RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/276 
29 January 2010 
 (10-0403) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
19 November 2009  
 
 
   
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 19 November 2009  
 
Chairman:  Mr. John Gero (Canada) 
  
Subjects discussed
: Page  
 
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB.........................2  
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........3  
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States............................................................................................. ..6 
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........6  
(d) European Communities1 – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products:  Status report by the European Communities..............................................................7  
(e) European Communities – Regime for the importation, sale and distribution of 
bananas:  Second recourse to Article 21.5 of  the DSU by Ecuador:  Status report by 
the European Communities....................................................................................................... ..8 
(f) United States – Laws, regulations and methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status repor t by the Unite d States .........................................................................9  
(g) United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. .........10  
2. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  
Implementation of the recommenda tions adopted by the DSB ..........................................11  
(a) Statements by the European Communities and Japan ..............................................................11  
3. United States – Certain country of origin labelling (COOL) requirements ......................12  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada ................................................................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 Eu ropean 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/276 
Page 2  
 
  4.
 United States – Certain country of  origin labelling requirements .....................................12  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Mexico ................................................................12  
5. European Communities – Certain measures affecting poultry meat and poultry 
meat products from the United States...................................................................................14  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States .................................................14  
6. China – Measures related to the exportation of various raw materials.............................15  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States .................................................15  
(b) Request for the establishment of a pa nel by the European Communities.................................15  
(c) Request for the establishment of a panel by Mexico ................................................................15  
7. United States – Subsidies on upland cotton..........................................................................16  
(a) Recourse to Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement and Article 22.7 of the DSU by Brazil .......16  
(b) Recourse to Article 7.9 of the SCM Agreemen t and Article 22.7 of the DSU by Brazil .........16  
 
 
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.84) 
 (b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.84) 
 
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.59) 
 (d) European Communities – Measures affecting th e approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status report by the European Communities (WT/DS291/37/Add.22 – WT/DS293/31/Add.22) 
 
(e) European Communities – Regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas:  
Second recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Ecuador:  Status report by the European Communities (WT/DS27/96/Add.10)  
 (f) United States – Laws, re gulations and methodology fo r calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status report by the United States (WT/DS294/34/Add.3) 
 (g) United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS322/36/Add.2) 
 
1. The Chairman
 recalled that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that unless the DSB decided 
otherwise, the issue of implementation of the re commendations or rulings shall be placed on the 
Agenda of the DSB meeting after six months follo wing the date of establishment of the reasonable 
period of time and shall remain on the DSB's Agenda  until the issue was resolved.  He proposed that 
the seven sub-items under Agenda item 1 be considered separately.  WT/DSB/M/276 
 Page 3 
 
 
  (a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropria tions Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.84) 
2. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS176 /11/Add.84, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US Section 211 Omni bus Appropriations Act of 1998. 
3. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 6 November 2009, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in that status 
report, a number of legislative proposals that would implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute had been introduced in  the current Congress. The US administration was 
working with Congress to implement th e DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
4. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the United States was presenting its 
eighty-fifth status report in this dispute.  The EC hoped that the new US authorities would take steps to finally implement the DSB's ruling and resolve this matter. 
5. The representative of Cuba
 said that the cases under the Ag enda item on:  "Surveillance of 
Implementation of Recommendations Adopted by th e DSB", including the case under consideration, 
raised serious doubts as to whether this was an appropriate way for ensuring compliance with the 
covered agreements in order to preserve Members' ri ghts and obligations.  According to Article 3.7 of 
the DSU, the primary objective of the dispute settlement system, which was one of the main 
achievements of the Uruguay Round, was to ensu re that any WTO-inconsistent measures were 
withdrawn.  Consequently, by failing to comply with the DSB's rulings on Section 211, the parties 
ignored the primary objective of the system that had been frequently used by them for the past 
14 years of its existence.  The United States was a complainant in no fewer than 93 dispute settlement 
cases.  He noted that the United States and the EC ha d set a bad precedent in the Section 211 dispute.  
More than seven years had passed since the Appe llate Body had made its ruling, and yet the 
United States persisted in using different multila teral fora to call on other Members to respect 
intellectual property rights.  Month after month, the United States had not provided the DSB with any 
information as to how and when it intended to im plement the DSB's recommendations.  Section 211, 
which was illegal and yet remained in force, pr ejudiced the trademark rights of Cuban owners.  
Furthermore, it was an unacceptable manifestation of the US embargo policy against Cuba.  On 28 October 2009, with near-unanimous support of  187 countries voting in favour, the UN General 
Assembly had passed its eighteenth resolution calling on the United States to end its economic, 
commercial and financial embargo imposed on Cuba in 1962.  The international community had sent 
out a clear message and never before had the United States been so isolated in its embargo policy 
against Cuba, which included Section 211.  Nor had Section 211 produced the desired results.  
HAVANA CLUB was a renowned trademark that showed the Cuban origin, despite Bacardi's attempts to misappropriate it.  The parties to th e dispute were aware of the economic and commercial 
importance of intellectual property rights.  It was no  coincidence that they were responsible for the 
establishment of the TRIPS Agreement, which contained the majority of provisions that did not reflect 
the interests of developing and least-developed coun tries.  Once again, Cuba called on the parties to 
the dispute to take immediate and effective action to put an end to the dispute. 
6. The representative of Ecuador
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report, which unfortunately did not show much progress on compliance, and supported the statement 
made by Cuba.  Ecuador emphasized, once again, that Article 21 of the DSU expressly referred to 
prompt compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings, in particular with regard to matters 
affecting the interests of developing countries.  The United States closely monitored compliance by all 
Members with their WTO obligations and had expr essed, in different WTO Councils and Committees, 
its systemic concerns with regard to certain comm itments undertaken by other Members.  It was the 
United States that drew up internal reports on Me mbers' compliance with their obligations regarding WT/DSB/M/276 
Page 4  
 
