RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/280 
28 May 2010 
 (10-2964) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
19 March 2010  
 
 
   
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 19 March 2010  
 
Chairmen:  Mr. John Gero (Canada)/Mr. Yonov Frederick Agah (Nigeria) 
  
Subjects discussed
: Page  
 
1. Election of Chairperson........................................................................................................ ....2 
2. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB.........................3  
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........4  
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan:  Status report by  the United States...................................................................................7  
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........7  
(d) European Communities1 – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products:  Status report by the European Union .........................................................................8  
(e) United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........9
 
(f) United States – Continued existence and a pplication of zeroing methodology:  Status 
report by the United States.................................................................................................... ......9  
(g) China – Measures affecting the protection and enforcement of intellectual property 
rights:  Status report by China ................................................................................................ ..10 
3. United States – Anti-dumping measures on  polyethylene retail carrier bags from 
Thailand....................................................................................................................... ............12  
(a) Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB...............................................................12  
                                                      
1 On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amendi ng the Treaty on Europe an Union and the Treaty 
establishing the European Community (done at Lisbon, 13 December 2007) entered into force.  On 
29 November 2009, the WTO received a Verbal Note (WT /L/779) from the Council of  the European Union and 
the Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon, as of 
1 December 2009, the European Union replaces and succeeds the European Community. WT/DSB/M/280 
Page 2  
 
  4.
 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 Union and Japan ..........................................................................12  
5. European Communities1 – Export subsidies on sugar.........................................................14  
(a) Statements by Australia, Brazil and Thailand...........................................................................14  
6. Proposed amendments to the Working Procedures for Appellate Review........................14  
(a) Statement by the Chairman...................................................................................................... .14 
 
 
1. Election of Chairperson 
1. The outgoing Chairman  said that, before he would proceed with this Agenda item, he wished 
to thank Members for their cooperation over the past year.  He also thanked the Secretariat for its 
support and assistance provided to him in the course the year.  He then recalled that, at its meeting on 
22 February 2010, the General C ouncil had taken note of the consensus on a slate of names for 
Chairpersons to a number of WTO bodies including  the DSB.  On the basis of the understanding 
reached by the General Council, he proposed that the DSB elect by acclamation 
H.E. Mr. Yonov Frederick Agah of Nigeria as its Chairperson. 
2. The DSB so agreed . 
3. The incoming Chairman  thanked Members for the confidence that they reposed in him and 
Amb. Gero for his support.  He said that he counted on the assistance of the Secretariat, and hoped to enjoy the same support that the Secretariat had provided to Amb. Gero.  He said that everything was 
in the hands of Members and that he could only be  the pilot, and a good one, if Members made him a 
good pilot.  He then invited delegations to make statements, if they so wished.    
4. The representative of the European Union
 said that her delegation thanked Amb. Gero for his 
most able Chairmanship during the past year.  The EU wished him all the best  in his new role as the 
Chairman of the General Council and welcomed warmly the new Chairman of the DSB.   
5. The representative of the United States  said that his delegation wish ed to take this opportunity 
to congratulate Amb. Agah on his election, and to  extend its welcome to him as he assumed the 
Chairmanship of the DSB.  The United States looked forward to working with him over what would undoubtedly be a very full and interesting year.  The United States also thanked Amb. Gero for his many contributions to the work of the DSB during the past year and looked forward to continuing to work with him in his new capacity as Chairman of the General Council. 
6. The representative of Canada
 said that her country thanked the outgoing Chairman and 
welcomed the new Chairman to the DSB.  Canada looked forward to working with him and hoped to 
have a productive and successful year. 
7. The representative of Australia  said that, like others, her country welcomed the new Chairman 
and looked forward to working with him in the comi ng year.  Australia also thanked Amb. Gero for 
the way in which he had conducted all the DSB meetings  in the past year, particularly with such good 
and unfailing humour.  Australia also appreciated Amb. Gero's patience and flexibility with those 
delegations who, on some occasi ons, had sought to propose additio nal items to the DSB Agenda.  
8. The representative of China  said that his country welcomed the new Chairman of the DSB 
and looked forward to working with him.  China al so wished to extend its sincere appreciation to  WT/DSB/M/280 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Amb. Gero for his contribution to the dispute settle ment system and looked forward to working with 
him in other forums.  
9. The representative of Mexico  said that his country welcomed the new Chairman of the DSB 
and wished him all the best in his work.  Mexico th anked Amb. Gero for his work during the past year 
and wished him all the best in his work  as Chairman of the General Council.  
10. The representative of Brazil  said that, like previous speakers, his country welcomed and 
congratulated the new Chairman of the DSB.  Br azil also wished to express its appreciation for 
Amb. Gero's firm guidance in the DSB over the past year. 
11. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  said that her country wished to 
join previous speakers who had thanked Amb. Ge ro for his valuable leadership and welcomed 
Amb. Agah as the new Chairman of the DSB.   
12. The representative of India  said that, like previous speakers, her country congratulated and 
welcomed the new Chairman of the DSB.  India l ooked forward to working with him.  India also 
thanked Amb. Gero for his excellent guidance and lively atmosphere in which the DSB had worked 
over the past year. 
13. The representative of Argentina  said that her country thanked Amb. Gero for his contribution 
over the past year.  Argentina welcomed the new Ch airman of the DSB and assured him of its support 
in the best possible way.  
14. The DSB took note  of the statements.2  
2. 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.88) 
 (b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.88) 
 
