WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
WT/DSB/M/300 
19 September 2011 
 (11-4484) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
20 July 2011  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard 
on 20 July 2011 
 
Chairperson:  Mrs. Elin Østebø Johansen (Norway) 
 
 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 Unite d States ................................................................................... 5 
(c)  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by 
the United States ............................................................................................................. ............ 5 
(d)  European Communities1 – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products:  Status report by the European Union ......................................................................... 6  
(e)  United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by 
the United States ............................................................................................................. ............ 7 
(f)  United States – Continued existence and a pplication of zeroing methodology:  Status 
report by the United States ................................................................................................... ....... 8 
(g)  United States – Laws, regulations and methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status report by the United States .......................................................................... 8  
(h)  China – Measures affecting trading righ ts and distribution services for certain 
publications and audiovisual entertainment products:  Status report by China .......................... 8  
(i)  European Communities1 and its Member States – Tariff treatment of certain 
information technology products:  Status report by the European Union ................................... 9  
2.  United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  
Implementation of the recommenda tions adopted by the DSB .......................................... 12  
(a)  Statements by the European Union and Japan .......................................................................... 12  
3.  Canada – Certain measures affecting the renewable energy generation sector ................ 13  
(a)  Request for the establishment of a panel by  Japan ................................................................... 13  
4.  Ukraine – Taxes on distilled spirits ....................................................................................... 14  
(a)  Request for the establishment of a panel by Moldova .............................................................. 14  
                                                      
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/300 
Page 2  
 
5.  Proposed nominations for the indicative list of governmental and 
non-governmental panelists ................................................................................................... 14 
6.  Statement by the Chairperson regarding  the process for selecting new members 
of the Appella te Body ......................................................................................................... ..... 15 
 
 
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appr opriations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.104) 
 
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.104) 
 (c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.79) 
 
(d) European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of  biotech products:  
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.42) 
 (e) United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS322/36/Add.22) 
 
(f) United States – Continued existence and appli cation of zeroing methodology:  Status report 
by the United States (WT/DS350/18/Add.19) 
 (g) United States – Laws, regulations a nd methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status report by the United States (WT/DS294/38/Add.13) 
 (h) China – Measures affecting trading rights and distribution services for certain publications 
and audiovisual entertainment products:  Status report by China (WT/DS363/17/Add.6) 
 (i) European Communities and its Member States – Tariff treatment of certain information 
technology products:  Status report by the European Union (WT/DS375/18 - WT/DS376/18 - 
WT/DS377/16) 
  1. The Chairperson recalled that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that unless the DSB decided 
otherwise, the issue of implementation of the re commendations or rulings shall be placed on the 
Agenda of the DSB meeting after six months follo wing the date of establis hment of the reasonable 
period of time and shall remain on the DSB's Agenda  until the issue was resolv ed.  She proposed that 
the nine sub-items under Agenda ite m 1 be considered separately.  
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.104) 
2. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS176/11/Add.104, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning US Section 211 Om nibus Appropriations Act of 1998. 
3. The representative of the United States said that  his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 7 July 2011, in accordance with Artic le 21.6 of the DSU.  Several legislative proposals 
had been introduced in the current 112th Congr ess that would implement the recommendations and  WT/DSB/M/300 
 Page 3 
 
 
rulings of the DSB.  The US Administration would continue to work on solutions to implement the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
4. The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked the United States for its 
status report and hoped that the US authorities woul d very soon take steps towards implementing the 
DSB's ruling and resolve this matter. 
5. The representative of Cuba said that each month the United States was presenting the same 
status report regarding the Section 211 dispute.  In Cuba's view, the US status report was not in line 
with the provisions of Article 21.6 of the DSU, wh ich required the submission of status reports on 
progress in the implementation of the DSB's recomm endations and rulings.  The United States had not 
reported on any "progress".  The only difference be tween the most recent status report and those 
submitted two years ago was a reference to the numb er of sessions of the US Congress.  No progress 
had been made even though, in March 2010, a heari ng on Section 211 had been held for the first time 
in the House of Representatives Committee on the Judici ary.  It was irresponsible on the part of the 
United States to repeat the same  information at every DSB meeting without making any commitment 
as to when it would comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  Cuba, as well as other 
Members, continued to reiterate their concerns about US non-compliance, but the United States paid 
no heed to them and disregarded the concerns expressed by some important US institutions on 
compliance with international intellectual property rules.   
6. At the March 2010 hearing in the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, the 
President of the National Foreign Trade Council, which represented 250 US companies, had stated 
that Section 211 was inconsistent with the long-st anding principles of the US trademark legislation 
and gave no benefit to US businesses.  Accordi ngly, he had urged the US Congress to repeal 
Section 211 in its entirety.  Similarly, the Global Intellectual Property Centre of the US Chamber of Commerce had also advocated that Section 211 be  repealed.  The United States must respect the 
DSB's work, the DSU provisions, the TRIPS Agreem ent as well as other Members.  Cuba believed 
that the only acceptable way of doing so was to fully repeal Section 211.  Any attempt to disguise and 
perpetuate the measure would amount to a political  manipulation of the US Congress by anti-Cuban 
circles in Miami, which used the dispute between Cuba and the United States as a vehicle for their 
political careers. 
7. Cuba would continue to reitera te its position that Section 211 had been put into place and 
remained in force to satisfy the interests of Bacar di, which was relentless in  its attack against the 
Cuban revolution.  One of its objectives was to illegally appropriate the Havana Club trademark and 
the US Government had followed it in this game.  It  not only allowed Bacardi to continue to sell rum 
produced in Puerto Rico using the Cuban trademark, but shielded its attempts to usurp the mark by 
applying Section 211 against Cubaexport, the owne r of the right since 1976.  Many would wonder 
why Bacardi was interested in the trademark.  Th e most obvious answer was that at the end of 2010, 
Havana Club ranked twenty second out of the 100 drinks  with the highest sales in the world and, at 
present, the trademark was registered in 160 countr ies, which testified to the wide international 
recognition that the Cuban trademark enjoyed, and the quality of the product.  Accordingly, Cuba asked that the Office of Foreign Assets Control i ssue the licence for renewal of the Havana Club rum 
trademark so that the Cuban company could renew the trademark in the United States.  Cuba reiterated its request that the United States undert ake immediate and effective measures to repeal 
Section 211.    
8. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of  Venezuela said that her country supported 
Cuba's statement on Section 211.  Venezuela welcom ed the US status report but regretted, once again, 
that its content was not different from the previous status reports submitted by the United States.  In 
Venezuela's view, this constituted "action without r esults".  Section 211 was contrary to the TRIPS 
Agreement and was inconsistent with the principl es of national and most-favoured-nation treatment.  
Apart from the harm caused to Cuba, Section 211 und ermined the credibility of the DSB.  Venezuela WT/DSB/M/300 
Page 4  
 