  intellectual property rights.  Thus, if the United St ates wished to promote coherence, it should set an 
example.  Once again, Ecuador urged the US administration and Congress to accelerate compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings by repealing Section 211 of the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act of 1998.  Finally, he said that Ec uador wished to receive more details from the EC 
concerning the steps it had taken to resolve this dispute. 
7. The representative of Brazil
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status report 
pertaining to this dispute.  Brazil continued to be concerned by the US non-compliance with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  Thus, Brazil expected that the United States would bring its measures into conformity with th e multilateral trade disciplines in the very near 
future. 
8. The representative of China
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status report 
and its statement.  China noted that the report demonstrated that the US non-compliance in this 
dispute continued.  Thus, China supported the stat ements made by the EC and Cuba and urged the 
United States to implement the DSB's decision without further delay. 
9. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  said that his country had noted 
the US status report regarding Section 211, which ha d to be repealed pursuant to the DSB's ruling to 
the effect that the measure was in violation of WT O rules.  However, there had been no change, to 
date, concerning the information submitted each mo nth by the United States.  The United States had 
had more than seven years to comply within the "r easonable period of time" in order to resolve this 
dispute.  "Reasonable" meant not exaggerated or excessive, as provided for and specified in 
Article 21.3 of the DSU.  He noted that the 2009  Annual Report of the DSB, on page 103 of its 
addendum, described how those "reasonable periods of time" had been extended to enable the 
United States to comply with the DSB's recomme ndation.  The other interpretation of the word 
"reasonable" ( prudencial  in Spanish) was that it related to prudence, which meant good sense and 
good judgement.  But, in this dispute, it was clear that this was not reasonable to Cuba nor to the 
WTO, which saw its credibility being damaged.  However, it was reasonable to the violator, who 
continued to enjoy the use of Cuban trademarks, wh ich owed their prestige to Cuba and not to the 
United States, although the United States had been deriving earnings there from for a considerable 
period of time.  Recently, many de velopments had taken place over the past seven years, including the 
UN resolutions calling for an end to the Cuban blockade, changes in the Presidency of the 
United States and Cuba, apologies from the OAS fo r having unjustifiably expelled Cuba from its 
ranks in 1962 and the tarnishing of the image of the DSB as a result of non-compliance with its 
decisions, a situation which appeared to be getting wo rse.  The situation would continue to get worse 
as a result of an agreement reached between the EC  and the United States four years ago.  As had 
happened so often in modern histor y, the two parties had negotiated with the intention of preserving a 
state of inertia and neglect for the benefit of the United States and the peace of mind of the EC.  They 
had made all the necessary changes to ensure that everything remained as it was.  Venezuela, once 
again, urged the United States to take urgent and necessary measures to comply with its TRIPS 
obligations and to implement the DSB's recomme ndation by repealing that Act without delay. 
10. The representative of Viet Nam  said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  Viet Nam supported the statement made by  Cuba and urged that the United States shortly 
comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
11. The representative of Bolivia  said that her country thanked the United States for its status 
report and expressed, once again, its concern at the lack of progress in this case.  The United States 
must comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings and lift the restrictions imposed under 
Section 211, which were contrary to the rules of in ternational law.  At each DSB meeting, concerns 
were being raised about serious consequences fo r the WTO resulting from the lack of compliance by  WT/DSB/M/276 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Members with their WTO obligations.  Thus, Bolivia  supported the statement made by Cuba on this 
matter.  
12. The representative of Argentina  said that his country thanked the United States for the status 
report.  Argentina recalled its statement made at th e October DSB meeting to the effect that the lack 
of compliance with the DSB's decisions damaged th e credibility of the system.  Argentina urged both 
parties, in particular the United States, to take the necessary measures to ensure full implementation of 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
13. The representative of Nicaragua  said that her country had noted the US status report and the 
statements made by the affected parties.  S ection 211 continued to be in breach of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings and failed to conform to multilateral rules.  On previous occasions, 
Nicaragua had asked the United States to inform  the DSB of the positive steps it had taken to 
introduce the relevant laws into the Congress a nd Senate, so that Members could have more 
information on the progress on this issue.  Once agai n, Nicaragua urged the United States to bring its 
measure into compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
14. The representative of the United States  said that, in response to the comments regarding 
systemic concerns about the dispute settlement system , as his country had stated in the past, the facts 
simply did not support Members' assertions or justify such systemic concerns.  The record was clear:  
the United States had complied, fully and promptly, in the vast majority of its disputes.  As for the 
remaining few instances where US efforts to do  so had not yet been entirely successful, the 
United States had been working actively towards compliance in furtherance of the purpose of the 
dispute settlement mechanism, to secure  a positive solution to the dispute. 
15. The representative of Cuba  said that his delegation did not understand what the United States 
had just stated.  In order to ensure coherence and respect for international law there could only be one 
standard and one rule of conduct.  It was not enough for a country to claim that it respected the majority of international agreements when it then assumed the right, in a particular case, in the name 
of some particular bilateral policy, or for the pur poses of a specific action on behalf of particular 
political groups within the country, to violate, disregard, abuse and simply to make a mockery of 
international law.  No country, regardless of its size or economic situation, could assume the right to 
decide on a selective basis, even exceptionally, wh at rules of international law it was entitled to 
violate, and in what specific cases.  If, for exampl e, a country was able to give itself the right to 
commit genocide in another country, simply because it felt entitled to commit an action, this would be 
manifestly brutal, aggressive and simply unaccepta ble under international law.  The United States 
could not find a single argument to justify the unacceptable and disrespectful way in which it had 
approached the implementation in the Section 211  dispute.  However much the US lawyers or 
representatives tried to create, fabricate and invent , no one would accept a single argument to support 
what the United States stated because conduct and c oherence go hand in hand, and did not allow for 
the slightest exception.  Cuba, once again, calle d on the United States to honour what had been 
decided by the DSB, to respect the DSB and to sh ow genuine commitment to the WTO, its laws, its 
Bodies and its rulings.  Otherwise, if the United States could simply decide not to respect a particular decision – even if in most cases it did respect them – then why should Cuba and the other Members should not be entitled to do the same in areas of interest to the United States or of interest to any of the Members, since in this Organization the soverei gn equality of Members prevailed.  In other words, 
either all Members were equal and all respected each other, or they could simply give themselves the 
right, which the United States had assumed, to disr egard rulings in specific cases to suit hegemonic 
policies and interests on the international scene.  Eith er there was a standard or a rule that everyone 
accepted in all cases, or everybody simply did wh at the United States was doing.  In short, the 
United States would have to abide by the conse quences of its behaviour, and what other Members 
would do depended on what the United States had done.  The United States should not claim its 
superiority, even if it had more wealth and for a num ber of reasons, often not particularly glorious or WT/DSB/M/276 
Page 6  
 
