RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/205 
31 March 2006 
 (06-1483) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
17 February 2006  
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 17 February 2006  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Eirik Glenne (Norway) 
 
 Subjects discussed
: Page  
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB.........................2  
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........2  
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan:  Status report by  the United States...................................................................................5  
(c) United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  Status report 
by the Unite d States ........................................................................................................... .........5  
(d) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United 
States......................................................................................................................... ................10  
(e) European Communities – Protection of trad emarks and geographical indications for 
agricultural products and foodstuffs:  Status  report by the European Communities ................11  
2. Implementation by the European Co mmunities of the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB in relation to "European Communities – Regime for the 
Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas" and related subsequent WTO 
proceedings .................................................................................................................... ..........12  
(a) Statements by Honduras, Ni caragua and Panama.....................................................................12  
3. United States – Countervailing measures concerning certain products from the 
European Communities..........................................................................................................1 6 
(a) Statement by the Eur opean Communities.................................................................................16  
4. United States – Measures affecting trade in large civil aircraft .........................................17  
(a) Request for the establishment of a pa nel by the European Communities.................................17  
5. Mexico – Anti-dumping duties on steel pipes and tubes from Guatemala ........................18  
(a) Request for the establishment of  a panel by Guatemala ...........................................................18  
6. Turkey – Measures affecting the importation of rice ..........................................................19  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States .................................................19  
7. Selection process for appointment of  an Appellate Body member.....................................19  
8. Proposed nomination for the indicative list of governmental and 
non-governmental panelists ...................................................................................................20  WT/DSB/M/205 
Page 2  
 
9.
 United States – Subsidies on upland cotton..........................................................................20  
(a) Statement by the United States ................................................................................................. 20 
10. Election of Chairperson........................................................................................................ ..21 
 
 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.39) 
 (b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.39) 
 (c) United States – Continued Dumping and Subsid y Offset Act of 2000:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS217/16/Add.24 – WT/DS234/24/Add.24) 
 
(d) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.14) 
 (e) European Communities – Protection of tr ademarks and geographical indications for 
agricultural products and foodstuffs:  Stat us report by the European Communities 
(WT/DS174/25/Add.1 – WT/DS290/23/Add.1) 
 
1. The Chairman
 recalled that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that "unless the DSB decides 
otherwise, the issue of implementation of the re commendations or rulings shall be placed on the 
agenda of the DSB meeting after six months follo wing the date of establishment of the reasonable 
period of time pursuant to paragraph 3 and shall remain on the DSB's agenda until the issue is 
resolved".  He proposed that the five sub-items to which he had just referred be considered separately. 
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropria tions Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.39) 
2. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS176/ 11/Add.39, 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 February 2006, in accordance with Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in the report, 
several legislative proposals relating to S ection 211 that would implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute had been  introduced in the current Congress, both in the 
US Senate and the US House of Representatives.  The US administration was working with the US 
Congress to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
4. The representative of the European Communities  recalled that more than four years ago the 
United States had been found in breach of its oblig ations under the TRIPS Agreement.  Furthermore, 
the United States had failed to bring its legislation in  conformity with its obligations by 30 June 2005, 
as had been required, and this was despite havi ng benefitted from several extensions of the time-
period for implementation.  And again, this mont h, the United States could not do better than to 
reprint a status report which, except for the date , had not changed over the course of one year and 
should rather be called a status report on non-implem entation.  He noted that four bills were pending 
in the US Congress to repeal Section 211.  Adoption of such bills would bring a satisfactory solution 
to this dispute by removing a discriminatory legisl ation driven exclusively by specific interest.  WT/DSB/M/205 
 Page 3 
 
