotiations to discuss the possibility of concluding  a draft agreement with a number of elements 
based on the July 2008 text, subject to necessary adju stments to the current situation, and hoped that 
all banana suppliers woul d constructively engage in the necessa ry discussions.  This was a unique 
opportunity to put an end to this long-standing di spute and to bring to ec onomic operators the long-
awaited legal certainty. 
36. The representative of Ecuador  said that his country thanked the EC for its status report, 
although, once again, the EC had failed to indicate a ny date by which it expected to comply with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings in this disput e.  The EC had proposed to the MFN banana 
suppliers an agreement, which was subject to a series of conditions that had gone far beyond the 
Bananas dispute, and had made any understanding am ong the parties more difficult.  Those issues had 
nothing to do with compliance with the DSB's re commendations and rulings in the dispute won by 
Ecuador and compensation for the EC's enlargement, which was claimed by Ecuador.  It was for that 
reason that Ecuador had been obliged to suspend the negotiations on the multi-party agreement with 
the EC, in protest at the delay in resolving this dispute.  Nevertheless, Ecuador was still open to  WT/DSB/M/271 
 Page 9 
 
 
  finding a settlement in the WTO.  However, any ag reement would only be acceptable if it maintained 
the balance achieved in July 2008. 
37. The representative of Panama  said that, first, his delegation wished to recall previous 
statements made by Panama on this matter.  His c ountry continued to be disappointed about the EC's 
status reports and its actions in th is dispute.  Although the EC status report again alleged that progress 
had been made, the EC's manner of handling the dis pute had hampered the achievement of a solution.  
The conditions for resolving the case had become so complicated that it was di fficult to see that any 
progress had been made.  A so-called "agreement" covering a number of difficult products unrelated 
to bananas, which involved Members that were not MFN banana suppliers, did not meet the objective 
of compliance under the DSB.  This case remained  on the DSB's Agenda because the EC's bananas 
policies had been condemned more often than any ot her regime in the history of the system, and the 
EC had still not brought itself into compliance.  T hose policies were the most flagrant example of 
recurring non-compliance in the system.  In order to  ascertain whether there was a sufficient degree of 
compliance in this case, Panama again requested that the EC explain, without hiding behind conditions not related to the DSB, when exactly th e EC expected to rebind its banana tariff, in 
accordance with Article II of the GATT 1994, and at  what level;  how it intended to remedy its 
repeated violation of Article I of the GATT 1994;  and what assurances it planned to offer to the 
affected MFN suppliers that its recurrent violation of Article XIII would not be repeated in the future.  
Panama urged other Members to join in reminding the EC of its compliance obligations and of the 
systemic importance of putting an end to the regrettable legacy of non-compliance. 
38. The representative of Honduras
 said that, despite the assurances contained in the EC's status 
report, his country continued to have doubts as to  whether the EC would honour its commitment to 
comply with the WTO obligations.  What the EC's status report did not reveal was that the EC's 
intention to comply was contingent on a number of  onerous conditions.  According to the EC, there 
would be no agreement unless the MFN parties, wh ich had won the disputes, renounced their Doha 
Round rights with regard to other products of inte rest to them.  Furthermore, there would be no 
suitable agreement to settle the matter if other WTO bodies, which had no responsibility in the area of 
dispute settlement, did not validate an "early ha rvest" under the Doha framework.  Indeed, the EC 
intended to continue in a state of non-compliance until it considered that its broader objectives in the 
Doha Round had been satisfied.  The EC did not share those conditions with the DSB because they 
ran counter to the principle of prompt complian ce with the DSU.  Like the other MFN parties, 
Honduras was interested in reaching a compromise, but not at any cost.  If the EC continued to insist 
on unrestricted conditionality, impracticable pr ocedures and unacceptable commitments, it would 
only succeed in perpetuating its non-compliance in vi olation of WTO rules.  Whatever its status 
reports may say, no one should be misled into believing that the EC's irrational compromise 
framework constituted a step forward in the implem entation of the DSB's rulings.  As a complainant 
in the Bananas III dispute, and as a major supplier to the EC market, Honduras continued to reserve 
its rights in this dispute. 