  legitimate, it had accumulated greater trade and economic opportunities.  Nobody had given the 
United States any right to behave in this way.   Thus, the US conduct would determine what the 
United States could expect from other Members.  
16. 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.84) 
17. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184 /15/Add.84, 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. 
18. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 6 November 2009, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As of 23 November 2002, the US authorities had addresse d the DSB's recommendations and rulings with 
respect to the calculation of anti-dumping margins in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumping duty investigation at issue in this dispute.  Details were provided in document WT/DS184/15/Add.3.  With 
respect to the DSB's recommendations and rulings that had not already been addressed by the US 
authorities by 23 November 2002, the US administration would work with the US Congress with respect to appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter. 
19. The representative of Japan
 said that his country thanked the United States for its statement 
and its status report.  Japan noted the US statemen t that the United States had taken certain measures 
to implement part of the DSB's recommendati ons in November 2002.  Japan hoped that the 
United States would soon be in a position to report to the DSB tangible progress for the remaining 
part of the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  A full and prompt implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings was "essential to the effective functioning of the WTO and the 
maintenance of a proper balance of th e rights and obligations of Members".2  Japan called on the 
United States to fully implement the DSB recommendations in this long-standing dispute without 
further delay. 
20. 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.59) 
21. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160 /24/Add.59, 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. 
22. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute, on 6 November 2009, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The US administration would continue to confer with the EC, and would work closely with the US Congress, 
in order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter. 
23. The representative of th e European Communities
 said that the United States had, once again, 
reported non-compliance.  The EC was again disappoint ed, especially in light of the importance that 
the United States attached to intellectual propert y protection.  Members were aware that the 
                                                      
2 Article 3.3 of the DSU.  WT/DSB/M/276 
 Page 7 
 
 
  United States was in favour of strong intellectua l property protection throughout the world, and the 
EC thus hoped that the United States would lead by example.  The EC also remained ready to work 
with the US authorities towards the complete resolution of this case, and hoped that the financial loss 
suffered by the EC industry could be brought to an end soon.  
24. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(d) European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status report by the European Communities (WT/DS291/37/Add.22 – WT/DS293/31/Add.22) 
25. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.22 – WT/DS293/31/Add.22, 
which contained the status report by the Europ ean Communities on progress in the implementation of 
the DSB's recommendations in the case concerning th e EC's measures affecting the approval and 
marketing of biotech products. 
26. The representative of the European Communities  said that the EC regulatory procedures on 
biotech products continued to work as foreseen in the legislation.  The Commission would soon adopt 
decisions authorizing three GM maize after the vot e held in the Agriculture Council the previous 
month.  This would raise the number of GMOs author ized since the date of establishment of the Panel 
to twenty-four.  Furthermore, the Commission would soon transmit a draft authorization decision for another GM maize to the Council, following the vote in the previous month in the relevant Council 
Committee. 
27. The representative of Argentina
 said that his country thanked the EC for its status report and 
would continue to monitor any new developmen ts in some of the EC member States.  
28. The representative of the United States  said that his country thanked the EC for its status 
report and its statement.  The United States recalle d its concerns about the large number of biotech 
products backed up in the EC approval system.  Approximately 60 biotech products were awaiting 
approval, which was more than double the number at the time this dispute had been initiated in 2003.  
The EC's failure to move forward, in a timely ma nner, on those applications for approval resulted in 
an effective import ban on important US agricultural products.  After months of inaction, in the past 
few days the EC had finally approved three varie ties of biotech maize, and the EC had allowed a 
fourth variety to move forward in the approval process.  Unfortunately, even if the four maize 
varieties were approved, they would represent only a small fraction of the total backlog of pending 
applications.  Thus, approvals of the varieties woul d not result in a resumption of trade in important 
biotech products.  Moreover, the EC's selection of the particular products for action served to 
highlight the US concerns with the EC's operati on of its approval system.  Although the EC had 
allowed the four applications to m ove forward in its approval system, a dozen other applications at the 
same stage of the EC's process remained stalled.  The only apparent reason for the EC's selection of 
the products for action – as opposed to the other many pending applications – was that a failure by the 
EC to act would have resulted in increased EC feed prices and, thus, would have harmed EC 
economic interests.  The United States recalled th at the obligation of Members was to consider 
applications for approval without undue delay.  A Member was not entitled to delay action until it was 
imperative for its own economic interests to allow an  approval.  Accordingly, the United States urged 
the EC to address promptly the problems with its approval system, and thanked the DSB for its attention to this matter. 
29. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the GMO approval system, as the 
United States called it, was not the subject of th e original Panel's findings and neither was its 
"operation" nor the status of specific applications not  dealt with in the origin al panel covered by this 
Agenda item.  In any event, the GMO regulator y regime was working normally.  Its functioning WT/DSB/M/276 
Page 8  
 