 
  5. The representative of Cuba  said that the dispute under consideration was one of the most 
long-standing matters under item 1 of the DSB's agenda .  He recalled that the Appellate Body  Report 
had been adopted four years ago on 1 February.  During that period, the United States had been 
granted, five times, generous deadlines to implem ent the DSB's recommendations.  The last deadline 
had expired on 30 June 2005.  Nevertheless, the United States had not yet implemented the DSB's 
decisions.  Its repetitive reports to the DSB had be come reports on non-prog ress, as one delegation 
had pointed out at the previous DSB meeting.  The underlying problem was, as that delegation should 
also acknowledge, the "acceptance" of a vague a nd imprecise "understanding"  between the parties, 
which had been announced in July 2005. 
6. During the four years, the United States had merely made a mockery, time and again, of the 
DSB, postponing compliance with decisions indefinitely , with false promises that it was working with 
the US Congress to amend its legislation.  The US Government and its allies in Congress had in fact 
been manoeuvring to prevent consideration of the bi lls aimed at remedying the breach of international 
law, so that such bills had not been even debated in the US Congress.  He underlined that Section 211 
as well as the need to benefit a company with the main interests in the United States although it was 
located elsewhere, were aimed at pursuing broader aims thus hindering foreign investments in Cuba, 
which was associated with the international mark eting of Cuban products that enjoyed worldwide 
prestige. 
7. This provision of the law extended to the s phere of intellectual property the "draconian" 
economic, commercial and financial blockade agains t Cuba, a policy which had been condemned by 
an overwhelming majority in 14 c onsecutive Sessions of the US General Assembly because of its 
unlawful extraterritorial and intimidating nature , which established sanctions against countries, 
companies or individuals that granted economic assi stance to, traded or maintained relations with 
Cuba, as a means of discouraging foreign investment  in Cuba among other things.  Despite the hostile 
policy that the United States had implemented agains t Cuba for the past 47 years, the intellectual 
property rights of US right-holders had always b een scrupulously observed by Cuba and they enjoyed 
the same protection in Cuba as other right-holders elsewhere in the world.  It was striking that along 
this dispute, three other disputes were be ing discussed under this agenda item, where 
recommendations were awaiting compliance by the Un ited States.  Oddly enough, one of them was 
related to intellectual property rights.  Histor ically, the United States had held itself up as the 
champion and international custodian of these ri ghts when it came to challenging underdeveloped 
countries or strengthening intellectual property pr ovisions in the interests of its transnational 
monopolies.  Obviously, the US conduct had implicit double standards, and was beginning to show a 
consistent pattern of disregard for the multilatera l agreements and the WTO.  This had serious 
systemic implications.  Persistent conduct of this  kind set a dangerous precedent that might affect 
other Members in future, particularly underdev eloped countries.  The US conduct cast doubts on and 
eroded the foundations underlying not only the TRI PS Agreement, but all the WTO Agreements,  
namely, the principles of national treatment and most-favoured-nation treatment.  Members were in 
danger of sending the wrong message to the world.  On e had to insist that WTO rules must be applied 
not only to small nations, but also to the major trad ing powers.  Cuba reiterate d its appeal to Members 
to take prompt and effective action to secure obser vance of the letter of multilateral trade agreements 
and their own decisions by demanding that the Un ited States comply immediately, unconditionally 
and without further delay with all the DSB's rulings and recomme ndations, in particular those 
pertaining to this dispute by repealing Sec tion 211, which was unjust and discriminatory. 
8. The representative of China  said that, at the previous DSB meeting, his delegation had made a 
statement regarding this matter under agenda item 1 and, at the present meeting, wished to make some 
further comments.  He noted that almost four year s of the reasonable period of time had passed since 
February 2002, when the DSB had adopted both th e Panel and the Appellate  Body Reports, and had 
endorsed their recommendations.  The Reports had c oncluded that Section 211 had infringed the US 
obligations regarding the principles of national treatment and most-favor ed-treatment under the WT/DSB/M/205 
Page 4  
 
