RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/285 
22 September 2010 
 (10-4834) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
20 July 2010  
 
 
   
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 20 July 2010  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Yonov Frederick Agah (Nigeria) 
  
Subjects discussed
: Page  
 
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB.........................2  
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........2  
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan:  Status report by  the United States...................................................................................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 Union .........................................................................7  
(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 repor t by the Unite d States..........................................................................8  
2. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  
Implementation of the recommenda tions adopted by the DSB ............................................9  
(a) Statements by the European Union and Japan ............................................................................9  
3. United States – Measures affecting the pr oduction and sale of clove cigarettes ...............10  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Indonesia.............................................................10  
                                                      
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 Lisb on, 13 December 2007) en tered 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/285 
Page 2  
 
  4.
 Proposed nomination for the indicative list of governmental and 
non-governmental panelists ...................................................................................................12  
5. United States – Final anti-dumping me asures on stainless steel from Mexico..................12  
(a) Statement by  Mexico ............................................................................................................ ....12  
 
 
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.92) 
 
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.92) 
 (c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.67) 
 
(d) European Communities – Measures affecting th e approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.30) 
 (e) United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS322/36/Add.10) 
 
(f) United States – Continued existence and app lication of zeroing methodology:  Status report 
by the United States (WT/DS350/18/Add.7) 
 (g) United States – Laws, regulations a nd methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status report by the United States (WT/DS294/38/Add.1) 
 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 establis hment of the reasonable 
period of time and shall remain on the DSB' s Agenda until the issu e was resolved.   
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropria tions Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.92) 
2. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS176/ 11/Add.92, 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 8 July 2010, in accordance with Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU.  As had been noted, a 
number of legislative proposals that would implem ent the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute had been introduced in the First Session of the current 111th Congress.  The Second Session 
of the 111th Congress had begun in January 2010.  Th e Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
Representatives had held a hearing on certain of t hose proposals on 3 March 2010.  In addition, the 
US administration was working with Congress to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
in this dispute.  WT/DSB/M/285 
 Page 3 
 
 
  4. The representative of the European Union  said that, at the present meeting, the United States 
was presenting yet another status report in this di spute.  The EU hoped that the US authorities would 
very soon take steps towards implementing the DSB's ruling and resolve this matter. 
5. The representative of Cuba  recalled that, in July 2005, the EU and the United States had 
notified the DSB of their understanding with regard to the Section 211 disput e.  The basis for that 
understanding was that the United States had inform ed the DSB that it would continue to work 
towards meeting its WTO obligations, pursuant to the Appellate Body's decision.  However, nothing 
had happened over the past five years regarding this  matter.  Section 211 was still in force and the 
"agreement" between the parties was in place with no change.  Every month, under this Agenda item, 
Members had to listen to brief statements made by  the EU, which merely referred to the number of 
status reports being submitted by the United States  on this matter.  In Cuba's view, the parties 
concerned should explain why the resolution of this  dispute was blocked.  Since many Members had 
expressed concerns over the lack of progress in impl ementation and its negative trade effects for one 
developing country, the parties concerned should repor t something new on this matter.  The available 
figures demonstrated what one year meant in terms of intellectual property assets:  i.e. in 2007, 1.85 
million patent applications and 3.3 million trademar k applications had been filed worldwide.  The 
countries of origin of many of those applications  and the main offices receiving them were well 
known.  The parties to this dispute were aware of th e value of those assets, and in case of trademarks 
– the only asset that could be renewed indefinitely – they registered them even in those countries with 
which they had no trade relations.  In some cases, th ey challenged registrations of valuable trademarks 
that belonged to other countries.  
6. Apart from violating the basic principles of th e TRIPS Agreement, Section 211 enabled the 
Bacardi company to sell rum under the HAVANA CLUB  mark in the United States.  Such measures 
encouraged trademark counterfeiting.  Cuba recal led that, at the June 2010 TRIPS Council meeting, 
the parties to this dispute had stated that the ne gotiation of a plurilateral agreement outside the WTO 
was warranted because trade in counterfeit produc ts was a serious matter, which was sometimes 
linked to organized crime.  In light of those recent statements, Cuba asked the parties to this dispute to 
explain how they could make their arguments credible  while remaining indifferent to the resolution of 
a case that allowed trademark counterfeiting and unf air competition.  Cuba questioned how the EU 
and the United States would react if their valuable  trademarks and patents were to be deliberately 
used.  Would they claim to be making every effort with parliament or would they apply retaliatory 
measures as a matter of urgency?  Would the EU and the United States allow other countries to 
benefit from the use of their trademarks or patent s for eight years?  In a statement made on the 
occasion of World Intellectual Property Day, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton had noted that the theft of intellectual property was a crime that erode d the incentive to create and posed a serious barrier 
to making legitimate products and services available to the public.  The Section 211 dispute was 
relevant in this regard, being a clear example of theft of one of the most renowned Cuban trademarks 
and the product it represented, which was registered in the United States.  Cuba, once again, urged the 
parties to this dispute to take action to repeal S ection 211, and to do so with the same dynamism with 
which they had promoted and were promoting interna tional rules in defence of their interests in the 
area of intellectual property rights. 
7. The representative of Mexico
 said that his country wished to reiterate that Articles 3.3 and 
21.1 of the DSU respectively stated that prompt se ttlement of disputes was essential to the effective 
functioning of the WTO, and that prompt comp liance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
was essential in order to ensure the effective resolu tion of disputes to the benefit of all Members.  
Thus, Mexico urged the parties to this dispute to  keep those principles in mind, and to take the 
necessary steps to comply with the DSB's recommendations.  This would benefit the functioning of the WTO as well as its Members. WT/DSB/M/285 
Page 4  
 