  should not be rigidly assessed purely quantitatively  and in abstract, in terms of number of 
authorizations per year, since this was dependent on various product and case specific elements and, 
in particular, on the quality of applications and on the time needed by appli cants to answer requests 
from the EFSA on additional scientific information.  
30. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(e) European Communities – Regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas:  
Second recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Ecuador:  Status report by the European Communities (WT/DS27/96/Add.10)  
31. The Chairman
 drew attention to document WT/DS27/96/Add.10, which contained the status 
report by the European Communities on progr ess in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in the case concerning the EC's regime for the importation, sale and 
distribution of bananas. 
32. The representative of th e European Communities  said that, as had been indicated at previous 
DSB meetings, the EC had always favoured an implementation of the recommendation made by the 
Panel Report (i.e. modifying its bound duty) in the context of a comprehensive agreement with Latin 
American banana suppliers.  After weeks of intens ive negotiations, the parties were very close to 
finalizing such an agreement.  The agreement w ould put an end to the long-standing "banana saga", 
while taking in due consideration the interest s of all those supplying bananas to the EC. 
33. The representative of Ecuador  said that his country thanked the EC for its status report.  For 
the first time since the adoption by the DSB of the Reports of the Panels and the Appellate Body in 
the Bananas dispute, in which Ecuador had been i nvolved for 12 years, Ecuador was optimistic that an 
agreement could be finalized, resulting in a mutually  agreed solution with the EC.  However, despite 
this optimism, until the parties jointly notified th e DSB that a mutually agreed solution had been 
reached, under Article 3.6 of the DSU, this matter would have to remain on the DSB Agenda under an 
item concerning surveillance of the implementati on of recommendations adopted by the DSB, in 
accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. 
34. The representative of Honduras  said that, as a complaining party in the Bananas III dispute, 
Honduras was pleased to note that efforts to settle th is dispute, which had been going on for 14 years, 
were now intensifying.  Since the EC was looking for a comprehensive agreement, contingent on 
various requirements, a number of substantive i ssues were still being negotiated.  A number of 
procedural steps would also have to be taken.  However, Honduras would continue to reserve its 
rights in this dispute until all pending issues and step s were to be dealt with in a satisfactory manner. 
35. The representative of the Dominican Republic , speaking also on behalf of the ACP countries, 
said that ever since this item had been on the DSB's Agenda, the ACP countries had expressed their 
respect for final WTO decisions, even though they c ontinued to disagree with some of the conclusions 
reached by the Panel and the Appellate Body in this dispute.  The ACP countries believed that it 
remained useful to keep in mind the actual thrust of the rulings.  Both the Panel and the Appellate 
Body had agreed that the EC's Schedule still comm itted the EC to a tariff-rate-quota at a tariff of 
€75/mt and an out-of-quota tariff of €680/mt.  As had been indicated previously, the ACP countries could resign themselves to live with a literal impl ementation of those conclusions.  The EC had, 
however, indicated that it aimed at achieving compli ance, and thereby implementation, by changing 
the structure of its tariff commitments through negotiations with the MFN banana suppliers.  It 
transpired that the result of this process would likely be an overall reduction of bound and applied 
duties on bananas.  As on previous occasions, the ACP countries recalled again that the DSB's recommendations in this dispute did not require an  overall reduction of average tariffs;  all they  WT/DSB/M/276 
 Page 9 
 
 
  required was either a literal implem entation or a rearrangement.  This meant that a decision to reduce 
the EC's average banana tariff did not find its rationale  in the need for compliance in this dispute;  it 
would have to find this rationale  in another context, namely the DDA negotiations.  This should be 
kept in mind when designing a solution.  Any such  solution should be based on the right reasoning 
and anchored and balanced out in the right context.   With this in mind, the ACP countries remained 
committed to supporting its partners on the way towa rds an effective and hopefully final solution to 
the "banana issue". 
36. The representative of Colombia  said that his country thanked the EC for its status report.  
Colombia noted that the status report reiterated the EC's intention to bring itself into compliance with 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings by modifying its scheduled tariff commitments on bananas.  
Colombia would work constructively with the EC to  conclude an agreement on bananas that would 
fundamentally resolve this long-standing dispute. 
37. The representative of Panama  said that, as had been indicated in the EC's status report, the 
negotiations to reach a settlement in this dispute ha d entered into a crucial stage, although a few major 
issues still needed to be resolved.  If the parties managed to resolve the pending issues, a number of 
steps would need to be taken before they could si gn an agreement and before that agreement could 
enter into force.  Panama hoped that it would be possible to complete the remaining stages and would 
continue its efforts to reach a mutually acceptable so lution that would put an end to this long-standing 
dispute. 
38. The representative of the United States  said that his country thanked the EC for its status 
report and its statement.  The reasonable period of time for compliance in this dispute had expired 
more than ten years ago, on 1 January 1999.  Th e United States noted the EC's efforts to reach 
agreement with interested parties to resolve this dispute.  The United States also noted that the 
commercial impact of the EC's non-compliance ove r this very long period of time was undeniably 
large and damaging to a number of WTO Members.  The United States, therefore, called on the EC to resolve this dispute, and until then, renewed its re quest to the EC to provide a status report with 
respect to the disputes brought by the Unite d States and the other complaining parties. 
39. The representative of Nicaragua
 said that her country took note of the status report by the EC, 
which had correctly pointed out that the negotiations  to settle the Bananas dispute were still ongoing.  
As had previously been stated, Nicaragua was seeki ng a settlement that would satisfy its interests as a 
developing country with regard to all the issues involved.  Nicaragua woul d continue to negotiate 
constructively on this issue and hoped that the EC  would make positive contributions in order to 
achieve a fair outcome. 
40. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(f) United States – Laws, regul ations and methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status report by the United States (WT/DS294/34/Add.3) 
41. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS294/34/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 US laws, regulations and me thodology for calculating dumping margins. 
42. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute, on 6 November 2009, in accordance with  Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in that 
status report, the United States had already taken a number of steps to implement 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. WT/DSB/M/276 
Page 10  
 