TRIPS Agreement as well as the Paris Convention for the Protection of Intellectual Property.  China 
noted that the measure taken by the United States had nullified not only the interest of the EC under 
the WTO covered agreements, but also the interest s of other WTO Members, such as Cuba.  Although 
every WTO Member had the right to have recour se to the dispute settlement mechanism, it was 
definitely a heavy burden for developing countries to  do so.  It was quite understandable for Cuba to 
expect to benefit from the full implementation of the DSB's ruling in this dispute, and to monitor the 
status of pending implementation.  China always  attached great importance to the protection of 
intellectual property rights.  China believed that th e WTO dispute settlement system was an effective 
and efficient system for peaceful resolution of trad e disputes, which brought a degree of security and 
predictability in international trade to all Members and their citizens.  Once again, China wished to 
join the EC and Cuba in urging the United States to  implement the decision of the DSB in this dispute 
as soon as possible. 
9. The representative of Brazil
 said that, in view of its systemic interest, his country continued to 
express concerns about the persistence of non-compliance in respect of this dispute.  Prompt and full 
implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommenda tions was one of the major means to keep the 
rules-based multilateral trading system credible and vibrant.  Conversely, if long periods of non-
implementation with apparent lack of any progress were to become something as given – a fact of life – the strength of the system would be negatively aff ected.  These considerations made Brazil to urge, 
once again, the parties to the dispute to take the necessary and urgent steps to implement the relevant 
DSB's rulings and recommendations. 
10. The representative of India
 said that, as stated by his country at the previous DSB meeting, it 
was a matter of concern that this item had been on the DSB agenda for a very long time and there was 
still no indication when the matter would be resolved ev en to the satisfaction of the parties.  Members 
needed to reflect upon the systemic concerns about efficacy of the dispute settlement system of the WTO if, in spite of the DSU provisions relating to prompt compliance, monitoring and surveillance of 
implementation there was no resolution of the matter. 
11. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of  Venezuela
 said that his delegation wished to 
be fully associated with the statement made by Cuba because Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 was incons istent with the WTO.  His country was concerned that, thus 
far, the DSB had received no reliable indication that the United States seriously intended to rectify its 
non-compliance.  His country was likewise concerned at the EC's failure to seek authorization to 
suspend concessions to the United States.  The EC's failure to act undermined the effectiveness of the 
TRIPS Agreement and generated uncertainty.  This  persistent non-compliance by the United States 
had unquestionably cast doubts once again on the credibility of the DSU and the WTO Agreements.  Furthermore, as had been pointed out at the tw o previous DSB meetings, it provoked a legitimate 
reluctance on the part of Members to assume new commitments under the DSU negotiations or the Doha Round negotiations.  His country  urged the United States to seek an appropriate solution to this 
matter, in line with the WTO Agreements. 
12. The representative of the United States
 said that his delegation had taken note of the 
statements by some delegations that had unfortunately commented  unfavourably on the understanding 
reached between the United States and th e EC in this dispute.  In that connection, he reiterated that the 
United States would continue to work with the othe r party to the dispute in seeking to resolve it, in 
accordance with the DSB's rules. 
13. The representative of the European Communities  said that the EC considered that the 
comments regarding the agreement reached with th e United States were groundless.  That agreement 
affected in no way the ability of Cuba or any othe r WTO Member to defend their interests, if they 
believed that they were affected by Section 211, no tably via recourse to the dispute settlement system. 
In any event, the DSB had endorsed unanimously th at agreement at its meeting of 20 July 2005.  WT/DSB/M/205 
 Page 5 
 
 
  14. 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.39) 
15. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/ 15/Add.39, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan. 
16. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 6 February 2006, in accordan ce 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. The 
US administration continued to support specific le gislative amendments that would implement the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the US anti-dumping duty statute, and was 
working with the US Congress to pass these amendmen ts. The US administration would continue to 
work with the Congress to enact legislation to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
17. The representative of Japan  noted that, in February 2006, Members had witnessed a 
remarkable development in the status of implem entation by the United States in relation to one 
dispute, which would be discussed shortly in the co urse of the present meeting.  However, Japan was 
still waiting for further actions to take pla ce towards the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  Japan was concerned about bill H.R.2473, which had 
been put before the current US Congress in May 2005.   Japan wished to have detailed information on 
the state of play of that legislation within th e US Congress and urged the United States to make 
further efforts to pass the legislation promptly. 
18. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(c) United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS217/16/Add.24 – WT/DS234/24/Add.24) 
19. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/D S217/16/Add.24 – WT/DS234/24/Add.24, 
which contained the status report by the United St ates on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning the US Conti nued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. 
20. The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status report 
on 6 February 2006, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States was pleased to 
report that, on 1 February 2006, the US Congress had approved the Deficit Reduction Act, which 
included a provision repealing the Continued Dump ing and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 ("CDSOA"). 
On 8 February 2006, the President had signed the Ac t into law.  Thus, the United States had taken the 
actions necessary to implement the recomme ndations and rulings in these disputes. 
21. The representative of th e European Communities  said that the EC warmly welcomed the 
action taken by the US Congress.  The adoption of provisions to repeal the Byrd Amendment was a 
very significant step forward to bring the United St ates into compliance with its obligations under the 
WTO Agreements and to solve a serious trade proble m.  However, the EC could not agree with the 
statement made by the United States that it had now taken the actions necessary to implement the 
DSB's rulings and recommendations in these disputes.   The repeal of the Byrd Amendment would not 
have immediate effect, but was postponed by a tr ansition clause.  Duties imposed on goods imported WT/DSB/M/205 
Page 6  
 