  8. The representative of Brazil
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report concerning the surveillance of implementation in  this dispute.  Once again, the United States 
had reported a lack of progress.  Brazil continued to  be concerned about this situation, and urged the 
United States to bring its measures into conform ity with the multilateral trade disciplines in the 
nearest future. 
9. The representative of Ecuador  said that his country had noted the US status report, but 
regretted that this report did not contain any info rmation as to when the United States would comply 
with the DSB's recommendations an d rulings in this dispute.  Thus, Ecuador supported Cuba's 
statement on this matter.  Ecuador recalled that Article 21 of the DSU stipulated that prompt 
compliance with the DSB's recommendations or rulings  was essential, and that particular attention 
should be paid to matters affecting the interests of  developing-country Members.  Ecuador noted that 
the United States closely monitored compliance by ot her Members with their WTO obligations and, at 
various WTO Councils and Committees, it had expressed its trade and systemic concerns with respect 
to certain commitments undertaken by them.  Howeve r, the United States failed to practice what it 
preached.  Therefore, Ecuador, once again, urged th e US administration and Congress to fully repeal 
Section 211.  He said that Ecuador wished to rece ive more detailed information from the EU on the 
steps being taken to resolve this dispute. 
10. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  said that her country supported 
Cuba's statement regarding Section 211, which wa s a political measure linked to the economic, trade 
and financial blockade im posed on Cuba.  It was regrettable that, for more than eight years, the 
United States had failed to comply w ith the Appellate Body's ruling in th is dispute.  In its July 2010 
status report, the United States noted, in the last pa ragraph, that "the US Administration will continue 
to work with the US Congress with respect to appr opriate statutory measures that would resolve this 
matter".  This was a repetition of previous status  reports which, in Venezuela's view, constituted 
"action without results".  Venezuela noted how,  on many occasions in the same context, the 
United States had claimed to take some action that would resolve the matter without providing any 
explanation of the work that this would entail.  Th erefore, Venezuela requested that the United States 
provide further details on the work supposedly under way.  Her country urged the United States to comply with the Appellate Body's recommendations and reminded the United States of its commitment to the DSB.  Venezuela hoped that the United States would repeal Section 211, which 
was inconsistent with the TRIPS Agreement and the MFN and national treatment principles.  By 
repealing Section 211, the United States would meet  it WTO obligation and restore Cuba's rights.  
11. The representative of Bolivia
 said that, as no progress had been made in this dispute, her 
country wished to register its concern about th e negative consequences of non-compliance with the 
DSB's recommendations.  If the United States wished to  preserve the integrity of the system, it must 
comply with the DSB's recommendations and ruli ngs, by lifting the restrictions imposed under 
Section 211.  Given the importance of the dispute settlement system for the WTO, and the credibility 
of the multilateral trading system, Bolivia hoped that the United States would show the necessary 
political will to resolve this dispute.  Finally, sh e said that Bolivia supported Cuba's statement.   
12. The representative of India  said that his country thanked the United States for its status report 
and its statement.  India noted that there was no subs tantive change in the situ ation and felt compelled, 
yet again, to stress that the principle of prompt  compliance was missing in this dispute.  India, 
therefore, wished to renew its systemic concerns about this situation, as the continuous non-
compliance by WTO Members could only undermine the credibility and confidence that Members 
reposed in the system.  India urged the United St ates to fully implement the DSB's recommendations 
in this dispute. 
13. The representative of Viet Nam  said that, once again, his country called on the United States 
to take the necessary and urgent steps to meet its  WTO obligations in relation to this dispute.   WT/DSB/M/285 
 Page 5 
 
