RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/236 
24 September 2007 
 (07-4002) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
24 July 2007  
 
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 24 July 2007  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Bruce Gosper (Australia) 
 
 
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......................................................................................................................... ..................5  
(d) United States – Laws, regulations and methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("Zeroing"):  Status repor t by the Unite d States .........................................................................6  
2. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  
Implementation of the recommenda tions adopted by the DSB ............................................6  
(a) Statements by Canada, the Eur opean Communiti es and Japan...................................................6  
3. Brazil – Anti-dumping measures on imports of certain resins from Argentina..................8  
(a) Request for the establishment of  a panel by Argentina ..............................................................8  
4. China – Certain measures granting ref unds, reductions or exemptions from 
taxes and other payments....................................................................................................... ..9 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States ...................................................9  
(b) Request for the establishment of a panel by Mexico ..................................................................9  
5. United States – Measures affecting the cross-border supply of gambling and 
betting services ............................................................................................................... .........10  
(a) Recourse to Article 22.2 of the DSU by Antigua and Barbuda ................................................10  
6. Mexico – Anti-dumping duties on steel pipes and tubes from Guatemala ........................12  
(a) Report of the Panel............................................................................................................ ........12  
7. Proposed nomination for the indicative list of governmental and 
non-governmental panelists ...................................................................................................14  WT/DSB/M/236 
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.56) 
 
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.56) 
 (c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.31) 
 
(d) United States – Laws, regulations a nd methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("Zeroing"):  Status report by the United States (WT/DS294/20/Add.5) 
 1. The Chairman
 recalled that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that "unless the DSB decides 
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 pursuant to paragraph 3 and shall remain on the DSB's agenda until the issue is 
resolved".  He proposed that the four sub-items to which he had just referred be considered separately. 
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropria tions Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.56) 
2. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS176/ 11/Add.56, 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 12 July 2007, in accordance with Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in the status 
report, a number of legislative proposals that would implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings in this dispute had been introduced in th e current US Congress, in both the US Senate and the 
US House of Representatives.  The US administra tion continued to work with the US Congress to 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
4. The representative of the European Communities  said that on 21 June 2007,  new bills that 
would, inter alia , repeal Section 211 had been introduced in  the US Congress.  These bills were 
bipartisan and had already received support from 55 co -sponsors.  This added to  other bills introduced 
earlier that would also repeal Section 211 and were  already supported by 61 co-sponsors.  The EC 
hoped that the introduction of these bills showed a re newed and genuine interest of the United States 
to finally put itself into compliance with its TRIPS obligations.  The United States might deny it, but the fact remained that the authority of the TRIPS Ag reement and the credibility of actions to enforce it 
necessarily suffered when one of its main promoter s appeared to simply ignore its obligations under 
that Agreement.  In the interest of all, the EC  again urged the United States to comply with its 
obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. 
5. The representative of Cuba
 said that the dispute on Section 211 was one of the longest-
standing issues on the agenda of the DSB.  Month after month, for more than five years now, WTO Members had been told by the United States that the US administration was working with the US 
Congress on measures that would resolve this dis pute, and yet there was no concrete evidence 
pointing to a short- or medium-term solution.   Cuba questioned the willingness of the US 
administration or the US Congress to implement the DSB's recommendations in this dispute, in spite 
of the fact that at least one bill had been subm itted, both to the House of Representatives and the  WT/DSB/M/236 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Senate, in different legislatures that would abolis h the discriminatory Section 211.  The United States 
was defying the rules of the WTO and undermined its  reputation by safeguarding the trade interests, 
the commitments and political sympathies of the Baca rdi company and helping it to rid itself unfairly 
of its competitor, the Franco-Cuban Company Havana Club Holding, S.A.  
6. Section 211 bore the seal of Bacardi.  It was Bacardi's lawyers that had drafted the bill and 
had lobbied in the US Congress to ensure its immediate adoption.  The US Congress had openly 
acceded to the request of this company, which was a front for the right-winged Miami Cubans, and hastened to tack Section 211 onto the Budget Act of 1998.  Section 211, which allowed Bacardi to 
usurp the trademark from its legitimate holder, had been adopted on 21 October of that same year.  
However, for more than five years now, it had not been possible to repeal it.  Using Section 211 as a 
pretext, Bacardi wanted to demonstrate that it owned the trademark Havana Club, and that it had 
purchased the mark from the Arechabala family.  In fact, the trademark had been abandoned by its 
former holders long before the nationalization, wh ich had taken place in Cuba in 1960, in accordance 
with the principles and rules of international law.  Although Cuban rum could not be sold in the United States due to the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States 
on Cuba for more than 45 years, the disputed trad emark had been registered in the United States as of 
1976 by the Cuban company CUBA EXPORT.  This month, it would be two years since the EC, 
adopting a collaborative and tolerant attitude, had agreed to sign an understanding which enabled the 
United States to extend indefinitely its non-complianc e with the decisions of the DSB and to maintain 
Section 211 in force.  Like at the previous meeti ng, Cuba wished that the United States and the EC 
explain how they reconciled the irregular and in creasingly drawn-out situation created by this 
agreement with the letter of the DSU.  The conti nued US non-compliance with the rulings of the DSB 
jeopardized the credibility, predictability and eff ectiveness of the dispute settlement mechanism, 
undermined the balance of rights and obligations am ong Members, and was a constant threat to the 
multilateral trading system and the WTO Agreement.   Cuba requested, once again, that the United 
States comply immediately with its obligations and that it recognize that the only possible solution to 
this dispute would be to repeal Section 211. 
7. The representative of India
 said that her country, while thanking the United States for its 
status report and the statement made at the present meeting, wished to renew its systemic concerns about the lack of progress in the implementation of the DSB's rulings and about the situation of non-
compliance in this dispute.  As mentioned earlier se veral times, a protracted non-compliance situation  
by the WTO Members clearly undermined the credib ility of the system and the carefully negotiated 
balance of rights and obligations of the whole Membership. 
8. The representative of China
 said that, due to its systemic interests, his country once again 
wished to express its concerns about this protr acted implementation process in the dispute under 
consideration.  China thanked the Unites States for its status report and the statement.  However, as 
other delegations had stated, five years had passed, but  the issue of implementation in this dispute was 
still being discussed in the DSB.  It was very regr ettable that there was no development as to when 
this matter would be resolved.  The DSU more than  once reiterated the importance of prompt and full 
implementation of the DSB's rulings and recomm endations, which was essential to ensuring the 
effective resolution of disputes and the authorit y of the DSB.  Although China was conscious of 
possible difficulties involved in the process of im plementation, which was common for everyone, the 
undue delay of full implementation of the DSB's ru lings inevitably caused systemic concerns about 
the integrity and efficiency of the dispute settle ment system.  Therefore, China again urged the 
United States to double its effort to fully implemen t the decision of the DSB regarding this dispute.  
9. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  said that his country thanked 
Cuba for its statement, which it fully endorsed.  His delegation noted the status report submitted by 
the United States.  Members, once again, had to discuss the case of Section 211 Omnibus 
Appropriations Act of 1998.  Judging from what the United States had indicated in its latest status WT/DSB/M/236 
Page 4  
 