hoped that the United States would comply with the DSB's recommendations.  As it had done on 
previous occasions, Venezuela urged the United St ates to put an end to its policy of economic, 
commercial and financial blockade against Cuba a nd recalled the US commitment to respect the DSB 
by complying with its recommendations.   
9. The representative of China said that her country  thanked the United States for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeting.   China regretted that the United States had, once 
again, reported non-compliance.  This prolonged situation of non-compliance was highly incompatible with the principle of prompt and e ffective implementation stipulated in the DSU, in 
particular since the interests of a developing-coun try Member were affected.  China, therefore, 
supported Cuba and joined previous speakers in urging the United States to implement the DSB's 
rulings and recommendations without any further delay. 
10. The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia said that her country had, once again, 
noted that the US status report did not contain any information on progress in this dispute.  Bolivia, 
therefore, wished to reiterate its concern about the current situation in this dispute and the US failure 
to comply with its WTO obligations.  This type of situa tion undermined the credibility and integrity of 
the multilateral trading system, caused serious ha rm to a developing country and had systemic 
implications for the WTO.  Bolivia, once again, urged the United States to comply with the DSB's 
rulings and to take steps to remove the restricti ons imposed under Section 211.  Bolivia supported the 
concerns raised by Cuba at the present meeting. 
11. The representative of Zimbabwe said that his count ry thanked the United States for its status 
report.  However, Zimbabwe noted that the United States had, once again, reported non-compliance.  
Despite the US assurances that this matter was be fore Congress, this dispute had remained on the 
DSB's Agenda for almost a decade.  The Appellate Body had concluded that Section 211 violated the 
national treatment and most-favoured nation prin ciples under the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris 
Convention.  Zimbabwe again called on the United States to promptly implement the DSB's decision 
in order to preserve the WTO's credibility and to retu rn the rights to Cuban owners.  In that regard, 
Zimbabwe supported the statement made by Cuba and urged the United States to make progress on 
this matter.   
12. The representative of Angola said that her count ry thanked the United States for its status 
report.  However, Angola regretted that no concrete  progress had been made in the implementation of 
the DSB's decision and the Appellate Body's c onclusion of 12 February 2002 with regard to 
Section 211.  As Members were aware, the delay in  the implementation of this decision affected the 
security and predictability of the multilateral trad ing system, and set a negative precedent for other 
cases.  Thus, Angola hoped that concrete actions would be undertaken to bring this measure into 
conformity with WTO rules, without any further delay. 
13. The representative of Ecuador said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report, but regretted that no progress had been  made towards implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in this dispute.  As Ecuador  had stated on previous occasions, the prompt 
compliance with the DSB's recommendations was e ssential for the effective functioning of the WTO 
and the maintenance of a proper ba lance between the rights and obligations of Members.  Due to its 
systemic interest, Ecuador urged the United States to take the necessary actions to ensure compliance 
with the DSB's recommendations as soon as possible. 
14. The representative of Brazil said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report pertaining to this dispute.  Brazil remain ed concerned about the prolonged situation of non-
compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings  in this dispute.  Once again, Brazil urged 
the United States to accelerate its efforts and comply  with its multilateral ob ligations without further 
delay.  WT/DSB/M/300 
 Page 5 
 