  43. The representative of th e European Communities
 said that this was the fourth status report in 
this dispute.  As was the case with the three preced ing reports, the US status report confirmed that the 
United States had not taken any action whatsoever to correct the shortcomings in its implementation.  
There had been no implementing action despite th e fact that the reasonable period of time for 
implementation in this dispute had expired on 9 Apri l 2007.  There had been no implementing action, 
despite the fact that the Appellate Body Report an d the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body, in the compliance proceedings for this dispute had been adopted by the DSB five months ago.  
There was no implementing action despite implementa tion apparently being subject to the discretion 
of the US administration and, therefore, accomplishabl e by administrative action.  For the fourth time, 
the United States was merely telling Members what it had done in 2007.  The EC was already well 
aware that the United States had taken some acti on in February 2007 to cease zeroing in weighted-
average-to-average comparisons in original inv estigations.  However, as the Panel and Appellate 
Body Reports in this dispute had confirmed, that was not enough.  The real problem was the use of 
zeroing in reviews, both administrative reviews (on the basis of which a large percentage of anti-
dumping duties paid were collected) and sunset re views, where "zeroed" margins of dumping were 
used to justify the continuation of duties.  The Appe llate Body had made the legal situation on zeroing 
crystal clear.  Zeroing was prohibited in both original  investigations and reviews.  In addition, any 
anti-dumping duties collected after the end of the implementation period must be calculated without 
zeroing, whenever the goods in question were import ed or the review determination made.  The EC 
also noted that it was only one month from the deadline of 19 December 2009 for the United States to implement the DSB's recommendations in the second zeroing case.  The EC sincerely hoped that there 
would be swift compliance in this case.  The only step  left for the United States to take was to bring 
itself into full compliance without further delay. 
44. The representative of the United States
 said that, as had been previously stated, his country 
was consulting with interested parties in order to ad dress the findings in this dispute.  Furthermore, 
the United States recognized the difficulties raised by the Appellate Body's findings on zeroing and 
was consulting within the government and with interested stakeholders to find an appropriate solution.  
With respect to the DSB's recommendations and rulings  in other disputes, the United States had, in 
each case, expressed its intent to comply with its obligations under the WTO Agreement.  The 
United States would address the DSB's recommendations  and rulings in those disputes in the DSB at 
the appropriate time. 
45. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(g) United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS322/36/Add.2) 
46. Finally, the Chairman  drew attention to document WT/D S322/36/Add.2, 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. 
47. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute, on 6 November 2009, in accordance with  Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in that 
status report, the United States had taken steps to  implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
in this dispute.  With respect to the outstanding issues, the United States would continue to consult 
with interested parties in order to address those issues. 
48. The representative of Japan  said that his country thanked the United States for its statement 
and its latest status report.  Japan noted that in its status report the United States stated that it "will 
continue to consult with interested parties in orde r to address the findings contained in [the reports of 
the Appellate Body and the panel]".  Japan took this  as commitment by the United States to bring into  WT/DSB/M/276 
 Page 11 
 
 
  conformity with the Anti-Dumping Agreemen t and the GATT 1994 the measures found in those 
Reports to be inconsistent with  those Agreements.  Japan reca lled that those adopted Reports 
contained, among others, the finding that the use of zeroing in the subsequent periodic reviews, which 
Japan had challenged in the compliance proceedings, w as inconsistent with Articles 2.4 and 9.3 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994.  Japan called on the United States to 
meet its commitment by taking immediate and conc rete action to fully comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in order to resolve this dispute. 
49. The representative of the European Communities  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.  
50. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
2. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsid y Offset Act of 2000:  Implementation of 
the recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) Statements by the European Communities and Japan 
51. The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Communities and Japan.  He then invited the respective representatives to speak. 
52. The representative of Japan  said that financial year 2009 distributions under the CDSOA 
appeared to be well underway3 and thus, the CDSOA s till remained operational.4  Japan, once again, 
called on the United States to stop illegal distributions and repeal the CDSOA, not just in form but in 
substance, so as to resolve this dispute once and fo r all.  According to Article 21.6 of the DSU, the 
United States was under obligation to provide the DSB with a status report in this dispute "until the 
issue is resolved".  Japan reserved all its right s under the DSU until the United States came into full 
compliance. 
53. The representative of th e European Communities  said that, as in many previous meetings, her 
delegation wished to ask the United States when it wo uld effectively stop the transfer of anti-dumping 
and countervailing duties to its industry and finally put an end to the condemned measure.  The EC 
also renewed its call on the United States to abide by its clear obligation under Article 21.6 of the 
DSU and to submit status reports in this dispute. 
54. The representative of China  said that his country thanked the EC 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. 
55. The representative of Canada  said that her country agreed with the EC and Japan that the 
Byrd Amendment remained subject  to the surveillance of the DS B until the United States ceased to 
administer it. 
                                                      
3 On 3 September 2009, the US Customs and Border Protection published the list of certifications 
received from claimants for the FY2009  distributions.  See US Customs an d Border Protection s website at:  
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/tr ade/prioritv trade/add cvd/cont dump/cdsoa 09/  
4 In the words of the US Customs,  "the distribution process will continue for an undetermined period".  
See US Customs and Border Protections  website at:  
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trad e/prioritv trade/add cvd/cont dump/cont dump faq.xm 1 WT/DSB/M/276 
Page 12  
 