  report, the short-term solution had not yet been f ound.  His country still hoped that the United States 
would keep its promise and that it would work actively towards compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in all pending disputes.  Unfortunately, as his country had already stated 
in the past, the continued indifference of the Unite d States towards its WTO obligations was affecting 
the balance of rights and obligations previously negotiated by Members, undermining the credibility 
of the DSB and of the multilateral trading system.  This repeated non-compliance merely highlighted 
the challenge involved in improving the provisions of the DSU in order to boost its effectiveness.  It 
was his country's understanding that a number of prop osals to this effect were on the negotiating table 
in the context of the current DSU negotiations.  His country hoped that Members would not have to wait too long to put an end to this continuing failure  to comply with the TRIPS Agreement and Article 
21.1 of the DSU.  As a Member with a systemic inte rest in the case at issue, his country, therefore, 
appealed once again to the United States to comply  once and for all with the provisions of the DSB 
and to put an end to this dispute.  
10. The representative of Nicaragua
 said that her country thanked the United States for its latest 
status report in connection with this agenda item.   However, Nicaragua continued to maintain a 
systemic interest in the failure of the United Stat es to comply with what had been established by the 
DSB more than five years ago.  As previous sp eakers had repeatedly pointed out, this non-compliance 
cast doubt on the legitimacy and effectiveness of th e dispute settlement process, and demonstrated 
that there was a lack of coherence and rigour in th e protection and application of intellectual property 
rights.  Nicaragua hoped that the US Congress would rapidly adopt the legislative measures needed to 
resolve this situation as quickly as possible. 
11. The representative of Thailand  said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and the statement made at the present meeting.   Like previous speakers, Thailand wished to 
express its concern about the systemic implications of  this dispute.  Non-implementation of the DSB's 
rulings and recommendations undermined the rules- based multilateral trading system.  Thailand, 
therefore, called on the United States to take the necessary and urgent steps to comply with its 
obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.  
12. The representative of the United States  said that the EC's comments about the US 
commitment to intellectual property rights and to compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings were as unwarranted and unfounded now as th ey had been at previous DSB meetings.  For 
further details the United States referred the EC, its member States and other delegations to the 
statement made by the United States on 26 October 2006 .  Finally, in response to some suggestions 
made at the present meeting that the US compliance r ecord was poor, it noted that the facts simply did 
not support that assertion.  The record showed that  the United States had fully complied in the vast 
majority of its disputes.  As for the remaining few, the United States was actively working towards 
compliance.  Indeed, one could wonder what the co mpliance record of certain other Members would 
look like if they accounted for such an important proportion of world imports as the United States did. 
13. The representative of Cuba
 said that her delegation wished to thank the United States for its 
explanation.  However, it was difficult to believe  that the United States had a good record of 
compliance when one looked at the DSB agenda.  He noted that the agenda of the present DSB 
meeting contained four disputes involving the Unite d States where compliance with the DSB's rulings 
and recommendations was still pending and ma ny of those cases were long-standing. 
14. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  WT/DSB/M/236 
 Page 5 
 