 
  14. The representative of Paraguay  said that her country thanked the United States for its status 
report and urged the United States to respect its WT O obligations with regard to the Section 211 
dispute.  
15. The representative of China  said that his country thanked the United States for its status report 
but, once again, regretted that the report simply confirmed the continuation of non-compliance after 
more than eight years since the adoption of the releva nt Reports by the DSB.  China believed that this 
situation was not in line with the principle of prom pt implementation contained in the DSU, and that it 
was highly inappropriate for a developed-country  Member to maintain such a prolonged non-
compliance in a dispute that involved the interests of a developing-country Member.  China strongly supported Cuba and urged the United States to im plement the DSB's decision as soon as possible. 
16. The representative of Argentina
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  He recalled that Argentina had repeated ly expressed its views regarding the systemic 
implications of this dispute, in which the impl ementation process was being prolonged for so long.  
This lack of compliance would undermine the credib ility of the DSB to effectively resolve disputes 
brought by Members.  Argentina supported Cuba 's request for more detailed and substantive 
information regarding the progress made thus far, and urged the parties to this dispute, in particular 
the United States, to ensure full compliance with the DSB's rulings and recommendations. 
17. The representative of the Dominican Republic  said that his country thanked the United States 
for its status report and, like previous speakers,  urged the United States to comply with the DSB's 
rulings. 
18. The representative of the United States  said that, in response to the statements made by some 
Members that this dispute raised concerns for th e dispute settlement system, as had been noted at 
several previous DSB meetings, the United States did not believe that those concerns were well-
founded.  The United States would not repeat those points at the present meeting.  With respect to efforts to comply fully in this dispute, as the Un ited States had already noted in its statement at the 
present meeting, in March 2010, the Committee on the Judiciary of the US House of Representatives 
had held a hearing on certain proposals to implemen t the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute. 
19. The representative of Cuba
 said that her country welcomed th e fact that the United States had, 
once again, referred to the discussion that ha d taken place in the Judiciary Committee on 
3 March 2010.  Cuba had closely followed developments in this re gard and believed that it would 
have been useful to have more information on the discussion that had taken place at the Committee's 
hearing.  She recalled that Cuba respected all US registrations with regard to trademarks and other 
intellectual property assets, while the United States fail ed to do so.  In its statement, the United States 
had referred to compliance with other rulings, as if th at exempted it from complying with the ruling in 
the Section 211 dispute.  The DSB's rulings must be complied with in absolutely every dispute.  Cuba 
reiterated that the United States must urgently pr ovide the DSB with concrete information on the 
legislative proposals that would enable it to comp ly with the rulings and recommendations made by 
the Appellate Body in 2002.  Cuba hoped that, afte r the Summer break, at the next DSB meeting to be 
held in August, the United States would provide Members with new information on the steps being taken to repeal Section 211 so as to comply with the DSB's rulings. 
20. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. WT/DSB/M/285 
Page 6  
 