39. The representative of the Dominican Republic , speaking on behalf of the ACP countries, said 
that in the course of the past six DSB meetings, during which this item had been discussed, the ACP countries had consistently reiterated their respect for the need to implement the DSB's decisions, 
notwithstanding their continuing di sagreement with certain conclusions  reached by the Panel and the 
Appellate Body in this dispute.  As at previ ous meetings, however, the ACP countries felt that it 
would be useful to recall the conclusions reached by the Panel and the Appellate Body, namely, that 
the EC's schedule at this time still committed the EC to a TRQ at a tariff of €75/metric tons and an out-of-quota tariff of €680/metric tons.  The ACP countries had indicated that they could live with a literal implementation of those conclusions.  The EC, however, aimed to put this dispute to rest by 
changing the structure of its tariff commitments th rough negotiations with th e MFN banana suppliers, 
thereby achieving compliance and implementation.  Th is process would lead to an overall reduction of 
applied (and bound) duty rates.  The DSB's recommenda tions in this dispute did not require such an WT/DSB/M/271 
Page 10  
 
  overall reduction of average tariff;  all they re quired was either a literal implementation or a 
rearrangement.  As stressed before by the ACP countries, a decision to reduce the EC's average 
banana tariffs would not be rooted in the need fo r compliance but rather in the DDA context.  This 
should be kept in mind when designing and impl ementing a solution, which should be based on the 
right reasoning and should be balanced out in the right context.  The ACP countries remained 
committed to supporting its partners in finding and implementing an effective final solution to the 
"banana issue". 
40. The representative of Colombia
 said that his country thanked the EC for its status report and 
noted the EC's intention to bring itself into comp liance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
by modifying its scheduled tariff commitments on ba nanas.  Colombia had received a proposal from 
the EC and had submitted its counter proposal together  with other Latin American banana suppliers.  
Colombia hoped that a balanced solution, consiste nt with multilateral rules, would be found in as 
short a time as possible.  For that purpose, the wholehearted commitment of the EC was required, so as not to make the negotiations contingent on unnecessary conditions and to display sufficient 
flexibility. 
41. The representative of Costa Rica
 said that his country wished to be associated with the 
statements made by Ecuador, Colombia and H onduras and other MFN suppliers.  Costa Rica noted 
the EC's status report and expressed its disappointment  about the lack of compliance by the EC with 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  Costa Rica noted that the conditions imposed 
by the EC had made it very difficult to seek a soluti on and demonstrated the lack of will of the EC to 
seek a settlement.  Costa Rica urged the EC to make e fforts in order to find a solution to this matter.  
42. The representative of the United States  said that his country thanked the EC for its status 
report and its statement.  The United Stated had addressed this item many times in the past.  The 
reasonable period of time for compliance in this di spute had expired more than ten years ago, on 
1 January 1999.  While having taken note of the EC 's efforts to reach agreement with interested 
parties to resolve the dispute, the United States also  noted that the commercial impact of the EC's non-
compliance over this very long period was undeni ably large and damaging to a number of WTO 
Members.  The United States, therefore, called on the EC, once again, to resolve this dispute fully and 
promptly. 
43. The representative of Cameroon  said that his country thanked the EC for its status report and 
wished to be associated with th e statement made by the Dominican Republic, on behalf of the ACP 
countries.  Cameroon noted that the issue was complicated and that a solution through legal channels 
was not satisfactory.  In Cameroon's view, a part of  any settlement would have to be achieved through 
negotiations.  In order for any solution to be credib le, such a solution had to be acceptable to all and 
should take into account certain important aspect s of the Doha Round.  Cameroon hoped that a 
satisfactory solution to this matter would be reached.  
44. The representative of Nicaragua  said that, for a long time, the EC had stated that it was "ready 
to comply" with the DSB's recommendations and ruli ngs in the Bananas dispute.  However, the DSU 
provisions did not permit the EC to "be ready" to comply, but required the EC to comply.  In this dispute, the compliance should have been achieved more than 10 years ago.  Over the past 10 years, while the EC had been saying that it was "ready" to comply, the continued violation of rights had 
imposed a high price on Latin American countries.  Th e EC should stop talking about its intentions 
and should take action, in accordance with the DSU provisions.  It should comply promptly, taking 
into account special needs and interests of devel oping countries.  The EC had failed to give any 
response when it had stated that it would only bri ng itself into compliance when developing countries 
promised to pay in other areas or agree to submit  to an "early harvest" to be approved by the 
Membership.  According to the DSU provisions, compliance could not be linked to other unrelated matters.  The obligation to comply could not be ex changed for other products, on a request and offer  WT/DSB/M/271 
 Page 11 
 
 
  basis, nor could it be set aside by other suppliers  who obviously preferred the status quo.  Nicaragua 
reminded the EC that its compliance obligation was no t amenable to conditions and that "being ready" 
to comply was not an option:  the EC must comply. 