 
  (b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.56) 
15. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/ 15/Add.56, 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. 
16. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 12 July 2007, in accordance with Ar ticle 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 were provided in document  WT/DS184/15/Add.3.  The US administration would 
work with the US Congress with respect to the r ecommendations and rulings of the DSB that had not 
already been addressed by the US authorities by 23 November 2002. 
17. The representative of Japan
 said that his country thanked the United States for its statement 
and the latest status report in this dispute.  Japan also acknowledged that in November 2002 the 
United States had taken certain measures to implement a part of the DSB's recommendations, as 
reported by the United States.  However, it was regre ttable that more than three and half years since 
then, and almost six years after the adoption by  the DSB of the recommendations, the issue of 
implementation in this dispute still remained on the DSB agenda.  As it had repeatedly been stated 
before the DSB, Japan believed that a full and prompt implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings was essential for maintaining the credib ility of the WTO dispute settlement system.  In 
this regard, Japan noted the statement made by the United States along with its latest status report in 
which the United States indicated that the US admi nistration was working with the new US Congress 
to pass specific legislative amendments that  would implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings.  Japan wished to renew its strong hope th at the US administration would accelerate its efforts 
to work with the US Congress in order to co me to full compliance without further delay. 
18. 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.31) 
19. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/ 24/Add.31, 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. 
20. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 12 July 2007, in accordance with Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU.  The US administration 
would work closely with the US Congress and, conti nued to confer with the EC, in order to reach a 
mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter.  In this regard, the United States appreciated the EC's 
statement made at the 20 June 2007 meeting that it was prepared to work with the United States to 
seek a mutually satisfactory solution to this dis pute.  The United States shared the EC's goal of 
discussing how such a solution could be achieved. 
21. The representative of the European Communities  said that the EC's position on this dispute 
was well known and did not require repetition.  Th is dispute had gone on for too long without 
concrete action to ensure complia nce, and the EC wished to s ee the US action soon.  The EC 
remained prepared to work with the United States to seek a mutually satisfactory solution to this 
dispute and hoped that a solution could be identified in the near future. WT/DSB/M/236 
Page 6  
 
  22. The representative of Cuba
 said that her country wished to express its systemic concerns 
regarding this dispute as well as the one which had been discussed under the previous agenda item.  
Cuba shared the EC's view on this matter.  The United States had several disputes where implementation had been pending for a long period of time.  As Cuba had previously stated, the 
United States was one of the major users of the disp ute settlement mechanism.  Thus, Cuba hoped that 
the United States would comply shortly with the DSB's recommendations.   
23. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(d) United States – Laws, regul ations and methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("Zeroing"):  Status report by the United States WT/DS294/20/Add.5 
24. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS294/ 20/Add.5, 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 laws, regulations and me thodology for calculating dumping margins. 
25. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 12 July 2007, in accordance with Artic le 21.6 of the DSU.  As stated previously, the 
US Department of Commerce continued to work towards completion of a determination in one 
investigation in which the European respondent had alleged a clerical error which it had requested to 
be corrected, having completed impl ementation with respect to the other matters covered by this 
dispute. 
26. The representative of the European Communities  said that on 9 July 2007, the EC had 
requested consultations with the United States on th e measures allegedly taken to comply with the 
DSB's rulings and recommendations in this dispute.  Details of the EC's claims were contained in the 
request that had been circulated on 12 July 2007 and had already been explained in previous DSB 
meetings.  In short, the EC considered that the US  actions had failed to put the United States into full 
compliance with its WTO obligations and had in addition brought new issues of WTO-incompatibility.  Considering that none of the shortc omings of the US actions had been corrected and 
that there was no prospect of them being corrected  in the near future, the EC had no choice but to 
preserve its right and had made the first move to  challenge the implementing measures taken by the 
United States. 
27. 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 Canada, the European Communities and Japan 
28. The Chairman  said that this item was on the agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Canada, the European Communities and Japan.  He then invited the respective representatives to 
speak. 
29. The representative of Canada  said that while his country appreciated the steps the 
United States had taken towards implementing the ru lings and recommendations in this dispute, the 
United States had only prospectively repealed the Byrd Amendment.  Anti-dumping and countervailing duties collected up to 30 September 2007 could still be disbursed to US producers 
under the terms of this legislation.  As such, Cana da believed that the US claim – made in its last 
Status Report from over a year ago – that it had "t aken the actions necessary to implement the rulings  WT/DSB/M/236 
 Page 7 
 