 
15. The representative of Mexico said that his country  thanked the United States for its report.  
Mexico urged the parties to solve this disput e through legal remedies provided under the DSU 
provisions.  Mexico noted that any Member could initia te a dispute if it considered that its rights were 
being impaired or nullified as a result of non-complia nce by another Member.  Mexico believed that 
the discussion under this Agenda item could provide  useful input for the on-going discussions carried 
out in the context of the DSU negotiations, in par ticular with regard to effective compliance.   
16. The representative of Paraguay said that his c ountry supported the concerns raised by Cuba 
about the US failure to comply with the DBS's r ecommendations pertaining to this dispute.  In 
Paraguay's view, this issue should be discussed in  the context of the on-going negotiations on 
improvements and clarifications to the DSU.   
17. 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.104) 
18. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS184/15/Add.104, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan. 
19. The representative of the United States said that  his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 7 July 2011, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As of November 2002, the 
US authorities had addressed the DSB's recommendations  and rulings with resp ect to the calculation 
of anti-dumping margins in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumping duty investigation at issue in this 
dispute.  With respect to the recommendations an d rulings of the DSB that had not already been 
addressed by the US authorities, the US Administ ration would work with the US Congress with 
respect to appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter. 
20. The representative of Japan said that his country  thanked the United States for its statement 
and its most recent status report.  Japan noted th at the United States had taken certain measures to 
implement part of the DSB's recommendations in November 2002.  As for the remaining part of the 
DSB's recommendations, Japan hoped that the United States would soon be in a position to report to 
the DSB on more tangible and concrete progress.  Full and prompt implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings was "essential to the effective functioning of the WTO and the 
maintenance of a proper balance of th e rights and obligations of Members".2  Japan called on the 
United States to fully implement the DSB's recommendations in this long-standing dispute without 
further delay. 
21. 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.79) 
22. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS160/24/Add.79, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning Section 110(5)  of the US Copyright Act. 
23. The representative of the United States said that  his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 7 July 2011, in accordance with Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU.  The US Administration 
                                                      
2 Article 3.3 of the DSU. WT/DSB/M/300 
Page 6  
 
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. 
24. The representative of the European Union said that the EU noted and thanked the 
United States for its status report.  The EU remained  keen to work with the US authorities towards the 
complete resolution of this case. 
25. 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.42) 
26. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS291/37/Add.42, 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 a ffecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products. 
27. The representative of the European Union said th at, as mentioned at the previous regular DSB 
meeting, the EU welcomed the continuation of th e technical dialogue with the United States which 
gave both parties an opportunity to discuss directly issues of their concern regarding biotechnology.  
The EU hoped that this constructive approach based  on dialogue would allow the parties to leave 
litigation aside.  Once again, the EU noted that its regulatory procedures on biotech products continued to work as foreseen in the legislation.  The number of GMOs authorized since the date of 
establishment of the Panel was thirty-four.  In 2010, 11 applications had been authorized, including one authorization for cultivation.  On 17 June  2011, the Commission had adopted two more 
authorization decisions
3, together with the decision on the renewal of the authorization of maize 1507.  
Progress had also been made on other applications for authorization.  Four more draft applications had 
been voted in the Standing Committee in February 2011.4  The Council would examine those 
applications in the coming weeks.  In April and July 2011, EFSA had adopted other scientific 
opinions on three GM soybean.5 
28. The representative of the United States said that  his country thanked the EU for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeting.  At the past several meet ings, the United States 
had noted concern with delays in the EU appr oval system affecting dozens of pending biotech 
applications.  Those pending applications included products covered by findings of the DSB that the 
EU had breached its obligations under the SPS Agre ement by unduly delaying the consideration of 
twenty-one individual product applications. 6  At the present meeting, th e United States said that it 
would like to return to another set of important DS B recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  In 
particular, the DSB had ruled that six EU member States had adopted nine separate measures that banned biotech products appr oved by the EU prior to the EU's moratorium on biotech approvals.  The 
DSB had ruled that all of those member State ba ns had breached the EU's obligations under the SPS 
Agreement because the measures had not been based on risk assessments.
7  Unfortunately, elements 
of the member State bans subject to the DSB recomm endations and rulings remained in place.  Most 
notably, Austria continued to ban the cultivation of Mon 810 maize, which was the only biotech maize currently approved to be grown in the EU.  Not only had that Austrian ban remained in place 
                                                      
3 Maize MON89034xMON88017 and cotton GHB614. 
4 MIR604×GA21 maize, BT11×MIR604 maize, Bt11×MIR604×GA21 maize, 281-24-236/3006-210-
23 cotton. 
5 A5547-127, 356043 and MON87701. 
6 European Communities – Measurers Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, 
WT/DS291/R (adopted 21 November 2006), para. 8.18. 
7 European Communities – Measurers Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, 
WT/DS291/R (adopted 21 November 2006), paras. 8.21 to 8.30.  WT/DSB/M/300 
 Page 7 
 