  (b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.92) 
21. The Chairman
 drew attention to document WT/DS184/ 15/Add.92, 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. 
22. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 July 2010, in  accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As of 23 November 2002, 
the US authorities had addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of anti-dumping margins in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumping duty inv estigation at issue in 
this dispute.  Details were provided in documen t WT/DS184/15/Add.3.  With respect to the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings that had not already been addressed by the US authorities, the US 
administration would work with the US Congress with respect to the appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter. 
23. 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 US report that the United States had taken 
certain measures to implement part of the DSB's recommendations in November 2002.  With respect 
to the remaining part of the DSB's recommendations  and rulings, Japan was still waiting for statutory 
action to be taken by the United States.  Japan ho ped that the United States would soon be in a 
position to report to the DSB more tangible 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. 
24. 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.67) 
25. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/ 24/Add.67, 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. 
26. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 July 2010, in accordance with Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU.  The US administration 
would continue to confer with the EU, and to work  closely with the US Congress, in order to reach a 
mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter. 
27. The representative of the European Union  said that the United States had again reported non-
compliance and the EU was again disappointed.  As it had been from the beginning, the EU remained 
ready to work with the US authorities towa rds the complete resolution of this case. 
28. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
                                                      
2 Article 3.3 of the DSU.  WT/DSB/M/285 
 Page 7 
 
 
  (d) European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.30) 
29. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/ 37/Add.30, which contained the status 
report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning its measures affecting the a pproval and marketing of biotech products. 
30. The representative of the European Union  said that, once again, her delegation noted that the 
EU regulatory procedures on biotech products continued to work as foreseen in the legislation.  The 
five authorizations decisions on GMOs issued on 2 March 2010, including one for cultivation, had 
raised the number of GMOs authorized since the date  of establishment of the Panel to twenty-nine.  
Progress had also been made on other applications for authorization.  The Agriculture Council had 
voted on 29 June 2010 on five new authoriza tions:  GM maize MON89034xNK603, Bt11xGA21, 
MON88017xMON810, 59122x1507xNK603 and 1507x59122 an d on the renewal of the authorization 
for Bt11 maize.  The Commission would proceed s oon to the adoption of the corresponding decisions.  
In addition, the European Food Safety Agency had delivered favourable opinions on four new GM 
events (GM maize MIR604xGA21, GM maize Bt11xMIR604 and GM maize Bt11xMIR604xGA21 
and GM cotton 281-24-236 x 3006-210-23).  In an e ffort to further streamline EU authorization 
procedures, while taking into consideration legitim ate concerns raised by EU member States, the 
European Commission had adopted, on 13 July 2010, a package proposal regarding cultivation of GM crops.  This proposal allowed member States to deci de on the cultivation of GM crops authorized at 
EU level in their territory, taking into consider ation their specific conditions.  The proposal made 
clear that any member State measure should be limited to cultivation itself and not be concerned with 
marketing or trade in GM seeds, and that it should be consistent with obligations both under the EU 
Treaties and the WTO Agreements.  The EU welcomed  the US decision to re-engage in a technical 
dialogue on biotechnology with the EU.  A meeting between relevant services from the European Commission and the US authorities was currently bei ng held.  The EU hoped that this was the first 
step towards a constructive approach based on a dialogue, which would allow the parties to leave 
litigation aside. 
31. The representative of the United States
 said that his country thanked the EU for its status 
report and its statement, including information on th e Commission's proposal to further streamline the 
EU authorization procedures.  As the United Stat es had explained at previous DSB meetings, and 
despite the EU's assertions at the present meeti ng, the EU's regulatory system governing biotech 
product approvals was not working as intended.  In its  status report, the EU noted that US and EU 
officials had agreed to meet to  discuss those matters and related issues.  The United States looked 
forward to holding constructive discussions.   
32. 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.10) 
33. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS322/ 36/Add.10, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews. 
34. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 July 2010, in accordance with Artic le 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in that status 
report, the United States had taken steps to implem ent the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute.  With respect to the outstanding issues, the United States would con tinue to consult with 
interested parties in order to address those issues. WT/DSB/M/285 
Page 8  
 