 
  and recommendations" in this dispute was not accurate.  Canada, therefore, called on the 
United States to resume the submission of status  reports and to repeal the Byrd Amendment. 
30. The representative of th e European Communities  said that the United States was currently 
preparing for the seventh distribution of anti-dumping and countervailing duties under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act.  Provisional am ounts showed that on 30 April 2007, already more 
than US$279 million had been collected and could be distributed as of 1 October 2007.  This 
exceeded, by more than US$100 million, the provisional amount that was available on 30 April 2006.  This comparison of figures gave a serious indicatio n that the distribution to come would likely be 
substantially higher than the distribution in 2006 .  And the EC wished to recall that this 2006 
distribution had already registered a substantial incr ease in comparison to the previous distributions.  
The EC was still waiting for a convincing explanation as to how this reconciled with the US assertion 
month after month that it had taken all actions n ecessary to bring itself in compliance with its WTO 
obligations.  In fact, as long as the distributions under the CDSOA continued, the United States would be in breach of Articles 18.1 of the Anti-Dumpi ng Agreement and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.  
Therefore, the EC wished to ask again the United St ates if and what steps it intended to take to stop 
the transfer of anti-dumping and countervailing duties to  its industry.  The EC also renewed its call on 
the United States to abide by its clear obligatio n under Article 21.6 of the DSU and to submit 
implementation reports in this dispute. 
31. The representative of Japan
 said that on 29 May 2007, the United States had initiated yet 
another round of distribution process under the Con tinued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 
("CDSOA"), by issuing a "notice of intent  to distribute offset for Fiscal Year 2007".1  In fact, the US 
Customs and Border Protection ("USCBP") stated e xplicitly that this latest notice had been made 
"[p]ursuant to the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000".2  The USCBP had also 
published Fiscal Year 2007 preliminary CDSOA amounts available as of 30 April of 2007.  Based on 
the data published by the USCBP, funds preliminary available to US domestic industries for FY 2007 
would amount to some US$270 million.  Japan's past  experience with the CDSOA indicated that the 
final amounts that would be eventually distributed were likely to be substantially higher than these 
preliminary figures.  The notice and announcement de monstrated that the CDSOA had been repealed 
only in form but was still in force and fully operati onal.  Thus, contrary to the repeated US assertion 
that the United States had taken all necessary steps for implementation in this case, these latest US 
actions rendered further support to the view that th e United States still failed to fully implement the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings in this case.  Japan, once again, urged the United States to 
immediately terminate the illegal distribution and repeal the CDSOA not just in form but also in 
substance.  Until then, Japan considered that th e US compliance was incomplete and the issue of 
implementation in this dispute must be under surve illance by the DSB, pursuant to Article 21.6 of the 
DSU.  In this connection, Japan reiterated that the United States was under obligation to provide the 
DSB with a status report pursuant to Article 21.6 of  the DSU.  Finally, Japan reserved all its rights 
under the DSU until the United States came into full compliance with the recommendations.  
32. The representative of Brazil  said that, once again, his country wished to thank Canada, the EC 
and Japan for raising this issue befo re the DSB.  Brazil remained of the view that the "issue" was not 
resolved in this dispute within the meaning of Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU.  Significant and welcome as 
the repeal of the Byrd Amendment might have b een, the conditions under whic h such repeal operated 
did not support the assertion that the United States had implemented the relevant DSB's 
recommendations.  Brazil reiterated that there woul d be no full compliance on the part of the United 
States until and unless all disbursements under the By rd Amendment ceased.  As a consequence, the 
co-complainants could not be deprived of any right conferred by the DSU with respect to this 
                                                      
1 72 Federal Register at 29582 et seq. (dated 29 May 2007) 
2 Idem WT/DSB/M/236 
Page 8  
 