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.63) 
 (d) European Communities – Measures affecting th e approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.26 – WT/DS293/31/Add.26) 
 
(e) United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS322/36/Add.6) 
 (f) United States – Continued existence and app lication of zeroing methodology:  Status report 
by the United States (WT/DS350/18/Add.3) 
 
(g) China – Measures affecting the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights:  
Status report by China (WT/DS362/14/Add.2) 
 
                                                     
 
2 Subsequently, in the course of the meeting (under various Agenda items) the following delegations 
welcomed the new Chairman of the DSB and thanked the outgoing Chairman for his work in the DSB over the 
past year:  Cuba, Ecuador, Viet Nam, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Japan and Thailand.  WT/DSB/M/280 
Page 4  
 
  15. The Chairman
 recalled that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that unless the DSB decided 
otherwise, the issue of implementation of the DSB's recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six months fo llowing the date of establishment of the reasonable 
period of time and shall remain on the DSB' s Agenda until the issu e was resolved.   
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropria tions Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.88) 
16. The Chairman
 drew attention to document WT/DS176/ 11/Add.88, 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. 
17. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 March 2010, in accordance with Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU.  As had been noted, a 
number of legislative proposals that would implem ent the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute had been introduced in the First Session of the current (111th) US Congress.  The Second Session of the 111th Congress had begun in January 2010.  The Committee on the Judiciary of the 
US House of Representatives had held a hearing on certain of those proposals on 3 March 2010.  In 
addition, the US administration was working with Congress to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. 
18. The representative of the European Union
 noted that the United States was presenting its 
eighty-ninth status report in this dispute.  The EU  hoped that the new US authorities would take steps 
to finally implement the DSB's ruling and resolve this matter. 
19. The representative of Cuba  said that, for his country and the international community, it was 
important that the United States complied with its  obligations and promptly brought itself into 
conformity with the Appellate Body's rulings, whic h had been made more than eight years ago.  
Section 211, which was inconsistent with the principles of national and most-favoured-nation 
treatment, had negative impact not only for the res ponding party in this dispute.  When disputes 
remained unresolved and countries continued to take ac tions that ran counter to  what had been agreed, 
the system would begin to crack, its legitimacy a nd credibility would be called into question and its 
rules would be undermined.  In other words, power would become the sole ar biter.  Due to the US 
irresponsibility and disregard for the system, as we ll as the EU's passive attitude, the United States 
and the EU undermined the basic principles of the di spute settlement system.  That system was one of 
the main outcomes of the Uruguay Round and was s upposed to guarantee security and predictability 
of the multilateral trading system, which benefited the United States and the EU more than any other 
Member.  
20. Cuba noted that under the DSU provisions, Memb ers who considered th at their rights were 
infringed could bring their complaints to the WTO.  However, Cuba was not sure whether this would 
be the best way to resolve pending disputes, sin ce some Members refused to comply with their 
obligations.  Thus, Cuba wondere d if unnecessary duplication of procedures could help to resolve a 
dispute in the absence of political will.  Bringing a fresh case on the same matter would only favour 
the US interests by giving it more time to make a mo ckery of the system and to continue to refuse to 
comply with the DSB's decisions.  Cuba did not cons ider that this was an appropriate way forward, 
since it would set a precedent that would affect not only the interests of Members, but also the effectiveness of the system.  Cuba would not take any action that violated the principle of compliance 
with the DSB's decisions.  Cuba was monitoring the impact of the so-called Special 301 Report, 
where the United States listed the countries that did not provide adequate and effective protection for 
intellectual property rights.  The United States had,  once again, unilaterally asserted the questionable 
right to selectively condemn some 30 countries for allegedly failing to respect such rights.  The 
self-proclaimed "judge" and "defender" of intellectua l property rights that had been questioned about  WT/DSB/M/280 
 Page 5 
 