45. The representative of Guatemala  said that his country regretted that this item was, once again, 
on the DSB's Agenda and wished to  be associated with the statements made by Ecuador, Panama, 
Honduras, Colombia, Costa Rica and Nicaragua.  Guat emala urged the EC to comply promptly with 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute.   
46. The representative of Saint Lucia , speaking also on behalf of Dominica, Grenada and Saint 
Vincent and the Grenadines, said that the countries in question wished to be associated with the 
statement made by the Dominican Republic, on beha lf of the ACP banana suppliers, as well as with 
the statement made by Cameroon.  The countries in question urged that any solution to this matter 
must adequately address social, economic and secur ity concerns of the ACP banana suppliers.  If 
those special circumstances of the ACP banana suppl iers were not taken into account, the countries in 
question would suffer severely. 
47. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(f) Brazil – Measures affecting imports of retreaded tyres:  Status report by Brazil 
(WT/DS332/19/Add.4) 
48. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS332/ 19/Add.4, which contained the status 
report by Brazil on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in the case concerning Brazil's measures affecting imports of retreaded tyres. 
49. The representative of Brazil
 said that, on 9 July 2009, his country had provided the DSB with 
a further status report in this dispute, in accordan ce with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  At the present 
meeting, Brazil was glad to announce that its Suprem e Court had concluded, on 24 June 2009, that the 
importation of used tyres into Brazil violated co re constitutional precepts relating to the rights to 
health and to a balanced environment.  The Suprem e Court had also affirmed  the legality of Brazil's 
import ban on used tyres and revoked court decisions  that allowed some companies to import used 
tyres into Brazil.  The decision of the Supreme C ourt reinforced Brazil's comprehensive strategy to 
deal with the risks to the Brazilian population asso ciated with the generation, transportation and 
accumulation of used tyres.  That decision also  constituted a fundamental step towards full 
compliance in this dispute, which Brazil exp ected to achieve in th e very near future. 
50. The representative of the European Communities  said that the EC noted Brazil's fifth status 
report.  The EC noted again that Brazil had admitte d not having achieved compliance to date, despite 
the expiry of the reasonable period of time on 17 Dece mber 2008.  In its fifth status report, Brazil had 
reported on a recent decision of its Supreme Court that had held regulations banning the importation 
of used tyres to be constitutionally valid.  Braz il acknowledged that, in spite of this decision, it was 
still not in full compliance with the DSB's recomme ndations.  The EC recalle d that the Appellate 
Body Report had made it clear that Brazil's discr iminatory import ban on retreaded tyres was illegal, 
no matter how few casings or MERCOSUR retreads we re actually imported.  One way to implement 
the DSB's recommendations was to lift the import ban on retreaded tyres.  This also had the benefit of 
allowing Brazil to comply with its MERCOSUR obliga tions, as confirmed by binding arbitral rulings.  
This would bring Brazil in line with the overwhelm ing majority of WTO Members that did not ban 
the importation of retreaded tyres because it was acknowledged that retreaded tyres reduced the 
quantity of fossil fuel expended in  the production of tyres as well as the quantity of end-of-life tyres 
that had to be burnt.  International standards su ch as those elaborated by the UNECE ensured the 
safety of, and aimed to facilitate trade in, retreaded tyres.  The EC and a great number of other WTO WT/DSB/M/271 
Page 12  
 
  Members imported retreaded tyres from other count ries, including Brazil.  The EC continued to 
express its understanding and support for Brazil's me asures aiming to protect its citizens against 
diseases spread by mosquitoes that bred in abandone d waste tyres.  For that purpose, however, there 
were measures available that would actually make a difference, contrary to the selective targeting of 
certain imported products that contributed margina lly, if at all, to the problem.  Throughout the 
dispute proceedings, Brazil had strongly insisted that it absolutely needed to comply with its 
MERCOSUR obligations to allow for importation of  retreaded tyres.  The DSB's recommendations 
did not require Brazil to change its position, so Brazil was under no WTO obligation to work in the 
direction of completely stopping the importation of MERCOSUR retread.  The EC was deeply concerned about Brazil's ongoing lack of complia nce and called again upon Brazil to end, without 
further delay, its arbitrary and discriminatory prac tices regarding retreaded tyres, and to do so by 
removing the import ban. 