 
since the adoption of the DSB's recommendations and rulings, but several other member States, 
including France, Germany, and Hungary, had gone on to adopt cultivation bans on the same product.   
29. For well over a year, the EU had been consider ing proposals to amend its biotech approval 
laws to address the issue of whether EU member  States should respect EU-wide approvals based on 
scientific risk assessments.  The issue was directly related to the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  Earlie r in July 2011, the consideration of legislative 
proposals had reached an important milestone.  On 5 July 2011, the EU Parliament had adopted a 
proposed amendment that, according to the Parlia ment spokesman, "backs [the] national right to 
[adopt] cultivation bans".  The adoption of this prop osed amendment did not appear to move the EU 
towards implementation of the DSB's recommendati ons and rulings on member State bans.  The 
United States would follow these developments closely as the proposed amendment proceeded 
through additional steps of the EU's co-decision pr ocess.  Aside from these troubling developments, 
the United States noted that the EU appeared to be  taking no other actions to address member State 
bans on products that had been approved at the EU-level.   
30. 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.22) 
31. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS322/36/Add.22, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning US measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews. 
32. The representative of the United States said that  his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 7 July 2011, in  accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As the United States had 
explained in its status report, in December 2010  the US Department of Commerce had announced a 
proposal to change the calculation of weighted  average dumping margins and assessment rates in 
certain anti-dumping proceedings.  At the present time, the US Department of Commerce was 
continuing with its on-going work on the December proposal. 
33. The representative of Japan said that his country  thanked the United States for its statement 
and its most recent status report.  Japan took note of the report that the internal consultation process 
and on-going work were under way, based on the proposal announced by the US Department of 
Commerce on 28 December 2010.  While taking th e US implementation efforts as a positive step 
forward, Japan continued to seek prompt and full co mpliance by the United States with respect to all 
of the measures at issue that were subject to th e recommendations in this dispute.  Japan looked 
forward to a continued dialogue with the United St ates and would closely monitor any developments 
on this matter.  Japan reserved its right under the DSU to take an appropriate action, if necessary. 
34. The representative of China said that her country  thanked the United States for its status 
report and its statement.  China welcomed th e steps taken by the United States towards the 
implementation of the DSB's rulings and recomme ndations on zeroing matters.  However, China 
remained concerned as to how the United Stat es would implement the DSB's decision on zeroing 
matters remained high.  China would follow the US implementation steps closely and urged the 
United States to take actions to be fully in co mpliance with the DSB's rulings and recommendations 
without further delay. 
35. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. WT/DSB/M/300 
Page 8  
 
(f) United States – Continued existence and appli cation of zeroing methodology:  Status report 
by the United States (WT/DS350/18/Add.19) 
36. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS350/18/Add.19, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning the existence and application of zeroing methodology by the United States. 
37. The representative of the United States said th at his country had addressed the issue of 
compliance with the findings in this dispute in the status report provided on 7 July 2011, and earlier in 
the discussion under Agenda item 1(e) of the present meeting.  The United States referred Members to 
that report and that statement for further details.   
38. The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked the United States for its 
most recent status report.  Since the United Stat es had not reported on any steps taken to address the 
concerns raised by the EU in the DSB, the EU re ferred Members to its statements made at the DSB 
meetings in January and February 2011.  The EU re mained ready to engage with the United States in 
discussions within the WTO and bilaterally in order to  ensure that its concerns were addressed by the 
United States.  The EU looked forward to further information from the United States on its intentions. 
39. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(g) United States – Laws, regul ations and methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status report by the United States (WT/DS294/38/Add.13) 
40. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS294/38/Add.13, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning US laws, regulations and me thodology for calculating dumping margins. 
41. The representative of the United States said th at his country had addressed the issue of 
compliance with the findings in this dispute in th e status report provided on 7 July 2011, and earlier 
under Agenda item 1(e) of the present meeting.  Th e United States referred Members to that report 
and that statement for further details. 
42. The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked the United States for its 
status report and referred Members to its statemen ts made under Agenda item 1(f) concerning the US 
proposal of 28 December 2010. 
43. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(h) China – Measures affecting trading rights and distribution services for certain publications 
and audiovisual entertainment products:  Status report by China (WT/DS363/17/Add.6) 
44. The Chairperson drew attention to document WT/DS363/17/Add.6, which contained the 
status report by China on progress in the implemen tation of the DSB's recommendations in the case 
concerning China's measures affecting trading rights and distribution services for certain publications 
and audiovisual entertainment products. 
45. The representative of China said that her country  had provided its status report in this dispute 
on 7 July 2011, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  China had made tremendous efforts to 
implement the DSB's rulings and recommendations, a nd had thus far completed amendments to most 
measures at issue.  China believed that this matter would be properly resolved through joint efforts 
and mutual cooperation with relevant parties.  WT/DSB/M/300 
 Page 9 
 