 
  its policy of restricting access to medical products  on the grounds of non-compliance with WTO rules, 
continued to apply Section 211, thus violating the principles of the TRIPS Agreement.  Cuba 
questioned if it was not hypocritical to condemn others  for violations that the alleged "judge" was the 
first to commit.  Should the international commun ity adopt the maxim:  "do as I say, not as I do"?  
Historically, humanity had fought successfully against attempts to impose imperial policies to the 
detriment of justice.  Section 211, which dated b ack to 1998, was an extension of the failed US 
embargo policy against Cuba.  The aim was to us urp trademarks from Cuba, which enjoyed proper 
protection in North America.  Cuba respected the registrations of legal a nd natural persons from the 
United States.  It honoured its internationa l commitments, the same commitments that the 
United States continued to violate vis-à-vis Cuba.  On 23 February 2010, at the Unity Summit held on 
the Mayan Riviera in Mexico, the Heads of State and Government of the Latin American and 
Caribbean countries had approved a declaration on the need to end the economic, commercial and 
financial blockade that had been imposed on Cuba by the United States.  Once again, the rejection of 
the US policy, which had done so much damage to Cuba, had been made clear.  Cuba, once again, 
requested that the United States and the EU do ever ything necessary to repeal, once and for all, the 
unlawful Section 211 and to comply with the DSB's ruling. 
21. The representative of Mexico  said that, under the DSU provisions, any Member could file a 
complaint if it considered that another Member di d not bring its measures into conformity with the 
WTO rules.  Mexico recalled that Articles 3.3 and 21.1 of the DSU respectively provided that for the 
effective functioning of WTO it was essential to guarantee prompt resolution of disputes.  Mexico urged the parties to this dispute to bear in mind this principle and to take the necessary measures to 
comply with the DSB's recommendations. 
22. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
 said that, once again, her 
delegation participated in the DSB meeting to discu ss this Agenda item and to express its views on the 
US status report.  The most recent report, dated 8 March 2010, stated, yet again, that "[a] number of 
legislative proposals [...] that would implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute were introduced [...] in bot h the US House of Representatives and the US Senate".  On several 
occasions, Venezuela had questioned that statement since it was well-known that there was no real 
progress or results.  Members should reflect on the US use of the so-called "reasonable period of 
time" stipulated in the DSU, a period of time which, in this dispute, had now exceeded eight years.  The matter had been under discussion in the DSB si nce 2002, with no positive sign from either the 
United States or the EU.  Any positive sign would be appreciated and valued by WTO Members and 
would help to alleviate the disturbing effect that  this dispute had on the credibility of the dispute 
settlement mechanism, which had been  created to enable Members to settle their disputes.  Venezuela 
also insisted on rejecting the US policy of econo mic, commercial and fina ncial blockade against 
Cuba.  Venezuela had had enough of actions that were inconsistent with the principles of the 
multilateral trading system, in particular with tho se principles that were favourable to developing 
countries.  Venezuela urged the United States to ch ange its practice of acting without producing any 
results and to comply with the DSB's rulings and recommendations so as to strengthen the multilateral 
trading system. 
23. The representative of Ecuador
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  Ecuador regretted that there was no new information and supported Cuba's statement.  
Ecuador, once again, recalled that Article 21 of the DSU referred expressly to prompt compliance 
with the DSB's recommendations and rulings, in par ticular with respect to matters affecting the 
interests of developing-country Members.  The United States closely monitored Members' compliance with their WTO obligations and had, in various  WTO Councils and Committees, expressed its trade 
and systemic concerns about certain commitments undertaken by Members.  The United States also 
drew up internal reports on countries' alleged no n-compliance with their obligations regarding 
intellectual property rights.  Ecuador, therefore,  hoped that the United States would set a good 
example and, once again, urged the US administration and Congress to accelerate their compliance WT/DSB/M/280 
Page 6  
 