  situation of non-compliance by the mere passi ng into law of the "Deficit Reduction Omnibus 
Reconciliation Act". 
33. The representative of India
 said that her country thanked Canada, the EC and Japan for 
raising this issue at the present DSB meeting once ag ain.  India shared their concerns.  As mentioned 
previously, India remained concerned about the US continued illegal disbursement of anti-dumping 
and countervailing duties to its industry.  India, th erefore, urged the United States to inform the DSB 
of the steps it proposed to take, to  ensure full compliance and to subm it implementation reports in this 
dispute. 
34. The representative of Thailand  said that first his country wished  to join previous speakers in 
thanking Canada, the EC, and Japan for bringing this  matter before the DSB once more.  As noted in 
previous DSB meetings, Thailand remained disappoint ed at the US continued illegal disbursement of 
funds under the CDSOA.  Thailand also remained disappointed at the continued absence of status 
reports from the United States on its outstanding implemen tation in this dispute.  Therefore, Thailand 
again urged the United States to cease its WTO-inc onsistent disbursements, to repeal the Byrd 
Amendment with immediate practical effect, and to resume providing status reports until such actions 
were taken and this matter had been fully resolved. 
35. The representative of China  said that his country, once again,  thanked and s upported Canada, 
the EC and Japan for raising this matter before the DSB.  China appreciated the efforts of the 
United States to implement the DSB's rulings and recommendations in this dispute and welcomed the repeal of CDSOA.  However, China shared the view  of the previous speakers that the implementation 
issue had not been resolved in this dispute within the framework of Article 21 of the DSU.  Therefore, 
China wished to join previous sp eakers in urging the United States to fully comply with the DSB's 
rulings.  
36. The representative of the United States
 said that as his country had already explained at 
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 these disputes.  With  respect to comments regarding further status 
reports in this matter, as the United States had expl ained, those Members who had inscribed this item 
on the agenda of the present meeting were, of course, free to do so, but the United States failed to see 
what purpose would be served by further submissi on of status reports repeating the progress the 
United States had made in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  Finally, 
the United States continued to be surprised by th e assertions that the United States would not have 
implemented the DSB's rulings and recommendations  until the last CDSOA distribution was made.  
Of course, such questions were for panels to d ecide as Members appeared to recognize in disputes 
other than this one.  
3. Brazil – Anti-dumping measures on imports of certain resins from Argentina 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Argentina (WT/DS355/2) 
37. The Chairman  recalled that the DSB considered this matter at its meeting on 20 June 2007 
and had agreed to revert to it.  He then drew attention to the communication from Argentina contained 
in document WT/DS355/2, and invited the representative of Argentina to speak. 
38. The representative of Argentina  said that his country regretted that it had to draw the DSB's 
attention, for the second time, to the dispute arising from the anti-dumping measures imposed by 
Brazil on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET ) resins from Argentina.  As his country had 
stated at the 20 June DSB meeting, the issue w ith regard to which Argentina was requesting the  WT/DSB/M/236 
 Page 9 
 
 
  establishment of a panel was a long-standing one, and was a subject of serious concern to Argentina.  
At the previous DSB meeting, his delegation had explained Argentina's concern regarding the anti-
dumping duties imposed by Brazil in August 2005, and had referred to the main inconsistencies of 
those measures with the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994.  Argentina had also referred 
to certain aspects of Brazil's legislation govern ing the competencies of the Brazilian authority in 
charge of imposing anti-dumping duties.  Thus, at the present meeting it was not necessary to reiterate 
the details of Argentina's request for the establishm ent of a panel, which had been circulated as 
document WT/DS355/2.  His delegation, however, stressed that although Argentina and Brazil had 
tried to reach a bilateral solution to the matter at issue, this had not been possible.  As a result, 
Argentina had no alternative, but to request, once again, the establishment of a panel under 
Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, and Article 17.4 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement so that this matte r could at long last be resolved. 
39. The representative of Brazil  said that his country regretted that Argentina had decided to 
present a second request for the establishment of a pa nel in this dispute.  Brazil had been working 
with Argentina in an effort to r esolve this matter, and considered that good progress had been made in 
consultations.  In that regard, Brazil continued to believe that the matter could be resolved without 
further recourse to the dispute settlement procedur es.  Nevertheless, Brazil was confident that the 
panel to be established at the present meeting would find that the anti-dumping measures at issue fully complied with Brazil's WTO obligations. 
40. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article 6 of the DSU w ith standard terms of reference. 
41. The representatives of the European Communities , Chinese Taipei , Japan  and the 
United States  reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
4. China – Certain measures granting refunds, red uctions or exemptions from taxes and 
other payments 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States (WT/DS358/13) 
 
(b) Request for the establishment of a panel by Mexico (WT/DS359/13) 
42. The Chairman  proposed that the above-mentioned sub- items be considered together since 
they pertained to the same matter.  He then drew attention to the communication from the United 
States contained in document WT/DS358/13 and i nvited the representative of the United States to 
speak. 
43. The representative of the United States  said that his country was deeply concerned that China 
was providing numerous subsidies that appeared to be prohibited under WTO rules.  As described in 
the US panel request (WT/DS358/13), China offered tax refunds, reductions, and exemptions that 
discriminated against imported products (that is, they  appeared to be contingent on a firm's use of 
domestic over imported products) or th at subsidized China's exports (that is, they appeared to be 
contingent on a firm's export performance).  Accord ingly, these measures appeared to be inconsistent 
with several provisions of the WTO Agreement,  including Article 3 of the SCM Agreement, 
Article III of the GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIM S Agreement, and several provisions of China's 
Protocol of Accession. 
44. The United States had consulted extensively with  China on this matter, and the United States 
remained open to reaching a mutually acceptable so lution.  Regrettably, US discussions with China 
had not yet led to a resolution of this dispute.  The United States, therefore,  requested that the DSB WT/DSB/M/236 
Page 10  
 