  56. The representative of India
 said that his country thanked the EC and Japan for bringing this 
issue, once again, before the DSB.  In India's vi ew, the CDSOA still allowed for disbursements by the 
US administration to its domestic industry.  Member s continued to be concerned about this fact.  As 
had been previously reiterated, India was con cerned that non-compliance by Members led to a 
growing lack of credibility of the WTO dispute set tlement system.  India agreed with the EC and 
Japan that the Byrd Amendment remained subj ect to the surveillance of the DSB until the 
United States ceased to administer it. 
57. The representative of Brazil  said that his country thanked the EC and Japan for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda.  As stated previously, in Brazil's view, the United States was required to 
submit status reports in this dispute until such ti me that disbursements were no longer being made 
pursuant to the Byrd Amendment.  Only then the issue would be "resolved" within the meaning of 
Article 21.6 of the DSU and the United States would be  released from its obligation to provide status 
reports in this dispute. 
58. The representative of Thailand  said that his country thanked the EC and Japan for bringing 
this item, once again, before the DSB.  Thailand  continued to urge the United States to cease the 
disbursements under the CDSOA and to provide status  reports until such actions were taken and the 
matter was completely resolved. 
59. 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 provisio n repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000.  Thus, the United States had ta ken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in these disputes.  The United States recalled, furthermore, that 
Members, including the EC and Japan, had acknowle dged during previous DSB meetings that the 
2006 Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distribu tion of duties collected on goods entered after 
1 October 2007.  The United States did not, therefore, understand the purpose for which the EC and Japan had inscribed the item on the Agenda of the present meeting.  With respect to comments 
regarding further status reports in this matter, as had been already explained at previous DSB 
meetings, the United States failed to see what purpose would be served by further submission of status 
reports repeating the progress the United States had made in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
60. The DSB took note
 of the statements. 
3. United States – Certain country of origin labelling (COOL) requirements  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada (WT/DS384/8) 
4. United States – Certain country of origin labelling requirements 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Mexico (WT/DS386/7 and Corr.1) 
61. The Chairman  proposed that Items 3 and 4 be consider ed together since they pertained to the 
same matter.  He recalled that the DSB had considered these matters at its meeting, on 
23 October 2009, and had agreed to revert to th em.  He first drew Members' attention to the 
communication from Canada contained in document WT/DS384/8 and invited the representative of 
Canada to speak. 
62. The representative of Canada  said that, at the 23 October 2009 meeting of the DSB, her 
country had made its first request for the establishmen t of a panel regarding the US country of origin 
labelling (COOL) requirements.  Requesting the estab lishment of a dispute settlement panel was the  WT/DSB/M/276 
 Page 13 
 
 
  latest step in Canada's lengthy engagement with th e United States on this issue.  Since 2002, when the 
COOL measure was first proposed, Canada had raised  concerns with regard to the impact of the 
measure on the Canadian livestock and meat industri es and on the highly integrated supply chains of 
these industries.  Canada had raised its concer ns through letters, mee tings between government 
officials and at meetings of the WTO TBT Committee.  In addition, Canada's Minister of International 
Trade and Canada's Minister of Agriculture a nd Agri-Food had raised concerns with their US 
counterparts regarding the consistency of the COOL measure with US international trade obligations.  
Canada was disappointed that despite these effort s, the United States had persevered with this 
unnecessary and trade-distorting measure.  Canada had already set out its reasons for proceeding with this case in its request for the establishment of a panel, and would not repeat them.  Further to its 
request, of 23 October 2009, Canada asked, once again,  that the DSB establish a panel in this case 
with standard terms of reference.  Given the sim ilarities between the issues raised in Canada's panel 
request and those raised in Mexico's panel reque st in DS386, Canada asked that, pursuant to 
Article 9.1 of the DSU, a single panel be established for DS384 and DS386 cases. 
63. The Chairman
 then drew attention to the communication from Mexico contained in document 
WT/DS386/7 and Corr.1 and invited the representative of Mexico to speak. 
64. The representative of Mexico  said that, at the 23 October 2009 DSB meeting, his country had 
made its first request for the establishment of a pane l to examine this dispute.  However, following the 
US objection at that meeting, the panel had not been established.  Therefore, for the second time, 
Mexico was submitting its panel request, under Article 6.1 of the DSU, and wished to reiterate its 
statement made on this matter at the 23 October 20 09 DSB meeting.  He added that since Mexico's 
request and Canada's request concerning the same issue (DS386;  DS384) were closely related,  
Mexico, like Canada, would request the establishment of a single panel pursuant to Article 9.1 of the 
DSU to examine both complaints.  Mexico reiterated its readiness to continue working together with 
the United States in order to reach a mutua lly satisfactory solution to this matter.  
65. The representative of the United States  said that his country was disappointed that Canada and 
Mexico had chosen to pursue their requests for a panel in this matter.  The United States understood 
that a panel would be established at the present meeting.  Nonetheless, the United States was confident that its measures provi ded information to consumers in a manner consistent with its WTO 
commitments.  As the United States had noted at the 23 October 2009 DSB meeting, WTO Members had long recognized that country of origin labelling was a legitimate policy.  Indeed, that recognition 
predated the entry into force of  the WTO Agreement.  It was common for WTO Members to require 
that goods be labelled as to their origin, and the Un ited States was confident that a panel would agree 
with it.  With respect to the requests for a single panel, the United States could agree that a single 
panel be established to consider both complaints.  The United States thanked Canada and Mexico for 
their cooperation on a procedural issue, namely, and without prejudice to any systemic views, that the 
two complaining parties and the United States had ag reed that they would jointly request the panel 
that would be established at the present meeting to op en its meetings to the public.  The United States 
looked forward to continuing that procedural cooperation with the co mplaining parties throughout this 
dispute. 
66. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to establish a single panel in accordance with 
the provisions of Article 9.1 of the DSU, with sta ndard terms of reference, to examine the complaint 
by Canada contained in WT/DS384/8 and the comp laint by Mexico contained in WT/DS386/7 and 
Corr.1. 
67. The representatives of Argentina , Australia , Canada , China , Colombia , India , Japan , Korea , 
Mexico , New Zealand  and Peru  reserved their third-party right s to participate in the Panel's 
proceedings. WT/DSB/M/276 
Page 14  
 