  with the DSB's recommendations and rulings by rep ealing Section 211.  Finally, he said that Ecuador 
wished to receive more detailed information from th e EU on the steps taken to resolve this dispute. 
24. The representative of India
 said that her country thanked the United States for its status report 
and its statement.  India continued to be con cerned about the US non-compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  Unfort unately, the status report repeated the pattern of 
the previous reports showing complete lack of pr ogress.  As reiterated at previous DSB meetings, 
non-compliance undermined the credibility and confid ence that Members reposed in the WTO dispute 
settlement system.  India expected the United States  to bring its measures into conformity with the 
multilateral trade disciplines in the nearest future. 
25. The representative of Brazil  said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report in this dispute.  Brazil wished to join prev ious speakers in expressing its serious concerns about 
the prolonged situation of non-compliance.  Brazil urge d the United States to bring its measures into 
conformity with the multilateral trad e disciplines in the nearest future. 
26. The representative of Viet Nam  said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and supported the statement made by Cuba.  Vi et Nam expressed its systemic concern about the 
lack of implementation in this dispute, and urged the United States to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings.  
27. The representative of Costa Rica  said that his country noted the US status report and recalled 
that Article 21.1 of the DSU provided that prom pt compliance with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings was essential to ensure effective resolu tion of disputes.  Costa Rica urged the US 
administration to find soon a solution with the US  Congress so as to ensure full compliance with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
28. The representative of Paraguay  said that her country urged the United States to comply with 
the DSB's recommendations and ruli ngs by repealing Section 211.  
29. The representative of China  said that his country thanked the United States for its status report 
and its statement.  However, the status report simply confirmed the continuation of non-compliance 
after more than eight years following the adoption by the DSB of the Reports pertaining to this 
dispute.  Such a situation was not in line with the principle of prompt implementation contained in the 
DSU provisions, and undermined the authority and cr edibility of the WTO dispute settlement system.  
China supported Cuba and urged the United States to implement the DSB's decision as soon as possible. 
30. The representative of Argentina
 said that her country wished to reiterate its concern over the 
systemic impact of non-compliance with the DSB's rulings.  Argentina urged the parties to take all 
necessary measures in order to fully implement the DSB's recommendations. 
31. The representative of the United States  said that, in response to the statements made by some 
Members that this dispute raised concerns for th e dispute settlement system, as Members well knew, 
the United States did not believe that those concerns were well-founded.  In the interest of time, the 
United States referred Members to past US stat ements on this matter, including in document 
WT/DSB/M/273 at paragraph 15. 
32. The representative of Cuba  said that his delegation wished to respond to the statement just 
made by the United States.  He said that the lack of time referred to by the United States was only a 
pretext and that the US position based on non-respect  for multilateralism and flouting of the decisions 
of the DSB could not be sustainable.  As a matte r of respect for Members, the United States should 
explain why it had not complied with the DSB's recomme ndations in this dispute.  He noted that all  WT/DSB/M/280 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Members were aware that for over eight years ther e had been no political will to comply with the 
DSB's rulings in this dispute.  
33. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.88) 
34. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/ 15/Add.88, 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. 
35. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 March 2010, in accordance with Artic le 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 documen t WT/DS184/15/Add.3.  With respect to the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings that were not already addressed by the US authorities, the US 
administration would work with the US Congress with respect to appropriate statutory measures that 
would resolve this matter. 
36. The representative of Japan
 said that his county thanked the United States for its statement 
and its latest status report.  Jap an hoped that the United States would soon be in a position to report on 
more concrete steps being taken towards its impl ementation in this dispute.  A full and prompt 
implementation of the DSB's recommendations and ru lings was "essential to the effective functioning 
of the WTO and the maintenance of a proper ba lance between the rights and obligations of 
Members".3  Japan called on the United States to fully implement the DSB's recommendations in this 
long-standing dispute without further delay. 
37. 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.63) 
38. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/ 24/Add.63, 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. 
39. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 March 2010, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The US administration 
would continue to confer with the EU and to work  closely with the US Congress, in order to reach a 
mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter. 
40. The representative of the European Union  said that the United States had again reported non-
compliance.  The EU was again di sappointed, especially in light of  the importance the United States 
attached to intellectual property protection.  The EU  was aware that the United States was in favour of 
strong intellectual property protection throughout th e world, and thus hoped that it would lead by 
example.  The EU remained ready to work with th e US authorities towards the complete resolution of 
                                                      
3 Article 3.3 of the DSU. WT/DSB/M/280 
Page 8  
 
  this case, and hoped that the financial loss suffered by the EU industry could be brought to an end 
soon. 
41. 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 Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.26 – WT/DS293/31/Add.26) 
42. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/D S291/37/Add.26 – WT/DS293/31/Add.26, 
which contained the status report by the European  Union on progress in the implementation of the 
DSB's recommendations in the case concerning its measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products. 
43. The representative of the European Union
 said that her delegation was pleased to confirm that 
it had reached a mutually agreed solution with Arge ntina in this case.  The mutually agreed solution 
had been signed on 18 March 2010 and notified to the DSB on 19 March 2010.4  Similarly to the 
agreement reached with Canada the previous year, th e mutually agreed solution had put an end to this 
dispute and had formalized a dialogue on issues related to biotech of mutual interest.  This confirmed, 
once more, that dialogue was the best approach to this complex issue.  EU regulatory procedures on 
biotech products continued to work as foreseen in th e legislation.  The most recent example were the 
five authorizations decisions on GMOs issued on 2 March 2010, including one for cultivation.  With 
those authorizations, the number of GMOs authorized  since the date of establishment of the Panel had 
risen to thirty.  The EU remained open to dialogue on issues related to trade in biotech products with 
the remaining complainant in this dispute. 
44. The representative of Argentina  said that her country thanked the EU for its status report.  As 
mentioned by the EU, Argentina and the EU had reac hed a mutually agreed solution in the biotech 
dispute.  That solution did not prejudice either the implementation of recommendations adopted by 
the DSB nor any claims pertaining to this dispute.  However, the mutually agreed solution did open up 
positive channels for dialogue in this very complex dispute.  The dialogue to date had been very 
satisfactory and positive and Argentina was  plea sed to announce that the parties had reached a 
mutually agreed solution in this dispute.  Argentina hoped that the text of th e mutually agreed solution 
would be circulated to Members as soon as possible. 
45. The representative of the United States  said that his country thanked the EU for its status 
report and its statement.  The United States recalled its concerns with delays in the operation of the 
EU approval system for biotech products.  Those delays had resulted in a backlog of dozens of 
pending applications.  As a consequence of the delays and the resulting backlog, products of 
agricultural biotechnology widely consumed and gr own in the United States and other countries may 
not be imported or used in the EU.  The United States recalled its concern that individual EU member States maintained and continued to adopt bans on  some of the biotech products that had been 
approved at the EU level.  At the February 2 010 DSB meeting, the United States had expressed the 
hope that the new European Commission, which ha d just taken office, would take steps toward 
addressing the EU's ongoing problems with biotech appr ovals.  As mentioned by the EU at the present 
meeting, earlier in the month, the new Comm ission had approved five long-pending biotech 
applications that had previously received positive EU safety assessments, including an application that 
had first been filed in 1996.  Although a substa ntial backlog of pending applications remained, the 
United States was encouraged by those developmen ts and looked forward to continuing progress in 
the coming months.  The United States had also taken note of the announcement by the EU and 
Argentina that they had reached an agreement unde r which the two parties would continue with a 
                                                     