  35. The representative of Japan
 said that his country thanked the United States for its statement 
and its most recent status report.  The United States  had stated in its status reports that it would 
continue to consult with interested parties in or der to address the findings contained in the Appellate 
Body and the Panel Reports adopted by the DSB on 31  August 2009.  Japan took this statement as an 
expression of commitment by the United States to fully implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings.  Once again, Japan called on the United St ates to fulfil its commitment by taking immediate 
and concrete action so as to resolve this dispute. 
36. The representative of the European Union  said that her delegation wished to reiterate its 
disappointment over the lack of any real progress by  the United States regarding its compliance with 
adverse rulings on zeroing in this dispute.  Th e EU recalled that immediate compliance with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings was not an optio n, but an obligation under the DSU provisions.  
37. The representative of Turkey  said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and its statement.  Turkey shared the concerns  raised by Japan and the EU, and wished to join 
them in urging the United States to comply with the DSB's rulings. 
38. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(f) United States – Continued existence and appli cation of zeroing methodology:  Status report 
by the United States (WT/DS350/18/Add.7) 
39. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS350/ 18/Add.7, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning the existence and application of zeroing methodology by the United States. 
40. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 July 2010, in accordance with Artic le 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in that status 
report, the United States had taken steps to implem ent the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute.  With regard to the remaining issues, the United States would continue to consult with interested parties. 
41. The representative of the European Union
 said that her delegation's c oncerns about the lack of 
implementation in this case were well known and were recorded in th e minutes of past DSB meetings.  
Despite encouraging political statements, the fi nal determination in Section 129 proceedings of 
12 March 2010 left the EU perplexed as to the US in tentions on compliance with the ruling in this 
dispute.  The EU, therefore, urged the United St ates to reconsider its Section 129 determination 
immediately and to implement the DSB's ruling. 
42. 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.1) 
43. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS294/ 38/Add.1, 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. 
44. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 July 2010, in accordance with Artic le 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  WT/DSB/M/285 
 Page 9 
 
 
  recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  Th e United States would continue to consult with 
interested parties with regard to the remaining issues.  Finally, as Members were aware, and as the 
United States had noted in previous meetings, th e EU had requested authorization from the DSB to 
suspend concessions or other obliga tions in this dispute, and the United States had objected to the 
EU's request.  Therefore, pursuant to Article 22. 6 of the DSU, the matter had been referred to 
arbitration pursuant to that objection. 
45. The representative of the European Union  said that her delegation thanked the United States 
for its status report.  At the same time, the EU wi shed to reiterate its disappointment over the lack of 
any real progress by the United States on compliance w ith adverse rulings on zeroing in this dispute.  
The EU recalled that immediate compliance with th e DSB's recommendations and rulings was not an 
option, but an obligation under the DSU. 
46. The representative of Turkey  said that his country wished to join the EU in urging the 
United States to comply with the DSB's rulings and to take the necessary steps to resolve this 
outstanding issue. 
47. 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 Union and Japan 
48. The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Union and Japan.  He then i nvited the respective representatives to speak. 
49. The representative of Japan  said that, on 2 June 2010, US Customs and Border Protection 
published "FY2010 Preliminary CDSOA Amount Available"3 and that a new round of distributions 
under the CDSOA appeared to be underway.  That latest action showed that the CDSOA remained 
operational.  As US Customs and Border Protection explained, "the distribution process will continue 
for an undetermined period".4  Japan urged the United States to stop illegal distributions and repeal 
the CDSOA, not just in form but in substance, so as to resolve this dispute once and for all.  
According to Article 21.6 of the DSU, the Unite d States was under obligation to provide the DSB 
with a status report pertaining to this dispute. 
50. The representative of the European Union  said that, as had previously been done on many 
occasions, the EU wished to ask the United States wh en it would effectively stop the transfer of anti-
dumping and countervailing duties to the US industry and, hence, put an end to the condemned 
measure.  The EU, once again, 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. 
51. The representative of Brazil  said that his country thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda.  Brazil reiterated its vi ew that non-compliance in this dispute would 
continue until the United States ceased all disbursem ents made pursuant to the Byrd Amendment.  
Only then this 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. 
                                                      
3 See US Customs and Border Protection's website at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/pr iority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/  
4 See US Customs and Border Protection's website at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/tr ade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/cont_dump_faq.xm1  WT/DSB/M/285 
Page 10  
 