  establish a panel at the present meeting.  The Unite d States further requested that a single panel be 
established to examine the US and Mexican complain ts in accordance with Article 9.1 of the DSU. 
45. The Chairman
 drew attention to the communicati on from Mexico contained in document 
WT/DS359/13 and invited the repr esentative of Mexico to speak. 
46. The representative of Mexico  said that his delegation agreed with the statement made by the 
United States regarding the subsidies granted by Chin a.  Mexico regretted that it had had to request 
the establishment of a panel.  Like the United States, Mexico wished that, in accordance with 
Article 9.1 of the DSU, the DSB establish a single pa nel to examine Mexico's and the US complaints.  
Finally, Mexico stressed that, in spite of the legal proceedings that  it had initiated, it would continue 
to seek a negotiated solution to this dispute.  
47. The Chairman  invited the representative of China to speak.  
48. The representative of China  said that his country had held two rounds of consultations with 
the United States and Mexico in March and June 2007.   China was always open to solve this issue 
through consultations in a mutually satisfactory manner.  China had shown great sincerity tabling 
responses and clarification to plenty of questions and concerns of the two complainants and providing 
relevant documents in the consulta tions.  However, China regretted th at the complainants had chosen 
to request the establishment of a panel, instead of continuing the joint efforts to resolve this issue 
through consultation.  As to the measures in relati on to the current disputes, China believed that, with 
the recent issuance of Enterprises Income Tax Law of China, relevant measures identified by the 
complainants were fully consistent with WTO subsid y rules.  Furthermore, the inclusion of several 
non-existent measures could only prove the misunders tanding and misallegation of the complainants.  
Therefore, China was puzzled by the complainants ' decision to initiate the panel process.  For the 
above-mentioned reasons, China was not in a positi on to accept the establishment of a panel at the 
present meeting. 
49. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to these matters. 
5. United States – Measures affecting the cross-border supply of gambling and betting 
services 
(a) Recourse to Article 22.2 of the DSU by Antigua and Barbuda (WT/DS285/22) 
50. The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Antigua and Barbuda contained in 
document WT/DS285/22.  He noted that the represen tative of Antigua and Barbuda was not present in 
the meeting room, and invited the represen tative of the United States to speak.  
51. The representative of the United States  said that his country regretted that Antigua and 
Barbuda had requested authorization to suspend c oncessions or other obligations in connection with 
this dispute.  The dispute involved a finding of GATS-inconsistency with respect to an area of 
services regulation – gambling and betting services – that  the United States had never intended to be 
included in its GATS schedule.  In fact, the original  Panel in this dispute had appreciated that the 
United States had not intended to cover gambling services in its schedule of services commitments.  
Indeed, gambling was viewed in the United States as an issue of public morality and public order, 
involving the protection of children and other vulnerable groups, as opposed to an issue of international trade.  At the same time, he emphasize d that the United States accepted the results of the 
dispute settlement process, including the finding that the United States had not shown that certain of 
its gambling laws were consiste nt with its current WTO commitments.  Accordingly, as the 
United States had explained at the 22 May DSB meet ing, the United States had decided to invoke the 
procedures Members provided in the GATS to modify the schedule of US commitments.  This  WT/DSB/M/236 
 Page 11 
 