 
4 WT/DS293/41.  WT/DSB/M/280 
 Page 9 
 
 
  dialogue on outstanding issues related to biotech approvals as well as a mutually agreed solution to 
their dispute.  The United States recalled that th ere were important differences between the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in the dispute between the EU and the United States (DS291) and the recommendations and rulings in Argentina's dispute (DS293).  In particular, the recommendations and 
rulings in the US dispute addressed the EU's genera l moratorium on biotech approvals, while those in 
Argentina's dispute did not.  In addition, as comp ared to Argentina's dispute, the recommendations 
and rulings in the US dispute covered a wider rang e of biotech products that had been subject to 
undue delay, as well as a wider range of products s ubject to EU member State bans despite EU-wide 
approvals.  Unfortunately, there was yet to be a r esolution of the broader range of biotech approval 
issues covered by the dispute between the United Sates and the EU.  To the contrary, as the 
United States had noted in the past, US producers con tinued to be shut out of what historically had 
been major US export markets for agricultural products. 
46. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(e) United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS322/36/Add.6) 
47. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS322/ 36/Add.6, 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 measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews. 
48. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 March 2010, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in that status 
report, the United States had taken steps to implem ent the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute.  With respect to the outstanding issues, the United States would con tinue to consult with 
interested parties in order to address those issues. 
49. The representative of Japan  said that his country thanked the United States for its statement 
and its latest status report.  The United States had st ated in its status report that it "will continue to 
consult with interested parties in order to address the findings contained in [the Appellate Body and 
the panel] reports" adopted by the DSB on 31 Au gust 2009.  Japan took this statement as an 
expression of commitment by the United States to fully implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings.  Japan called on the United States to fulfil its commitment by taking immediate and concrete 
action to this end so as to resolve this dispute. 
50. The representative of the European Union  said that her delegation wished to reiterate its 
disappointment over the lack of any progress by the United States on compliance with adverse rulings 
on zeroing in yet another dispute and recalled that immediate compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings was not an option, but an obligation under the DSU provisions.  
51. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(f) United States – Continued existence and appli cation of zeroing methodology:  Status report 
by the United States (WT/DS350/18/Add.3) 
52. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS350/ 18/Add.3, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning the continued existence and applica tion of zeroing methodology by the United States. WT/DSB/M/280 
Page 10  
 
  53. The representative of the United States
 said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 March 2010, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in that status report, the United States had taken steps to implem ent the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute.  With regard to the remaining issues, the United States would continue to consult with interested parties. 
54. The representative of the European Union
 said that her delegation would not repeat all its 
concerns about the US lack of implementation in th is dispute.  There had been, much to the EU's 
regret, no change in this respect since the EU had last commented on the many gaps in the US implementation in this dispute in February 2010 .  In fact, the situation was now worse, as the 
United States, in the recent final determination in its Section 129 proceeding of 12 March 2010, had 
explicitly stated that it had not, and did not intend to, implement the DSB's recommendations with 
regard to the vast majority of the measures in  question.  The EU commended the fact that the 
United States would "continue to consult with in terested parties in order to address the other 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB", as it stated in its status reports, but what did that mean.  
All the measures in question could be implemented immediately, just by eliminating the line of 
computer code which led to zeroing.  The EU, once again, reminded the United States that it was 
required, as a WTO Member, to complete those actions and bring itself into full compliance three months ago, when the reasonable period of time had expired.  Consultations, when not accompanied 
by real progress in implementation, could not go on ad infinitum  and the Section 129 determination 
suggested there was no progress at all.  The EU, ther efore, urged the United States to reconsider its 
Section 129 determination immediatel y and to implement.  The EU also noted that the United States 
had not presented a status report on the progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings in the DS294 case.  The EU questione d whether the lack of reports meant that the 
United States considered to have brought itself into full compliance with the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings in that dispute. 
55. The representative of the United States
 said that it wished to co mment on two issues raised by 
the EU.  First, with respect to the Section 129 de termination, on 12 March 2010, the US Department 
of Commerce had issued the final results under S ection 129(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
with respect to the four determinations in th e original investigations.  The United States was 
consulting within the government on next steps unde r Section 129(b).  There was no statement in the 
Section 129 determination that the United States would not comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  To the contrary, the United States had stated repeatedly to th e DSB that it intended to 
comply with the DSB's recommendations and ruli ngs.  The Section 129 determination concerned 
implementation of one part of the DSB's recomme ndations and rulings, on in vestigations.  Second, 
with regard to the EU comment on status reports in DS294, that issue was not relevant to this Agenda 
item, which dealt with a different dispute;  i.e.  DS350.  If the EU wished to take up that issue 
bilaterally, the United States would be willing to do so.  As part of any such bilateral discussion, the 
United States would be interested in hearing the EU's  reflections on its own approach in the original 
EC - Hormones dispute where, when the EU had objected to the US and Canadian requests for 
authorization to suspend concessions, the EU had ceased providing status reports. 
56. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(g) China – Measures affecting the protection and en forcement of intellectual property rights:  
Status report by China (WT/DS362/14/Add.2) 
57. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS362/ 14/Add.2, which contained the status 
report by China on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the case concerning China's measures affecting the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.  WT/DSB/M/280 
 Page 11 
 