 
46. The representative of the United States said that his country thanked China for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting.  Th e United States remained concerned about the lack 
of progress by China in bringing its measures rela ting to films for theatrical release into compliance 
with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  The Un ited States also had significant concerns about 
the incomplete progress relative to China's measu res relating to audiovisual home entertainment 
products, reading materials, and sound recordings.  The United States was conferring with China on 
these matters and hoped that China would take steps to resolve this matter soon.   
47. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(i) European Communities and its Member States – Tariff treatment of certain information 
technology products:  Status report by the European Union (WT/DS375/18 - WT/DS376/18 - 
WT/DS377/16) 
48. The Chairperson drew attention to document WT/DS375/18 - WT/DS376/18 - WT/DS377/16, 
which contained the status report by the European  Union on progress in the implementation of the 
DSB's recommendations in the case concerning the EU 's tariff treatment of certain information 
technology products. 
49. The representative of the European Union said th at, as the EU had explained in its status 
report and in the notifications made to the three comp lainants in this dispute, in June 2011, the EU 
had adopted final measures necessary to comply  with the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
pertaining to the dispute on:  "European Communiti es and its Member States – Tariff Treatment of 
Certain Information Technology Products (WT/DS375 - WT/DS376 - WT/DS377)".  Those measures 
consisted of:  (i) a Commission Regulation amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) 
no. 2658/78 on the tariff nomenclature and the Common Customs Tariff, Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) no. 620/20118;  (ii) the deletion of Explanatory Notes for CN codes found 
inconsistent with the EU's tariff commitments9;  and (iii) a statement adopted by the Customs Code 
Committee on 7 June 2011, and publis hed on 29 June 2011, according to which the Statement on the 
classification of "multifunctional devices" agreed at the 360th meeting of the Customs Code 
Committee was to be disregarded.  Furthermore, th e EU recalled that all the measures concerning flat 
panel displays that had been examined by th e panel had been repealed in 2009 by means of 
Commission Regulation (EC) 1179/2009 of 26 November 200910 and the deletion of Explanatory 
Notes for CN codes 8528 41 00, 8528 49 10, 8528 49 35 to 8528 49 99, 8528 51 00 to 8528 59 90, 8528 51 00 and 8528 59 10 to 8528 59 90.
11  The adoption of these m easures ensured the full and 
timely implementation of the DSB's recomme ndations and rulings in this dispute. 
50. The representative of the United States said that  his country thanked the EU for its status 
report and its statement.  The United States welc omed the progress the EU had made to date in 
attempting to address the duties the EU and member State customs authorities had applied to certain 
information technology products, contrary to their WTO obligations.  Those products were covered by 
the Information Technology Agreement (ITA), a nd the EU had committed to provide duty-free 
treatment to them.  Regrettably, the United Stat es said that the measures adopted thus far did not 
allow the US to share the EU's assessment that it had in fact brought itself into compliance with the 
DSB recommendations and rulings.  Accordingly, th e United States and the EU had entered into a 
sequencing agreement, which had been circulated in  document WT/DS375/17.  First, some aspects of 
the measures did not appear to conform to the Pa nel's findings.  For example, with respect to 
                                                      
8 OJEU, L 166/16 of 25.06.2011. 
9 Deletion of Explanatory Notes to CN Codes 8521 90 00, 8528 71 13, 8528 71 19 and 8528 71 90 
(2011/C 185/1, published on the OJEU C 185/1 of 25.06.2011). 
10 OJEU L 317/1 of 3.12.2009. 
11 2009/C 268/05, published on the OJEU C 268/19 of 10.11.2009. WT/DSB/M/300 
Page 10  
 
multifunction machines, the EU had provided for a ne w tariff of 2.2 per cent on any device with the 
"principal function" of "digital copying".  The re commendations and rulings did not appear to support 
a new tariff on these products.  Second, for all thr ee products at issue, the measures were ambiguous 
in important respects and raised real concerns fo r the United States.  It was simply not clear how 
customs authorities in the EU would interpret them , and whether, as a result, they would in fact 
provide duty-free treatment to the products at issu e.  Furthermore, even if some EU customs 
authorities in some member States provided duty-fr ee treatment to some of the products, others may 
subject the same products to duties.    
51. This concern was not without foundation.  Many EU member States had themselves already 
indicated that the measures were unclear, and that  they did not provide adequate guidance on how to 
treat the products at issue.  The United States also recalled that, befo re the measures complained of in 
this dispute were adopted, there had been considerab le divergence in the classification of flat panel 
displays in the EU.  The DSB at that time had ruled that the EU had failed to live up to its obligations, 
and, approximately four and a half years ago, the EU came before the DSB and informed it that it was 
rectifying the problem by adopting the very measur es that it had now repealed.  Without any new 
measures to take their place, the United States rema ined deeply concerned that the EU system would 
again be plagued by inconsistencies.  More fundamentally, for purposes of this case, those 
inconsistencies may mean that ITA products would,  depending on the port of entry, continue to be 
subject to duty when entering the EU.  The ITA was an important achievement for developed and 
developing country Members alike.  The duty-free obligations that had resulted from it had expanded 
trade and spurred innovation and economic developm ent across the globe.  In the coming months, the 
United States would be closely monitoring the situa tion in the EU to ensure that it adhered to the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings and honoured the core principles of the ITA. 
52. The representative of Chinese Taipei said that his delegation thanked the EU for its status 
report and its statement, and for its efforts in  taking actions towards implementing the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings.  While Chinese Taipei w ould remain vigilant in the coming months, to 
monitor whether the measures adopted by the EU with  effect from 1 July 2011 would bring it into full 
compliance with its obligations, it had some prelimin ary concerns about a certain ambiguity and lack 
of clarity about the measures adopted by the EU.  First, on the subject of flat panel displays (FPDs), the EU had declared all the measures concerning FPDs that had been repealed.  FPDs currently 
benefiting from duty-free treatment were therefore those classified under current CN code 8528.51.00 
with description "Of a kind solely or principall y used in an ADP system of heading 8471".  
Nevertheless, it was unclear  how it would be determined whethe r the conditions of the product were 
met or not.  In addition, the Panel had made its findings concerning the scope of FPDs under the so-
called "Attachment B concession".  The question of  whether the Panel's findings were properly 
reflected in existing measures already taken by the EU needed careful monitoring.   
53. Second, on the subject of set-top boxes (STBs), the EU had taken action, including the 
inclusion of two new duty-free CN codes applicable to STBs.  It was still unclear as to how the 
description "the essential character of STBs, which has a communication functio n" and "incorporating 
a modem" would be applied in practice, and how the consistency of the determination would be 
maintained across all the EU member States.  Thir d, on the subject of multi-functional machines 
(MFMs), it remained unclear as to how the customs authorities of the EU member States would determine whether "copying" was the principle functio n of MFMs, in order for it to be given duty-free 
treatment.  Consequently, there was need for clear guidance from the EU to make sure that all the 
measures complied with the Panel's findings and recommendations, as well as that all the products at 
issue would be appropriately classified under the zero-tariff category among all the EU member States.  Along with other co-complainants, Chinese Taipei looked forward to working cooperatively 
with the EU on the issue of its full compliance on ITA products.  At the same time, in order to govern 
the procedural aspects of any future requests under Articles 21.5 and 22.6 of the DSU, Chinese Taipei 
had reached an agreement with the EU on "sequenc ing" on 6 July 2011.  That agreement had been 
circulated to Members in document WT/DS377/15.  WT/DSB/M/300 
 Page 11 
 