 
  procedure would ensure that the US schedule of ser vices commitments reflected the original US intent 
to exclude gambling from the scope of US commitmen ts and would resolve this dispute permanently 
and fairly. 
52. The United States noted that a number of Members, including Antigua and Barbuda, had 
made claims that they would be affected by the proposed US modification of its services 
commitments.  The United States had entered into  negotiations with those Members as called for 
under Article XXI of the GATS.  When the Article XXI process is completed, the GATS commitments of the United States would be modified , the United States would be in compliance, and 
the balance of benefits would be restored.  Given that the United States had initiated the GATS 
Article XXI procedure, the United States did not be lieve it was productive for Antigua and Barbuda to 
request authorization to suspend concessions.  The purpose of suspending concessions was to 
encourage compliance with the DSB's recommendati ons and rulings.  Since the United States had 
already initiated the formal process under the GATS for modifying its schedule of commitments, no purpose would be served by suspending concessions.  And it would be WTO-inc onsistent to apply a 
suspension of concessions once the United States had brought itself into conformity with the WTO 
Agreements. 
53. Furthermore, the United States strongly disagreed with Antigua and Barbuda's specific 
proposal for the suspension of concessions.  On 23 July 2007, the United States had referred this 
matter to arbitration by objecting both to the le vel of suspension of concessions and obligations 
proposed by Antigua and Barbuda and by noting th at Antigua and Barbuda's proposal did not follow 
the principles and procedures set forth in paragraph 3 of Article 22 of the DSU.  Although these 
matters would be considered in detail during the arbitration, the United States would emphasize that 
the level of Antigua's request was patently excessive .  In particular, the level sought by Antigua and 
Barbuda was several times higher than Antigua and Barbuda's annua l gross domestic product of all 
goods and services.   
54. Finally, as noted previously, the US objection of 23 July 2007 to Antigua's request had 
referred the matter to arbitration pursuant to Article  22.6 of the DSU.  Thus, the present meeting did 
not need to consider this agenda item.  Nevert heless, the United States had no objection if the DSB 
wished to take note of that fact and confirmed that it may not consider Antigua's request for authorization, which was the item on the agenda of  the present meeting, since the matter had been 
referred to arbitration. 
55. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the GATS provided significant 
flexibility to Members on the level and the way in which they had undertaken commitments.  It also 
recognized the right of WTO Members to regulate the supply of services within their territories in 
order to meet public policy objectives.  The EC did in no way want to put that into question.  However, Members also had to ensure that they  complied with the obligations that they had 
undertaken.  The EC regretted that the United States had refused to bring its laws at stake in this 
dispute into conformity with its commitment.  The EC had hoped for a non-discriminatory solution,  
in accordance with the US obligations.  The EC not ed that the US unwillingness to bring the relevant 
legislation into line with its obligations had r esulted in a procedure under Article XXI GATS for the 
withdrawal of the US gambling and betting services commitments.  The EC, as well as several other Members, had declared itself affected and expected  to be able to agree on compensation with the 
United States in this context.  The Article XXI GATS procedure did not affect the rights of Antigua 
and Barbuda under the DSU.  The EC hoped for an early  resolution of this matter in the event that it 
was referred to arbitration, pursuant to Article 22.6 DSU. 
56. The representative of Hong Kong, China
 said that her delegation appreciated the efforts made 
in the current dispute by the parties concerned.  While Hong Kong, China recognized Members' right 
to invoke Article XXI of the GATS for justifiable modifications of their existing commitments, this WT/DSB/M/236 
Page 12  
 
  right, however, should not be made as a tool for circumventing the WTO dispute settlement 
mechanism.  Hong Kong, China considered that  Members should give full respect to the DSU 
provisions and bring the DSB's rulings and recomme ndations into full compliance in order to uphold 
the primacy of the WTO dispute settlement mechanis m.  Hong Kong, China urged all to fully respect 
the WTO rules and agreements including the DSU and the GATS so as to safeguard the systemic 
robustness of our multilateral trading system. 
57. The representative of the United States
 said that in response to the previous intervention, his 
country could not agree that invoking Article XXI of the GATS set a bad precedent.  The 
United States must emphasize that in this unique case no other course of action would make sense.  There could be no question of responding to a find ing of an unintentional commitment on gambling in 
a way which would undermine the important public policy of preserving public morals and public 
order.  The United States did not believe any other responsible WTO Member would act any differently towards its own citizens. 
58. The DSB took note
 of the statements, and it was agreed that the matter raised by the 
United States in WT/DS285/23 is referred to arbitr ation, as required by Article 22.6 of the DSU. 
6. Mexico – Anti-dumping duties on steel pipes and tubes from Guatemala 
(a) Report of the Panel (WT/DS331/R) 
59. The Chairman  recalled that at its meeting on 17 Marc h 2006, the DSB had established a panel 
to examine the complaint by Guatemala pertaining to  this matter.  He said that the Report of the 
Panel, contained in document WT/DS331/R had b een circulated on 8 June 2007 as an unrestricted 
document.  The Panel Report was now before the DSB for adoption at the request of Guatemala.  This 
adoption procedure was without prejudice to the right  of Members to express their views on the Panel 
Report. 
60. The representative of Guatemala  said that his country wished to express its satisfaction at the 
Panel Report in the dispute:  "Mexico – Anti-Dumping Duties on Steel Pipes and Tubes from Guatemala".  The Report was a confirmation of th e effectiveness of the WTO dispute settlement 
mechanism, and of its importance as one of the pillars  of the rules-based multilateral trading system.  
At the same time, Guatemala wish ed to commend the Panel for its wo rk, in particular for the quality 
and detail of its various analyses, most of which hi s country endorsed.  In Guatemala's view, the Panel 
had given due consideration to the concerns and diffe rent arguments of the parties, as clearly reflected 
in the reasoning that had led to different c onclusions and recommendations in its Report.  
Furthermore, Guatemala was also pleased and grateful that the Panel had used the authority granted to 
it under Article 19.1 of the DSU to "suggest ways in which the Member concerned could implement 
the recommendations".  Guatemala fully supported th e Panel's suggestion and sincerely hoped that 
Mexico would proceed along those lines. 
61. At the same time, Guatemala noted that this dispute was the first dispute to be handled 
entirely in Spanish since the GATT had been signed and the WTO had been created.  Guatemala was 
pleased that the dispute settlement system had be en able to respond positively to the requests of 
Members whose official language was Spanish.  The pa rties to this dispute had been able to rely on 
the panelists of the highest level, chaired by Ambassador Julio Lacarte-Muro, who had been in a 
position to allow the parties to present their argum ents and views and to submit their evidence in 
Spanish.  Guatemala also commended the work of th e Secretariat that had assisted this Panel and had 
ensured throughout that the proceedings could go ah ead smoothly regardless of the working language 
chosen by the parties.  Guatemala thought that this  dispute represented an important precedent in this 
respect.  Finally, since the 20 days stipulated in  Article 16.1 of the DSU had already elapsed, and 
since it was still within 60 days of the circulation of the Panel Report, Guatemala respectfully  WT/DSB/M/236 
 Page 13 
 