 
  58. The representative of China  said that his country had provided a status report in this dispute 
on 8 March 2010, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  On 20 March 2009, the DSB had 
adopted the Panel Report in this dispute.  On 29 June 2009, China and the United States had agreed and notified the DSB that the reasonable period of time for implementation shall be 12 months and 
would expire on 20 March 2010.  China wished to inform the DSB of the latest progress in its 
implementation.  First, on 26 February 2010, the thirteenth session of the Standing Committee of the 
11th National People's Congress (NPC) had approved the amendments of Chinese Copyright Law.  
One of the amendments was to change Article 4 of that Law.  The new Article 4 stipulated that:  
Copyright owners' exercise of their copyright shall not violate the Constitution, laws or prejudice the 
public interests.  The state shall perform superv ision over publication or dissemination of works as 
prescribed by laws  (courtesy translation).  Second, on 17 March 2010, the State Council adopted the 
decision to revise the Regulations for Customs Protection of Intellectual Property Rights.  One of the revisions was to improve the disposal procedur es of seized products that infringed intellectual 
property rights.  By doing that, China had complete d all necessary domestic legislative procedures in 
implementing the DSB's recommendations and rulings in  this dispute.  China pointed out that it had 
taken actions to implement the DSB's ruling and recommendations with a view to upholding the 
multilateral trading system and hoped that other Memb ers could also take concrete actions to respect 
their international obligations.  
59. The representative of the United States
 said that his country thanked China for its status report 
and its statement.  He recalled that, on 20 Marc h 2010, the reasonable period of time for China to 
comply in this dispute would expire.  While China had stated that it had implemented the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings with respect to the Copyright Law, the United States was not in a 
position to share China's assessment at this time.   The United States looked forward to further 
discussions with China to understand the basis for its  claim.  With respect to China's efforts to 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings re garding its customs regime, the United States 
did not understand China to have claimed that  it had implemented those recommendations and 
rulings, including in its statement at the present m eeting.  The United States would welcome receiving 
further information from China, including bilatera lly, on its timeline for implementation, given that 
the reasonable period of time would expire the fo llowing day.  Further, the United States would 
appreciate China either providing official copi es of the amendments to the Copyright Law and 
Customs regulations, or directing Members to the appropriate Chinese government website where 
they were or would be posted.  The United Stat es further recalled China's commitment in its 
Accession Protocol to make available to WTO Members translations into one or more of the official 
languages of the WTO, all laws, regulations and othe r measures pertaining to or affecting TRIPS, and 
to the maximum extent possible to make such laws , regulations and other me asures available before 
they were implemented or enforced.  The United States would, therefore, also appreciate receiving translations of the amendments to the Copyrigh t Law and Customs regulations into English, if 
possible. 
60. The representative of the European Union
 said that her delegation had taken note of China's 
changes to its Copyright Law.  With regard to the legislative proposals on customs measures on which 
China was working, and given the expiry of the reasonable period of time on 20 March 2010, the EU 
would be interested in any further information that China may be able to provide regarding the timing 
for adoption. 
61. The representative of China  said that his country had taken note of the statement by the 
United States and would engage with th e United States through bilateral channels. 
62. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. WT/DSB/M/280 
Page 12  
 