  52. The representative of Canada
 said that her country agreed with the EU and Japan that the 
Byrd Amendment remained subject  to the surveillance of the DS B until the United States ceased to 
administer it. 
53. The representative of China  said that her country thanked th e EU and Japan for, once again, 
raising this matter before the DSB.  China shared  the concerns expressed by previous speakers and 
wished to join them in urging the United St ates to fully comply with the DSB's rulings. 
54. The representative of India  said that his country appreciated that the EU and Japan had 
brought this issue before the DSB once again.  Indi a shared their concerns and supported their views.  
As mentioned by previous speakers, the CD SOA remained fully operational, allowing for 
disbursements by the US administration to its dom estic industry.  This fact continued to raise 
concerns and affected the rights of WTO Members.  India, therefore, urged the United States to cease 
its WTO-inconsistent disbursements, and to full y implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
55. The representative of Thailand  said that his country thanked Japan and the EU for continuing 
to bring this matter before the DSB.  Thailand re mained disappointed at the US maintenance of the 
WTO-inconsistent disbursements.  Therefore, Thailand urged the United States to cease the 
disbursements, repeal the Byrd Amendment with i mmediate effect, and resume submission of status 
reports until such actions had been take n and this matter was fully resolved. 
56. The representative of the United States  said that, as his country had already explained at 
previous DSB meetings, the US President had signed the Deficit Reduction Act into law on 
8 February 2006.  That Act included a provisio n repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000.  Thus, the United States had ta ken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in these disputes.  Furthermore, the United States recalled 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, di d not understand the purpose for which the EU and 
Japan had inscribed this item on the Agenda of th e present meeting.  With respect to the 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 reco mmendations and rulings in these disputes. 
57. The DSB took note  of the statements. 
3. United States – Measures affecting the production and sale of clove cigarettes 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Indonesia (WT/DS406/2) 
58. The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
22 June 2010 and had agreed to revert to it.  He  drew attention to the communication from Indonesia 
contained in document WT/DS406/2, and invite d the representative of Indonesia to speak. 
59. The representative of Indonesia  recalled that, at the 22 June 2010 DSB meeting, Indonesia 
had requested that the DSB establish a panel to examine Tobacco Control Acts imposed by the 
United States.  However, at that meeting, the United States had blocked the establishment of the 
panel.  Indonesia reiterated that, at the 22 June 2010 DSB meeting, it had stated that the consultations 
between Indonesia and the United States on this ma tter, which had been held on 13 May 2010, had 
not resolved this dispute.  During those consulta tions, Indonesia had asked some questions, pursuant 
to Articles 1 and 4 of the DSU;  Article XXII of  the GATT 1994;  Article 11 of the SPS Agreement;  
and Article 14 of the TBT Agreement, with resp ect to the measure adopted by the United States 
banning flavoured cigarettes, including clove cigare ttes.  The subject of the consultations and the  WT/DSB/M/285 
 Page 11 
 