  68. The representative of Mexico
 said that his country wished to comment briefly on the 
statement made by the United States regarding publ ic hearings, and would refer to some systemic 
implications of this issue.  Mexico's positi on on this issue was well known to those Members who 
participated in the ongoing DSU negotiations.  The fact that Mexico had agreed to the holding of 
public hearings in this dispute was without prejud ice to Mexico's negotiating position thereon.  In 
Mexico's view, such issues should be resolved in the context of the DSU negotiations.  However, the 
practice followed by panels and the Appellate Body, of allowing heari ngs to be open to the public at 
the request of the parties to a dispute, did not leav e Mexico with many options.  Therefore, in order 
not to affect the proceedings and to facilitate settle ment of this dispute join tly with Canada, Mexico 
would rather go along with the requests to hol d public hearings made by Canada and the 
United States.  However, he noted that Mexico's acceptance to do so should be viewed as an 
additional argument in favour of taking the negotia ting path towards such issues and of Mexico's 
position on those issues in the negotiations.   
69. The DSB took note  of the statement. 
5. European Communities – Certain measures affecting poultry meat and poultry meat 
products from the United States 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States (WT/DS389/4) 
70. The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
23 October 2009 and had agreed to revert to it.  He drew Members' attention to the communication 
from the United States contained in document WT/DS389/4, and invited the representative of the United States to speak. 
71. The representative of the United States
 said that as his country had explained at the DSB 
meeting on 23 October 2009, the United States was concerned with restrictions that the EC had 
imposed on the import and marketing of poultry meat and poultry meat products from the United States.  In 2002, the United States requested the European Commission to approve four pathogen reduction treatments (PRTs) for use in th e production of poultry intended for export to the 
EC.  After a delay of over six years, however, th e EC had failed to approve any of the four PRTs, 
notwithstanding the fact that the EC's own scientis ts had found that the importation and consumption 
of poultry processed with those four  PRTs did not pose a risk to human health.  Instead, the EC had 
rejected the requests for approval of those PRTs .  At the October 2009 DSB meeting, the EC had 
mentioned the dialogue between the United States a nd the EC on this issue.   The United States 
regretted that significant US engagement over many years had not resulted in the lifting of the EC's 
ban on the import and marketing of US poultry.  As  outlined in its panel request, the United States 
considered that the EC's ban on the import and ma rketing of US poultry treated with these PRTs was 
inconsistent with several provisions of the SPS  Agreement, the Agricu lture Agreement, the 
GATT 1994, and the TBT Agreement.  Accordingly, the United States again re quested that the DSB 
establish a panel to examine this matter, with standard terms of reference.   
72. The representative of the European Communities
 said that, as had been mentioned at the 
previous DSB meeting, her delega tion regretted that the United States had decided to request, for a 
second time, the establishment of a panel on this matte r.  The EC understood that a panel would be 
established at the present meeting, and the EC would defend its measure before the panel. 
73. 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. 
74. The representatives of Australia , China , Korea  and Norway  reserved their third-party rights to 
participate in the Panel's proceedings.  WT/DSB/M/276 
 Page 15 
 
 
  6. China – Measures related to the expo rtation of various raw materials 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States (WT/DS394/7) 
(b) Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Communities (WT/DS395/7) 
(c) Request for the establishment of a panel by Mexico (WT/DS398/6) 
75. The Chairman  proposed that the three sub-items be ta ken up together since they pertained to 
the same matter.  He first drew attention to the communication from the United States contained in 
document WT/DS394/7, and invited the representative of the United States to speak. 
76. The representative of the United States  said that his country was concerned about Chinese 
measures that restrained the exportation of certa in raw materials that were critical to US 
manufacturing industries.  Those restraints not only li mited the availability of those raw materials, but 
also increased the cost of those raw materials to  US and other producers outside of China, while 
providing an artificial cost advantage to downstream industries within China.  The materials at issue 
were either raw or initially processed materials that  were essential inputs in the production of steel, 
aluminium, and industrial chemicals with far-rangi ng applications.  The export restraints at issue 
included export quotas, export duties, minimum export pricing, various restrictions on the right to 
export, as well as administrative requirements that in creased the burdens and costs for exporting these 
materials from China.  As described in more detail in the US panel request, those restraints appeared 
to be inconsistent with provisions of the GATT 1994 and China's Protocol of Accession.  Accordingly, the United States requested that the DS B establish a panel to examine the matter set out 
in its panel request with st andard terms of reference. 
77. The Chairman
 then drew attention to the communication from the European Communities 
contained in document WT/DS395/7, and invited the representative of the European Communities to 
speak. 
78. The representative of the European Communities  said that, regrettably, her delegation found 
itself left with no choice but to request the establis hment of a panel in this dispute.  While the 
consultations had been helpful in clarifying the Chinese measures and their application, there had 
been no basis for a negotiated solution to the dispute.   The EC noted that the Chinese export restraints 
on raw materials were by no means a recent phenomenon.   The restraints were a problem at the time 
of China's accession to the WTO, and they remained so  at present.  The EC believed that the restraints 
constituted a violation not only of provisions of the GATT, but also specific commitments undertaken 
by China upon accession – commitments which aimed sp ecifically at these types of export restraints.  
Needless to say, in the current economic climat e, export restraints on key raw materials caused 
hardship for non-Chinese companies dependent on th ese raw materials, just as they caused an uneven 
playing field.  With the request for the estab lishment of a panel, the EC was seeking the 
reestablishment of a level playing field through en suring China's observance of its WTO obligations. 
79. The Chairman  then drew attention to the communication from Mexico contained in document 
WT/DS398/6, and invited the representative of Mexico to speak. 
80. The representative of Mexico  said that his country shared the concerns expressed by the 
United States and the EC in their respective statem ents.  Mexico had also held consultations with 
China, on 1 and 2 September 2009, in order to find a solution to the negative effects of the Chinese 
measures on various raw materials of crucial importance to the Mexican chemicals and steel sectors.  As had already been stated, China maintained a set of restraints on exports of various raw materials – 
bauxite, coke, fluorspar, magnesium, manganese, silicon carbide, silicon metal, yellow phosphorus 
and zinc.  These were used, inter alia,  for the production of aluminium, steel and some chemicals.  WT/DSB/M/276 
Page 16  
 