 
54. The representative of Japan said that his country thanked the EU for its statement and its 
status report.  In the status report, the EU had informed the DSB that "it has adopted the measures 
necessary to comply with those recommendations a nd ruling".  Japan underst ood that the measures 
that had been listed in the report had been adopted before the expiry of the reasonable period of time 
on 30 June 2011.  Japan appreciated the EU's effort s to adopt those measures for its implementation in 
this dispute within the reasonable period of time.  However, whether those measures adopted by the 
EU had actually achieved full compliance was a separate issue and must be closely scrutinized.  The EU had stated in its status report that "the a doption of the measures liste d above ensures the full 
implementation of the DSB [sic] recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute".  
Unfortunately, at the present time, Japan was not in a position to agree with the EU's claim of full 
compliance.  In fact, like other co-complainants, Japan had several concerns  about the measures that 
had thus far been adopted by the EU.  For example, with respect to the tariff treatment of flat panel 
displays, the EU had stated in its status report that "all the measures concerning flat panel displays that were examined by the panel were repealed in  2009" and "[t]herefore, no further action is required 
to ensure compliance with the recommendations and ruling of the DSB".  However, Japan repeatedly 
heard concerns from its industry that some of the EU member States were still imposing duties on 
some of the flat panel displays at issue in this di spute that fell within the scope of the EU's duty-free 
concession.  Japan wondered how some of the EU me mber States could impose duty despite the EU's 
claim that all relevant measures or parts thereof had been repealed.  These instances could indicate 
that "further action is required to ensure comp liance" with respect to flat panel displays.  
55. Furthermore, the revised regulation adopted for multifunctional machines imposed a 2.2 per 
cent duty on multifunctional "machines having digita l copying as principal function".  Japan was 
concerned that the revised regulation may be insu fficient.  For example, it may not provide clear 
guidance to ensure that all of the EU member States implemented duty-free treatment to all ITA products.  Those were some of Japan's prelimin ary concerns with respect to the issue of 
implementation in this dispute.  Japan was carefu lly reviewing the measures adopted by the EU thus 
far and would also closely monitor the operation and application of those measures.  In that respect, 
Japan noted that, to facilitate the resolution of th is dispute and reduce the scope of any procedural 
disputes, Japan and the EU had conclude d a sequencing agreement on 6 July 2011.
12  Japan stood 
ready to discuss the matter with the EU, together wi th the other co-complainants, to "ensure effective 
resolution of"13 this dispute. 
56. The representative of the European Union said that, with regard to a 2.2 per cent duty on 
certain multifunctional machines, the Commission Regulation determined the duty treatment in 
accordance with the objec tive characteristics of the multifunctiona l machine in question, as had been 
established by the Panel Report.  All multifunctional machines would receive duty-free treatment, with the only exception of those that were essentiall y digital copiers, where digital copying was the 
principal function.  With regard to the issue that had been raised  on divergent classification between 
member States, the Commission had taken note of such requests and had already invited member 
States to provide detailed information on issues that ma y need clarification.  As far as the preparation 
of further guidance, the Commission would first need to identify, in consultation with member States 
customs authorities and other stakeholders, which were the issues to be clarified.  Finally, on flat 
panel displays, the EU recalled that all the measur es concerning flat panel displays that had been 
examined by the Panel had been repealed in 2009.  Therefore, no further action was required to ensure 
compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  As a result, the proposals removed all the 
measures that had been found by the Panel to be inconsistent with the EU's tariff commitments.  
Therefore, they constituted full im plementation of the Panel Report. 
57. The representative of the United States said that, in response to the EU's statement that it may 
adopt clarifications to its measures, the Unite d States welcomed the acknowledgment by the EU and 
                                                      