 
  subsequent panel request was the prohibition on the production or sale of so-called "clove cigarettes" 
in the United States, pursuant to Section 907(a )(1) of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco 
Control Act of 2009.  That law had taken effect on 22 September 2009.  Pursuant to that Act, clove 
cigarettes produced in Indonesia may no longer be imported into the United States.   
60. She recalled that Indonesia had made its first re quest for a panel to review this matter at the 
22 June 2010 DSB meeting.  At that time, the Un ited States, as was its right, had blocked the 
establishment of that panel.  During the discussi on of this matter on 22 June, Indonesia had presented 
a lengthy statement outlining its justification for bringing this dispute to the WTO.  Thus, at the present meeting, it would not repeat those points, wh ich were all relevant and reflected the views of 
the Indonesian government.  Furthermore, during the 22 June discussion of this issue, the 
United States had indicated that it believed that In donesia's request for a panel to review the US ban 
on clove cigarettes was "premature".  Indonesia did not wish to respond to this particular point.  
Indonesia strongly disagreed with the US view on th is matter.  Indonesia had been extremely patient 
and had worked with the United States at every opportunity to avoid this dispute, but could not wait any longer.  In its statement at the 22 June me eting, the United States had referred to an ongoing 
review of menthol cigarettes by US officials that may result in additional regulations or restrictions 
being placed on menthol cigarettes.  Indonesia did not believe that this review should delay the 
establishment of a panel to examine this dispute.   
61. The fact remained that, as of 22 September 2009, clove cigarettes were prohibited from the 
US market while menthol cigarettes continued to be  sold.  The review of menthol cigarettes was not 
due to be completed until 18 March 2011.  Indonesi a could not predict what the United States may do 
in the future with respect to me nthol cigarettes.  However, in I ndonesia's view, the statute, as it 
currently existed, was inconsistent with the US  obligations under the WTO.  The claims that 
Indonesia intended to make went beyond a violation of national treatment, so it was both relevant and 
essential that a panel be established to hear this case.  In conclusion, she noted that, since 2004, 
Indonesia had been trying to avoid the present situati on.  It had written letters, spoken to Members of 
the US Congress and their staff, and had met repeat edly with US administration officials.  Indonesia 
had even held informal, bilateral consultations with the United States in Geneva in August 2009, all in 
an effort to avoid formal, WTO dispute settle ment proceedings.  Unfortunately, however, no 
resolution had proven possible.  Therefore, Indone sia respectfully made its second request that, 
pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, the DSB establish a panel to examine this matter, with standard 
terms of reference, as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU.  
62. The representative of the United States
 said that his country had worked over a long period of 
time to engage constructively with Indonesia on this  issue, during which time it had sought to explain 
the purpose of the new US tobacco control law.  A ccordingly, the United States was disappointed that 
Indonesia had chosen to move forward with its request  for a panel in this matter.  The United States 
understood that a panel would likely be establis hed at the present meeting.  Nevertheless, the 
United States continued to strongly believe that the prohibition on sales of flavoured cigarettes in the 
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act was fully justified.  The purpose of the law was to confront a public health emergency.  In enac ting that law, the US Congress had determined, among 
other things, that the use of tobacco products by the nation's children was a paediatric disease, and 
that a scientific and medical consensus existed that  tobacco products were inherently dangerous and 
caused cancer, heart disease, and other serious adverse h ealth effects.  This law had been designed to 
address such threats to public health, particularly to  the life and health of adolescents and children.  
Moreover, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act banned sales of all clove-
flavoured cigarettes, wherever they were produced .  The US law did not single out any country.  
Given the vital interests at stak e, particularly the health and lives of US children, if Indonesia 
persisted in asking for a panel, the United States  would certainly defend this important new public 
health law vigorously. WT/DSB/M/285 
Page 12  
 
  63. 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. 
64. The representatives of Brazil , the European Union , Guatemala , Norway  and Turkey  reserved 
their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
4. Proposed nomination for the indicative list of governmental and non-governmental 
panelists (WT/DSB/W/429) 
65. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DSB/W /429, which contained an additional 
name proposed for inclusion on the indicative list of  governmental and non-governmental panelists, in 
accordance with Article 8.4 of the DSU.  He propo sed that the DSB approve the name contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/429. 
66. The DSB so agreed . 
5. United States – Final anti-dumping measures on stainless steel from Mexico  
(a) Statement by Mexico 
67. The representative of Mexico , speaking under "Other Business", said that his country wished 
to inform the DSB that it had requested the Un ited States to submit status reports, pursuant to 
Article 21.6 of the DSU, pertaining to the dispute:  "United States – Final Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Stainless  Steel from Mexico" (DS344).  Mexico noted that the Panel Report, as modified by the 
Appellate Body Report, contained the recommenda tions with respect to both "as such" and "as 
applied" violations.  Mexico would work with the Un ited States to ensure timely submission of status 
reports in this dispute.  
68. The representative of the United States  said that his country thanked Mexico for providing 
notice to the United States of its intention to ma ke a statement under "Other Business", pursuant to 
Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meeti ngs.  Nevertheless, the United States was somewhat 
surprised at Mexico's statement and request.  Th e United States understood that the United States and 
Mexico had an agreement under which the United St ates and Mexico would engage in a bilateral 
dialogue regarding this dispute in lieu of status  reports.  There had been many exchanges of 
information between the two capitals over the past y ear, which were useful to both parties.  Mexico 
had recently contacted the United States to request a status report and US authorities were considering 
that request, but the request came too late for ac tion at the present meeting in any event.  As the 
United States considered that request, it would be interested in hearing from Mexico its thinking on 
the dispute:  "Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investiga tion of High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the 
United States" (WT/DS132).  It was the US recollecti on that Mexico had not filed any status report in 
that dispute, and the United States would be inte rested in discussing bilaterally with Mexico its 
perspective on that dispute. 
69. The DSB took note  of the statements. 
__________