 
  requested the DSB, in accordance with Article 16.4 of the DSU, to adopt the Panel Report contained 
in WT/DS331/R. 
62. The representative of Mexico  said that first he wished to stress the importance for Mexico of 
the proceedings in the case under consideration sin ce it had been conducted entirely in Spanish, and 
he believed that this way of proceeding marked  the beginning of a trend in disputes involving 
Spanish-speaking WTO Members.  Mexico thanke d Guatemala for supporting its request that the 
proceedings be conducted entirely in Spanish, as well as the Secretariat for its efforts to meet this 
commitment and the panelists for accepting to work en tirely in Spanish.  At the same time, Mexico 
wished to stress the need for the WTO Secretariat, in anticipatio n of possible future cases in Spanish, 
to ensure that it could provide the same capacity for working in Sp anish as it could offer for disputes 
conducted in English. 
63. At the present meeting, Mexico also wished to express some views on the Panel Report.  With 
regard to the findings in paragraphs 7.15 to 7.61 an d the conclusion in paragr aph 8.1(a) of the Panel 
Report, according to which "[a]s there was no proper determination that there was sufficient evidence 
of dumping or injury to justify proceeding with th e case under Article 5.3, the application should have 
been rejected and the investigati on should not have been initiated by the terms of Article 5.8", Mexico 
wished to observe the following views.  The question of Panel rulings imposing on Members' obligations that did not exist under the agreements negotiated in the framework of the WTO, or that 
established a standard higher than the one that had b een negotiated, was a particularly delicate one.  In 
this connection, Mexico noted that Articles 5.1 a nd 5.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, in referring 
to the elements needed to initiate an investiga tion, referred clearly to alleged dumping and alleged 
injury (and not dumping and injury).  In fact, if it were necessary for the domestic industry to submit 
evidence of dumping and injury – as opposed to a lleged dumping and alleged injury – initiation would 
be practically impossible, and to a certain extent , the opening of an investigation would no longer 
make any sense, since an evaluation of the ade quacy of the evidence submitted would suffice to 
immediately issue a final resolution.  Thus, the standard set by the Panel in its Report represented a 
serious impediment to the smooth functioning of any anti-dumping system.  
64. Likewise, as regards the findings in paragr aphs 7.265 to 7.288 and the conclusion in 
paragraph 8.1(c) of the Report, Mexico failed to understand the Panel's reasoning – let alone the 
justification under the Anti-Dumping Agreement – in  considering the information available to assess 
the evolution of import volumes from sources other than Guatemala.  Mexico simply failed to understand the basis for its determinations.  Finally,  although Mexico did not agree with all of the 
Panel's assessments in its Report, it would do the necessary to comply with the Panel's 
recommendations within a reasonable period of time. 
65. The representative of th e European Communities
 said that the EC had participated as a third 
party in this case because of the important systemic issues that the Panel had been asked to address.  
The Panel Report, once again, underlined the impor tance of following the disciplines of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement from the very beginning to th e end of the investigation, and provided clear 
examples of what an objective and unbiased investig ating authority should an d should not do.  Given 
the fundamental nature of the violations committ ed by Mexico identified by the Panel, the EC 
supported the Panel's decision to suggest the revoc ation of the measures.  Indeed, only revocation 
could remedy breaches of such an importance and wide extent. 
66. The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Panel Report contained in 
WT/DS331/R. WT/DSB/M/236 
Page 14  
 
  7. Proposed nomination for the indicative list of governmental and non-governmental 
panelists (WT/DSB/W/354) 
67. The Chairman
 drew attention to document WT/DSB/W /354, which contained an additional 
name proposed for inclusion on the indicative list of  governmental and non-governmental panelists, in 
accordance with Article 8.4 of the DSU.  He propo sed that the DSB approve the name contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/354. 
68. The DSB so agreed . 
 
__________