  Mexico considered that the export restrictions impos ed by China by means of quotas, tariffs and other 
measures (minimum prices, licences and collection of duties) were contrary to China's WTO commitments.  China's restrictive measures incre ased the prices of those raw materials on the world 
market and reduced prices on the Chinese market.  This created conditions of competition that were 
more favourable to Chinese producers of aluminium, steel and certain chemicals, and placed 
producers from the rest of the world at a disadvantag e.  Having failed to resolve the concerns at the 
consultations stage, Mexico was forced to request th e establishment of a panel.  Mexico reiterated that 
it continued to stand ready to work  with China, in cooperation with the United States and the EC and 
with their support, in order to find a mutu ally satisfactory solution to the concerns. 
81. Finally, the Chairman
 invited China to speak.  
82. The representative of China  said that his country was disappointed that the United States, the 
EC and Mexico had chosen to move forward w ith requests for panel establishment at the present 
meeting.  Two rounds of consulta tions between China and the thr ee complainants had been held 
respectively, in July and September 2009, on this matter.  China had taken those consultations very 
seriously and thought that those consultations had be en constructive.  During the consultations, China 
had clarified relevant Chinese administrative measur es and had specified that its policy objectives 
were to conserve the environmen t and exhaustible natural resourc es, which were recognized by the 
United States, the EC and Mexico.  China also quest ioned whether some complainants really needed 
China's raw materials since certain complainants, such as the EC and the United States, imposed anti-
dumping measures on some Chinese raw materials at  issue for more than a decade.  During the 
consultations, China had also expressed its willingn ess to further communicate with the complainants 
on the implementation of the specific measures so as to address their concer ns.  China had made it 
clear to the three complainants that relevant administrative measures on subject products were under 
review at present and China was open to hear the opinion of other WTO Members, including the 
United States, the EC and Mexico through furthe r constructive communica tions.  Furthermore, 
contrary to the three complainants' allegations, Ch ina consistently respected and abided by the WTO 
rules and its own commitments and believed that its  measures related to expor tation were consistent 
with the principles and rules of the WTO.  For all of those reasons, China urged the United States, the 
EC and Mexico to reconsider their decision to pur sue a panel in this case and was not in a position to 
agree to the establishment of a panel at the present time. 
83. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to these matters. 
7. United States – Subsidies on upland cotton 
(a) Recourse to Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreem ent and Article 22.7 of the DSU by Brazil 
(WT/DS267/41) 
(b) Recourse to Article 7.9 of the SCM Agreem ent and Article 22.7 of the DSU by Brazil 
(WT/DS267/42) 
84. The Chairman  proposed that the two sub-items be take n up together.  He said that the above-
mentioned item was on the Agenda of the present mee ting at the request of Brazil.  He then drew 
Members' attention to the communications from Brazil contained in docum ents WT/DS267/41 and 
WT/DS267/42, and invited the representative of Brazil to speak.   
85. The representative of Brazil  said that, in July and October 2005, Brazil had requested 
authorization to take countermeasures in respons e to the US failure to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in th is dispute.  On both occasions, the United States had objected to 
Brazil's requests and the matter had been referred to  arbitration.  The Arbitrators circulated their 
Decisions on 31 August 2009.  Article 22.7 of the DS U provided in part that "[the] DSB shall be  WT/DSB/M/276 
 Page 17 
 
 
  informed promptly of the decision of the arbitrator and shall, upon request, grant authorization to 
suspend concessions or other obligations where the re quest is consistent with the decision of the 
arbitrator, unless the DSB decides by consensus to reject the request".   Accordingly, Brazil requested 
authorization from the DSB to suspend the applica tion to the United States of concessions or other 
obligations, in conformity with both Decisions of th e Arbitrators, as indicated in the documents that 
had been circulated to Members together with the Agenda for the present meeting. 
86. The representative of the United States  said that his country wished to reiterate at the outset 
that its ongoing intent was to comply with the DSB' s recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  
Thus, while the United States understood that the DSB would be authorizing the suspension of 
concessions or other obligations, it did not believe that it would be necessary for Brazil to exercise 
that authorization.  The United States wished to also  reiterate its appreciation to the Arbitrators, and 
the thoughtful and methodical manner in which they had approached their task in a number of respects.  As the United States had explained on  25 September 2009, the Arbitrators had reached 
several important conclusions, including that a ppropriate countermeasures under the SCM Agreement 
shall be limited to trade effects on Brazil, agreeing with the position of the United States as well as 
that advanced by Members in other arbitrations.  For further details, the United States referred 
Members to the US statement made at the Septem ber 2009 DSB meeting.  He added that suspending 
concessions or obligations could present economic  and other challenges for both Brazil and the 
United States.  The previous week, Brazil had pub lished a list of goods for possible increased tariffs 
as part of countermeasures.  This list included a wi de range of goods that were important for both the 
US and Brazilian economies.  In fact, the range of goods demonstrated the extensive and positive 
trade relationship that had been developed.  The Un ited States valued its economic relationship with 
Brazil and hoped to build on it and not have this dis pute detract from that effort.  The United States 
would welcome Brazil's ideas on identifying a solution to these issues and looked forward to continuing discussions with Brazil on the issues related to this dispute. 
87. The DSB took note
 of the statements and, pursuant to the request by Brazil contained in 
document WT/DS267/41, agreed  to grant authorization to suspend the application to the United States 
of concessions or other obligations consistent with  the Arbitrator's Decision contained in document 
WT/DS267/ARB/1.  Furthermore, pursuant to the request by Brazil contained in document 
WT/DS267/42, the DSB also agreed  to grant authorization to suspend the application to the 
United States of concessions or other obligations co nsistent with the Arbitrator's Decision contained 
in document WT/DS267/ARB/2 and Corr.1. 
__________