12 Circulated to Members on 11 July 2011 as document WT/DS376/17. 
13 Article 21.1 of the DSU. WT/DSB/M/300 
Page 12  
 
its member States that additional clarity was n eeded.  The United States urged the EU to act 
expeditiously to address all the con cerns that had been identified. 
58. The DSB took note of the statements. 
2. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsid y Offset Act of 2000:  Implementation of 
the recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) Statements by the European Union and Japan 
59. The Chairperson said that this item was on the Agen da of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Union and Japan.  She then invited the respective representatives to speak. 
60. The representative of Japan said that, on 29 J une 2011, US Customs and Border Protection 
had published "FY2011 Preliminar y CDSOA Amount Available".14  That latest action showed that the 
CDSOA remained operational.  As US Customs and Border Protection had explained, "the 
distribution process will continue for an undetermined period".15  Japan urged the United States to 
stop the illegal distributions and repeal the CDSOA, not  just in form but in su bstance, so as to resolve 
this dispute.  According to Article 21.6 of the DSU, the United States was under obligation to provide 
the DSB with a status report in this dispute. 
61. The representative of the European Union said th at it had already informed the DSB about the 
annual adjustment in the level of duties applied by  the EU in this case in a document circulated on 
12 April 2011.  At the present meeting, and as it had done many times before, the EU wished to ask the United States when it would effectively stop the transfer of anti-dumping and countervailing 
duties to the US industry and, hence, put an e nd to the condemned measure.  The fact that the 
United States had stopped disbursing duties collected af ter a certain point in time did not achieve full 
compliance.  Every disbursement that still took pl ace was clearly an act of non-compliance with the 
DSB's recommendations.  Once again, the EU renewe d its call on the United States to abide by its 
clear obligation under Article 21.6 of the DSU and to  submit implementation repor ts pertaining to this 
dispute. 
62. The representative of Brazil said that his country  thanked Japan and the EU for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda.  Brazil urged the United States to discontinue its disbursements pursuant 
to the CDSOA in order to comply with the DSB's re commendations and rulings in this dispute.  Until 
then, the issue in this dispute could not be deemed  "resolved" within the meaning of Article 21.6 of 
the DSU. 
63. The representative of Canada said that his count ry thanked the EU and Japan for putting this 
item on the DSB's Agenda.  Canada wished to reitera te its view that the CDSOA remained subject to 
the DSB's surveillance until the United States ceased to administer it.  
64. The representative of Thailand said that his count ry thanked Japan and the EU for continuing 
to bring this issue before the DSB.  Thaila nd agreed with previous speakers and urged the 
United States to fully comply with the DSB's rulings and recommendations in this matter. 
65. 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 
                                                      
14 See US Customs and Border Protection's website at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/pr iority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/ 
15 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/300 
 Page 13 
 
 
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.  The United States recalled, furthermore, that 
Members, including the EU and Japan, had acknowl edged during previous DSB meetings that the 
2006 Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distribu tion of duties collected on goods entered after 
1 October 2007.  The United States therefore 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 reports in this matter, the United States failed to see what purpose would be 
served by further submission of status reports rep eating, again, that the United States had taken all 
actions necessary to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disputes.  The United States noted that the EU had made a simila r statement under the previous Agenda item.  The 
United States would, therefore, be interested to  see whether the EU would provide further status 
reports on the ITA dispute
16 at future DSB meetings.   
66. The DSB took note of the statements. 
3. Canada – Certain measures affecting the renewable energy generation sector 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Japan (WT/DS412/5) 
67. The Chairperson recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
17 June 2011 and had agreed to revert to it.  Sh e then drew attention to the communication from Japan 
contained in document WT/DS412/5, and invited the representative of Japan to speak. 
68. The representative of Japan said that his country would not repeat its positions and claims in 
this dispute at the present meeting, as they had been explained in detail in Japan's panel request and in 
its statement made at the 17 June 2011 DSB meeting.  He said that, in summary, this was a clear case 
of WTO-inconsistent domestic c ontent requirements.  The feed-in tariff program of the Canadian 
province of Ontario provided for guaranteed, long-te rm pricing for the output of renewable energy 
generation facilities that contained a defined percenta ge of domestic content.  Japan considered that 
the measures at issue were inconsistent with Canada 's obligations under Article 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the 
SCM Agreement, Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, and Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement.  This 
panel request had appeared on the Agenda of the 17 June 2011 DSB meeting.  At the present meeting, 
Japan was, once again, requesting that the DSB establis h a panel to examine this matter, as set forth in 
Japan's panel request, with standard terms of refe rence in accordance with Article 7.1 of the DSU. 
69. The representative of Canada said that her country wished to express its disappointment that 
Japan had decided to make a second panel request at the present meeting in respect of the Ontario 
Green Energy and Green Economy Act and the relate d feed-in tariff program.  Canada remained 
confident that the legislation and the feed-in tariff program were consistent with its WTO obligations.  
Feed-in tariffs had been used by several WTO Me mbers to encourage the use and development of 
renewable sources of energy.  Ontario's feed-in tariff was no different.  It supported Ontario's committed transition away from coal-fired electricity  generation, an ambitious energy plan by any 
measure, but one that had been ta ken in concert with both industry and the public.  Canada understood 
that a panel would be established at the present mee ting and it stood ready to  work with Japan to 
ensure the prompt, fair and effective resolution of this dispute. 
70. 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. 
                                                      