  3. United States – Anti-dumping measures on polyethylene retail carrier bags from 
Thailand 
(a) Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB 
63. The Chairman
 recalled that, in accordance with the DS U provisions, the DSB was required to 
keep under surveillance the implementation of reco mmendations and rulings of the DSB in order to 
ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members.  In this respect, Article 21.3 of 
the DSU provided that the Member concerned shall in form the DSB, within 30 days after the date of 
adoption of the panel or Appellate Body report, of its intentions in respect of implementation of the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  He reca lled that at its meeting on 18 February 2010, the 
DSB had adopted the Panel Report pertaining to th e dispute on:  "US – Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand".   
64. The representative of the United States  said that his country intended to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute in a manner that respected its WTO obligations, and 
would need a reasonable period of time in which to im plement.  In their procedural agreement, which 
had been circulated to Members in document WT/DS383/4, the United States and Thailand had 
provisionally agreed that the reasonable period of tim e in this dispute would be six months from the 
date of adoption of the Panel Report.  The Unite d States hoped to notify the DSB of the reasonable 
period of time agreement very soon.  The United St ates appreciated Thailand's cooperation during this 
dispute and looked forward to continuing to wo rk with Thailand in that constructive spirit. 
65. The representative of Thailand  said that his country than ked the United States for the 
statement on its intentions regarding the implemen tation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in 
this matter within the six-month period, mentione d in the procedural agreement concluded between 
Thailand and the United States, which had been circ ulated in document WT/DS383/4.  Thailand also 
looked forward to the continuation of the good coop eration it had enjoyed with the United States 
throughout this proceeding. 
66. The DSB took note  of the statements, and of the information provided by the United States 
regarding its intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations. 
4. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsid y Offset Act of 2000:  Implementation of 
the recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) Statements by the European Union and Japan 
67. The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Union and Japan.  He then i nvited the respective representatives to speak. 
68. The representative of Japan  said that the latest annual distributions for FY20095 showed that 
the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset  Act (CDSOA) still remained operational.6  Japan urged 
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.  Ac cording to Article 21.6 of the DSU, the United States 
was under obligation to provide the DSB with a status  report.  Japan recalled that Article 21.6 of the 
DSU stated that:  "unless the DSB decides othe rwise, the issue of implementation of the 
                                                      
5 CDSOA 2009 Annual Reports dated 10 December 2009.  According to the reports, some 
US$248 million have been distributed for FY2009.  See US Customs and Border Protection's website at:  
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/prio rity_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/cdsoa _09/report/fy09_a nnual_report.xml  
6 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/trad e/priority_ trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/cont_dump_faq.xml   WT/DSB/M/280 
 Page 13 
 
 
  recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonabl e period of time pursuant to  paragraph 3 and shall 
remain on the DSB's Agenda until the issue is resolv ed.  At least ten days prior to each such DSB 
meeting, the Member concerned shall provide the DS B with a status report in writing of its progress 
in implementation of recommendations and rulings". 
69. The representative of the European Union  said that, once again, the EU wished to ask the 
United States when it would effectively stop the tr ansfer of anti-dumping and countervailing duties to 
its industry and finally put an e nd to the condemned measure.  The EU also renewed its call on the 
United States to abide by its clear obligation unde r Article 21.6 of the DSU and to submit status 
reports on implementation in this dispute. 
70. The representative of China  said that his country thanked the EU and Japan for, once again, 
raising this item at the DSB meeting.  China shar ed the concerns expressed by previous speakers and 
wished to join them in urging the United St ates to comply fully with the DSB's rulings. 
71. The representative of Brazil  said that his country thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this 
item on the Agenda of the DSB.  As had been stated at previous meetings, Brazil was of the view that 
while the United States continued to make disbur sements pursuant to the Byrd Amendment, the 
situation of non-compliance in this dispute would persist, and the issue would not be "resolved" 
within the meaning of Article 21.6 of the DSU.  Thus, pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU, unless the DSB decided otherwise, the issue of implementati on should be placed on the Agenda of the DSB and 
remain there until the issue was resolved.  
72. The representative of Canada
 said that her country agreed with the EU and Japan that the 
Byrd Amendment remained subject  to the surveillance of the DS B until the United States ceased to 
administer it. 
73. The representative of India  said that her country thanked the EU and Japan for bringing this 
issue before the DSB once again an d shared their concerns.  India remained disappointed at the US 
maintenance of the WTO-inconsistent disbursements.   India was of the view that the United States 
was required to submit status reports in this di spute until such time as no more disbursements were 
made pursuant to the Byrd Amendmen t.  Only then would the issue be "resolved" within the meaning 
of Article 21.6 of the DSU.  India wished to join  other Members in urging the United States to comply 
fully with the DSB's rulings. 
74. The representative of Thailand  said that his country thanked Japan and the EU for bringing 
this item before the DSB once again.  Thailand conti nued to be disappointed at the US maintenance of 
the WTO-inconsistent disbursements and thus ur ged the United States to cease the disbursements, 
repeal the Byrd Amendment with immediate practical effect, and resume providing status reports until such actions were taken and this matter was fully resolved. 
75. The representative of the United States
 said that as his country had already explained at 
numerous previous DSB meetings, the US President had signed the Deficit Reduction Act into law on 
8 February 2006.  That Act included a provision  repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000.  Thus, the United States had ta ken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in these disputes.  Furthermore, the United States recalled that 
Members, including the EU and Japan, had previous ly acknowledged during other DSB meetings that 
the 2006 Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the di stribution of duties collected on goods entered 
after 1 October 2007, some two and a half years ago.  The United States, therefore, did not understand 
the purpose for which the EU and Japan had inscribed this item on the Agenda of the present meeting.  
With respect to comments regarding further status repo rts in this matter, as it had already explained at 
previous DSB meetings, the United States failed to see what purpose would be served by further WT/DSB/M/280 
Page 14  
 