51. 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 Subsid y Offset Act of 2000:  Implementation of 
the recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) Statements by the European Communities and Japan 
52. The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Communities and Japan.  He then invited the respective representatives to speak. 
53. The representative of the European Communities  said that, as in many previous DSB 
meetings, the EC wished to ask the United States wh en it would effectively stop the transfer of anti-
dumping and countervailing duties to its industry and fi nally put an end to the condemned measure.  
The EC also renewed its call on the United States to abide by its clear obligation under Article 21.6 of 
the DSU and to submit status reports in this dispute. 
54. The representative of Japan  said that the US Customs and Border Protection's publication of 
"FY 2009 Preliminary CDSOA amounts available"2 showed that the CDSOA remained operational.3  
Japan, once again, called on the United States to stop  illegal distributions and repeal the CDSOA, not 
just in form but in substance, so as to resolve this  dispute once and for all.  According to Article 21.6 
of the DSU, the United States was under obligation to  provide the DSB with a status report in this 
dispute "until the issue is resolved".  Japan  reserved all its rights under the DSU until the 
United States was in full compliance. 
55. The representative of Brazil  said that his delegation thanked the EC and Japan for placing this 
item on the DSB's Agenda.  Brazil remained concerne d with trade-distorting effects of continuing 
disbursements under the Byrd Amendment.  Full comp liance in this dispute would only be achieved 
when the United States completely ceased to ma ke disbursements under the WTO-inconsistent 
provisions of the Byrd Amendment.  
56. The representative of China  said that his country thanked the EC and Japan for, once again, 
raising this item at the DSB meeting.  China shared  the concerns of the previous speakers and joined 
them in urging the United States to comply fully with the DSB's rulings.  
                                                      
2 See US Customs and Border Protection's website at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/tr ade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/fy09_prelim.ctt/fy09_prelim.pdf  
3 In the words of the US Customs, "the distribution process will continue for an undetermined period".  
See US Customs and Border Protection's website at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/tr ade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/cont_dump_faq.xm1   WT/DSB/M/271 
 Page 13 
 
 
  57. The representative of Canada  said that her country agreed with the EC and Japan that the 
Byrd Amendment remained subject  to the surveillance of the DS B until the United States ceased to 
administer it. 
58. The representative of Thailand  said that his country thanked the EC and Japan for bringing 
this item before the DSB once again.  Thaila nd continued to urge the United States to cease 
disbursements under the Continued Dumping and Subs idy Offset Act, repeal the Byrd Amendment 
with immediate practical effect and resume providing  status reports until such actions were taken and 
this matter was completely resolved. 
59. The representative of India  said that his country thanked the EC and Japan for bringing this 
issue before the DSB once again.  In India's view , the CDSOA still allowed the disbursements by the 
US administration to its domestic industry.  Members c ontinued to raise concerns about this situation.  
India urged the United States to immediately cease its WTO-inconsistent disbursements, and fully comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
60. The representative of the United States
 said that, as his country had already explained at many 
previous DSB meetings, the US President had signed the Deficit Reduction Act into law on 
8 February 2006.  That Act included a provisio n repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000.  Thus, the United States had ta ken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in those disputes.  The United States recalled, furthermore, that Members, including the EC and Japan, had acknowle dged, during previous DSB meetings, that the 
2006 Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distribu tion of duties collected on goods entered after 
1 October 2007.  The United States, therefore, s till did not understand the purpose for which the EC 
and Japan had inscribed the item on the Agenda.  W ith respect to comments regarding further status 
reports in this matter, the United States failed to see what purpose would be served by further submission of status reports repeating the progress it had made in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. 
61. The DSB took note
 of the statements. 
3. United States – Certain measures affecting imports of poultry from China 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by China (WT/DS392/2) 
62. The Chairman  drew attention to the communicati on from China contained in document 
WT/DS392/2, and invited the representative of China to speak. 
63. The representative of China  said that, on 11 March 2009, the US President had signed the US 
Omnibus Appropriation Act of 2009 into law.  That  Act included a provision of Section 727 providing 
that "none of the funds made available in this Act may be used to establish or implement a rule 
allowing poultry products to be imported into the Un ited States from the People's Republic of China".  