16 European Communities and its Member States – Tariff Treatment of Certain Information 
Technology Products (WT/DS375, WT/DS376, WT/DS377). WT/DSB/M/300 
Page 14  
 
71. The representatives of Australia, China, the European Union, Honduras, Korea, Norway, 
Chinese Taipei and the United States reserved their th ird-party rights to participate in the Panel's 
proceedings. 
4. Ukraine – Taxes on distilled spirits 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Moldova (WT/DS423/4) 
72. The Chairperson recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
17 June 2011 and had agreed to revert to it.  She then drew attention to the communication from 
Moldova contained in document WT/DS423/4, and invited the representative of Moldova to speak. 
73. The representative of Moldova said that, at the present meeting, her country wished to bring 
its panel request to the attention of the DSB for its  second consideration.  Mol dova recalled that at the 
17 June 2011 DSB meeting, and in document WT /DS423/4, Moldova had explained in detail its 
arguments and had requested the establishment of a panel to examine this matter.  At the present 
meeting, Moldova wished to report that following the June DSB meeting no further progress had been 
made towards finding a mutually acceptable solution to settle this dispute.  Moldova, therefore, 
reiterated its request that a panel be established at the present meeting.  
74. The representative of Ukraine said that her c ounty regretted that Moldova had chosen to 
initiate panel's proceedings without giving due regard  to bilateral consultations.  Furthermore, this 
was done in the middle of the exchange of informat ion between the experts from the parties to this 
dispute.  Currently, Ukraine experts were exam ining and assessing the technical files provided by 
Moldova at the request of Ukraine.  Such technical examination was a logical and unavoidable action and the results of this examination could encourag e an agreeable conclusion between the parties.  
Ukraine was disappointed that Moldova had deci ded not to wait for findings and response from 
Ukraine.  Ukraine would welcome Moldova's engage ment in consultations to seek a positive solution 
to this matter.  Ukraine remained open to further consultations with Moldova , which was an important 
trading neighbour of Ukraine.  
75. 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. 
76. The representatives of China, Colombia, the Eu ropean Union and the United States reserved 
their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
5. Proposed nominations for the indicative list of governmental and non-governmental 
panelists (WT/DSB/W/455) 
77. The Chairperson drew attention to document  WT/DSB/W/455, which contained additional 
names proposed for inclusion on the indicative list of governmental and non-g overnmental panelists, 
in accordance with Article 8.4 of the DSU.  She proposed that the DSB approve the names contained 
in document WT/DSB/W/455. 
78. The DSB so agreed. 
79. The Chairperson said that, in connection with this Agenda item, she wished to address the 
issue of updating the curricula vitae (CVs) of persons  included on the Indicative List of Governmental 
and Non-Governmental Panelists.  She recalled that previous Chairpersons of the DSB had requested 
delegations to submit updated CVs.  Unfortunately, not many updated CVs had been received to date, 
with the result that many CVs in the Secretariat' s possession were currently out of date.  This had 
proved frustrating for some par ties seeking to compose panels because the Secretariat was often 
unable to provide recent information about potential panelists.  Therefore, under those circumstances,  WT/DSB/M/300 
 Page 15 
 
 
she wished to inform delegations that, as from now  on, the Secretariat would request from time to 
time updated CVs directly from individuals included on the Indicative List, with a view to ensuring 
that the Secretariat was better able to serve parti es seeking to establish panels in the future.  She hoped 
that this way of proceeding was agreeable to all.  She noted that the Secretariat had contact details of 
individuals that had been added more recently to the Indicative List.  In that regard, she recalled that 
in November 2009, in document WT/DSB/44/Rev.7, de legations had been requested to provide to the 
Secretariat the contact details of individuals being put forward for inclusion on the Indicative List.  
For individuals for whom the Secretariat did not ha ve any contact details, the Secretariat may seek the 
assistance of relevant delegations. 
80. The DSB took note of the statement. 
6. Statement by the Chairperson regarding the process for selecting new members of the 
Appellate Body 
81. The Chairperson, speaking under "Other Busi ness", said that, as she had announced at the 
outset of the meeting, she wished to make a shor t statement concerning the 2011 selection process for 
the appointment of two new members of the Appellate  Body.  In that regard, the Chairperson recalled 
that, at its meeting on 24 May 2011, the DSB had ag reed to her proposal regarding the 2011 selection 
process for the appointment of two new members of the Appellate Body.  At the present meeting, she 
wished to remind delegations that, as had been agr eed by the DSB, nominations of candidates should 
be submitted by no later than 31 August 2011.  As ha d been done in the past, nominations along with 
the curricula vitae of the nominees should be addressed  to the Chairperson of the DSB in care of the 
Council and TNC Division.  That information would then be circulated to all WTO Members as Job 
documents.  Following the 31 August 2011 deadline, she would inform delegations about the work of 
the Selection Committee to be ca rried out in September and October 2011, with a view to making a 
recommendation at the latest by 10 November 2011. 
82. The DSB took note of the statement. 
__________