  submission of status reports repeating, again, that  the United States had taken all actions necessary to 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disputes. 
76. The DSB took note
 of the statements. 
5. European Communities – Export subsidies on sugar 
(a) Statements by Australia, Brazil and Thailand 
77. The Chairman  said that the item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Australia, Brazil and Thailand. 
78. The representative of Australia , speaking also on behalf of Br azil and Thailand, said that the 
countries in question wished to make a joint statemen t and to recall their individual statements made 
at the 18 February 2010 DSB meeting as well as the joint statement made by them in the Committee 
on Agriculture on 10 March 2010, expressing their concern at the recent decision of the EU to export 
out-of-quota sugar in excess of its annual schedul ed quantity commitment level of 1.2735 million 
tonnes.  The additional EU exports had already nega tively affected market sentiment and driven world 
prices down.  By signalling to EU sugar producer s that excess out-of-quota sugar could be exported, 
the EU risked a continuous cycle of overprodu ction and artificially depressed global prices, 
unwinding the important reforms undertaken by the EU following the "EC - Sugar" dispute findings.  
Australia, Brazil and Thailand recalled that the EU ha d offered, at both the previous DSB meeting as 
well as at the Committee on Agriculture and bilaterally, to provide the necessary technical information underpinning its decision to export additiona l sugar.  However, the EU was yet to provide 
any such information.  Australia, Brazil and Thaila nd urged the EU to provide the necessary technical 
information underpinning its decision to export add itional sugar in accordance with its undertakings. 
79. The representative of the European Union
 said that, at the previous DSB meeting, the EU had 
already highlighted that its decision to export 0.5 million tonnes of sugar was a temporary measure, adopted in view of the exceptional market conditions  at both the EU and world level, world prices 
being at a record high level creating a shortage  of sugar which affected importing developing 
countries.  The EU did not expect those market conditions to last beyond the season 2009-2010.  The 
export of 0.5 million tonnes had now been exhauste d and the EU had not renewed that temporary 
decision.  The decision fully respected the EU's in ternational obligations as the quantities on sale were 
not subsidized and happened at a time when worl d sugar prices were higher than EU production costs 
and EU producers had become much more comp etitive following the drastic overhaul of the EU 
Common Market Organisation for sugar.  The EU continued to respect its WTO commitments and 
reiterated its insistence on its right to engage in in ternational trade, even if competing exporters of 
other WTO Members would have, for rather obvious  reasons of commercial interest, preferred 
otherwise.  The EU also reiterated its readiness to continue a dialogue regarding the background 
underpinning the EU's temporary decision to export sugar. 
80. The DSB took note
 of the statements. 
6. Proposed amendments to the Working Procedures for Appellate Review 
(a) Statement by the Chairman 
81. The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business", said that as had been announced at the 
outset of the present meeting, he would now wish to make a statement concerning the amendments 
proposed by the Appellate Body to the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, which had been 
circulated in document WT/AB/WP/W/10.  He recalled that his predecessor, Amb. Gero, had reported on this matter to Members at both the January and February 2010 meetings of the DSB.  In that  WT/DSB/M/280 
 Page 15 
 
 
  regard, Amb. Gero had indicated that, before placing this matter on the DSB's Agenda, it seemed 
appropriate to allow time for reflection and, if  necessary, informal consultations.  It was his 
understanding that Amb. Gero had had informal contacts with a number of Ambassadors on this 
subject earlier that year and had concluded at that time that the consensus view seemed to be that, 
given the complexity of the proposed amendments, it w ould not be beneficial to try to rush the matter.  
Rather, further informal consultations were still ne eded.  It was also his understanding that, in the 
meantime, a group of interested delegations had been consulting on the proposed amendments.  In 
light of that, and given past practice and th e 19 December 2002 DSB decision regarding "Additional 
Procedures for Consultations between WTO Members and the Chairperson of the DSB in relation to 
Amendments to the Working Procedures for Appella te Review", he wished to propose the following 
process.  First, to facilitate an open and transpar ent exchange of views among all interested Members 
on the proposed amendments before the matter wa s placed on the DSB's Agenda, he proposed to 
convene an informal meeting in the second half of  April 2010.  He would notify Members in due 
course by fax of the date and time of this informal m eeting.  Since this would be an informal meeting, 
there would be no formal record.  Second, he would subsequently request the Secretariat to place this 
matter on the Agenda of the regular DSB meeting to be held on 18 May 2010, at which time Members 
could provide their views formally for the record for transmittal to the Appellate Body.  Finally, 
pursuant to the 19 December 2002 DSB decision on this  matter, delegations were also free to submit 
their comments in writing.  In that regard, he pr oposed that any written comments be provided to him 
in care of the Council and TNC Division by 18 May 2010.7   
82. The DSB took note  of the statement. 
__________  
                                                      
7 Subsequently, the deadline for submitting written comments on the proposed amendments was 
extended until 26 May 2010.