This had resulted in a complete ban on the im port of poultry products from China into the 
United States.  While violating various WTO rules,  the measure had severely undermined the stable 
development of Sino-US trade on poultry products, a nd damaged the lawful rights and interests of 
China's poultry industry.  This constituted a t ypical discriminatory protectionist measure in 
international trade.  China reiterated that, since at  least 2007, the United States had entirely closed the 
door to China's poultry products through a numbe r of annual Omnibus A ppropriation Acts and a 
series of related measures.  Those measures we re in serious violation of the GATT 1994, the 
Agreement on Agriculture and other related WTO ru les.  Although China had repeatedly expressed its 
deep concerns to the United States, both bilaterally and multilaterally, this matter had not been solved 
thus far.  For that reason, on 17 April 2009, Ch ina had filed its consultation request vis-à-vis the 
United States, in accordance with the DSU and re lated WTO Agreements.  The consultations had WT/DSB/M/271 
Page 14  
 
  been held on 15 May 2009, but had failed to settle th e dispute.  Therefore, China, on 23 June 2009, 
had requested the DSB to establish a panel to exam ine certain measures taken by the United States 
affecting imports of poultry products from China.  China noted and pointed out that the US Congress 
was currently in the process of formulating a new ag riculture appropriation Ac t, and certain Congress 
members were still insisting on inserting new discrimin atory provisions to restrict imports of poultry 
products from China.  China had grave concerns ove r those activities, which would further forestall 
the normal business of Sino-US trade.  China believed that the US measures were inconsistent with its 
obligations under the WTO Agreements, and had el aborated China's claims and legal basis in 
document WT/DS392/2, which had been circulated to all Members.  Since consultations between 
China and the United States had not been able to reso lve the dispute, China, therefore, requested that a 
panel, with standard terms of reference, be  established by the DSB at the present meeting. 
64. The representative of the United States
 said that his country was disappointed that China had 
chosen to move forward with a request for pa nel establishment at the present meeting.  The 
United States placed great importance on ensuring that  its measures relating to food safety were based 
on science and in compliance with US obligations un der the WTO Agreement.  Consistently with the 
SPS Agreement, the United States permitted imports of poultry products from all countries for which 
a determination of equivalence had been made.  In this dispute, China challenged the way in which 
the United States was responding to China's request fo r a determination of equivalence.  In this 
regard, the relevant US authorities were working toge ther to ensure that the US response to China's 
request for a determination of equivalence was ba sed on an objective, science-based consideration of 
all the relevant evidence in a way that was fully consistent with the oblig ations in the covered 
agreements.  Contrary to what China appeared to  believe, nothing in the measure identified by China 
prevented the US authorities from continuing to work  together to reach an objective, science-based 
response to China's equivalence request that both safeguarded human life and health and was 
consistent with the US obligations under the WTO Agreement.  Therefore, the United States 
considered that there was no basis for the clai ms made by China in its panel request. The 
United States also had a number of concerns w ith the way in which China had framed its panel 
request.  For example, the request appeared both to include measures that were not consulted upon and to make claims under a covered agreement pur suant to which consultations had neither been 
requested nor held.  In any event, the measure identif ied by China would, by its terms, expire at the 
end of the current US fiscal year on 30 Septembe r 2009.  An open, public debate was underway in the 
US Congress as to what conditions, if any, should be attached to the use of appropriated funds in the 
next fiscal year with respect to the import of poultry products from China.  He concluded by saying 
that, for all of the preceding reasons, the United States was not in a position to agree to the 
establishment of a panel at the present time. 
65. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter. 
4. Korea – Measures affecting the importation of bovine meat and meat products from 
Canada 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada (WT/DS391/3) 
66. The Chairman  drew attention to the communicati on from Canada contained in document 
WT/DS391/3, and invited the repr esentative of Canada to speak. 
67. The representative of Canada  said that, as one of the world’s largest exporters of beef, her 
country's trade interests had been, and continued to be, significantly impaired by Korea's measures 
affecting the importation of bovine meat and meat products from Canada.  Ko rea maintained a ban on 
the importation of bovine meat and meat products from Canada allegedly to protect against risks 
arising from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).  Korea had also adopted measures that placed unjustified restrictions on the resumption of imports of bovine meat and meat  products from Canada.   WT/DSB/M/271 
 Page 15 
 
 
  Over the years, Canada had consistently raised its concerns with regard to Korea's measures affecting 
the import of Canadian beef.  This had been done  through letters, technical exchanges, meetings 
between government officials and at meetings of the WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures.  In addition, Canada's international trade and agriculture ministers had discussed their 
concerns with their Korean counterparts on various  occasions.  For more than six years now, Canada 
had been trying to restore access for Canadian beef  to Korea based on science.  During this time, 
Canada had provided Korea with extensive scientific in formation, far more than what was required to 
justify full resumption of trade.  In fact, since 2003, Canada had sent Korea thousands of pages of 
documentation.  There had been a total of 13 techni cal discussions with Korea, and Korean officials 
had come to Canada on several occasions to see for themselves the effectiveness of Canada's BSE 
control measures.  Canada also noted that in May 2007, the World Organization for Animal Health 
(OIE) had recognized Canada as a controlled risk count ry for BSE.  That categorization was the result 
of a comprehensive evaluation by the OIE's panel of  BSE experts of Canada's  BSE control measures.  
The OIE reconfirmed Canada's controlled risk status  in 2008 and 2009.  For countries in this risk 
category, OIE guidelines allowed for the safe trade in  all beef under conditions that Canada met.  
Canada was disappointed that despite those significa nt efforts on its part, Korea maintained an import 
ban without justification.  Canada  also regretted that, despite its numerous attempts, Korea had been 
unwilling to resolve this issue based  on science.  As outlined in the letter addressed to the Chairman 
of the DSB dated 9 July 2009, Canada considered  that Korea's measures were inconsistent with 
Korea's WTO obligations under the SPS Agreement and the GATT 1994.  More specifically, it was Canada's view that these measures were not based on the relevant international standards, guidelines 
or recommendations, and were not based on scientif ic principles and were maintained without 
sufficient scientific evidence.  In addition, Canada  considered that Korea's measures were more trade 
restrictive than necessary, and were discriminatory and represented a disguised restriction on international trade.  On 9 April 2009, Canada had requested consultations with Korea with respect to 
these measures.  Consultations had been held in Geneva on 7 May 2009.  Regrettably, the 
consultations had not led to a resolution of the di spute.  Consequently, Canada was now requesting 
that a panel be established to examine this matter. 
68. The representative of Korea
 said that his country was deeply disappointed that Canada had 
chosen to move forward with a request for pane l establishment at this juncture, despite all the 
vigorous efforts that Korea had made to resolve th e dispute in a mutually satisfactory manner.  The 
dispute at hand related to BSE (Bovine Spongiform  Encephalopathy), which was infectious to both 
human and cattle, and for which no effective treatment had yet been developed.  Thus, once BSE 
agents entered a new territory, they could cause dev astating damage not only to animals, but also to 
human life and health.  While Korea had never de tected BSE within its territory, 16 BSE outbreaks 
had been reported in Canada, including two recen tly, in November 2008 and May 2009.  Under those 
circumstances, SPS measures taken by Korea were indispensable to prevent the introduction of BSE 
agents into its territory and to prevent their adve rse effects on the life and health of its people and 
animals.  Korea had continuously made its efforts to  review BSE-related cond itions in Canada and to 
maintain the SPS measure consistent  with relevant international la ws, including the SPS Agreement.  
As part of such efforts, Korea had conducted on -site evaluations of potential exporters' sanitary 
conditions in Canada in June 20 07 and November 2008.  Likewi se, Korea and Canada had held 
technical consultations twice in November 2007 a nd November 2008.  Despite those ongoing efforts, 
Canada had requested consultations pursuant to the DSU provisions on 9 April 2009.  At the 
consultation meeting held on 7 May 2009, Korea had further provided explanations on various aspects 
of its measures and the legal and factual bases thereo f.  But, instead of pursuing continued bilateral 
efforts to reach a satisfactory solution to the dispute,  Canada had decided to prematurely resort to the 
panel procedures.  Korea strongly urged Canada to reconsider its decision to proceed to the panel 
procedures and to engage in thoro ugh bilateral consultations to reach a mutually satisfactory solution.  
In this regard, Korea was not in  a position to accept the establishment of a panel at the present time. 
69. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter. WT/DSB/M/271 
Page 16  
 
  5. Proposed nominations for the indicative list of governmental and non-governmental 
panelists (WT/DSB/W/408) 
70. The Chairman
 drew attention to document WT/DSB /W/408, which contained additional 
names proposed for inclusion on the indicative list of governmental and non-g overnmental panelists, 
in accordance with Article 8.4 of the DSU.  He proposed that the DSB approve the names contained 
in document WT/DSB/W/408. 
71. The DSB so agreed .  
__________