into the United States up to 30 September 2007 wo uld still be distributed to certain US companies 
after their collection, which in tu rn, under US practice, could take place several years after the imports 
had taken place.  That meant that the Byrd Ame ndment would remain in operation until at the very 
least 30 September 2007, and even thereafter for a number of years.  The EC recalled that the WTO originally had given the United States a reasona ble period of time for implementation until 
27 December 2003.  Thus the effect for the immediat e future could already be quantified.  The budget 
of the US Government for the fiscal year of 2007 forecasted the next two distributions at 
US$249 million and US$1,93 billion respectively.  The Byrd Amendment had been found WTO-incompatible for transferring the anti-dumping and countervailing duties collected on imported products to the US companies.  As long as these distributions continued, the WTO-incompatibility 
would persist.  Consequently, the EC calle d on the United States to continue submitting 
implementation reports in this dispute. 
22. The representative of Canada
 said that his country noted the latest status report by the United 
States regarding the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, or the Byrd Amendment.  On 8 February 2006, the US President had signed into law the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which 
included a provision to prospectively repeal the Byrd  Amendment.  Canada welcomed this important, 
though first, step towards the full implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommendations.  This 
was only a first step for two reasons.  First, the Act provided only for prospective repeal;  it stipulated 
that the effective date of repeal of the Byrd Amendment was 1 October 2007, almost two years from 
now.  Second, under the Act, payments under the By rd Amendment would not cease on that date, or 
on any other specific date.  Rather, duties currently collected, and those that would be collected up to 
30 September 2007, would remain subject to dis bursement under the Byrd Amendment long after the 
date of repeal. In that context, Canada could not agree with the statement made by the United States in 
its most recent status report that: "[o]nce the Presi dent signs this Act into law, the United States will 
have taken the actions necessary to implement th e rulings and recommendations in these disputes". 
Canada recalled the finding of the Panel, as confir med by the Appellate Body, that "imposition of 
anti-dumping/countervail orders with the bestowal of  offset payment subsidies in very particular 
circumstances [...] constitutes specific action against dumping/subsidization and therefore a violation of Articles 32.1 of the SCM Agreement and 18.1 of the AD Agreement." 
23. However, under the "repeal provisions", Byrd Amendment payments would continue to be 
made in conjunction with the orders in question for many years to come.  For that reason, the United States had not yet complied with the DS B's rulings and recommendations.  And until such 
time as disbursements were fully and completely ceased, the United States would remain in violation 
of its WTO obligations.  The prospective repeal of the Byrd Amendment and the continuation of the payments well past the date of repeal, also raised systemic questions.  The DSU required Members to bring inconsistent measures into compliance with the WTO Agreement promptly;  and where this was 
not possible, a Member had a reasonable period of time  in which to do so.  In this case, the reasonable 
period of time had ended over two year ago.  Now the United States proposed to prospectively repeal 
the Byrd Amendment on 1 October 2007, as rega rds the duties collected after that date. 
1 October 2007 was almost four years after the end of the reasonable period of time, and the US repeal measure would continue to permit illegal payments long thereafte r.  This was contrary to the 
predictability and security of the world trading or der, which was one of the objectives of dispute 
settlement mechanism negotiated and agreed by all Members. 
24. The representative of Mexico
 said that his country welcomed the steps taken by both the US 
Congress and the US administration regarding complian ce.  Mexico was grateful for the efforts made 
by its trading partner.  Since the amounts collect ed by the United States before 1 October 2007 would 
continue to be distributed under the so-called By rd Amendment, Mexico was of the view that 
compliance had not been achieved in this case and re served its right to continue to apply measures in 
accordance with the WTO Agreement.  Mexico also reserved the right to have its say regarding the 
consistency of any disbursements made after the re peal of the Act.  Mexico again urged the United 
States to repeal the Act and to ban forthwith  any disbursements pursuant to that Act.  WT/DSB/M/205 
 Page 7 
 
 
  25. The representative of Chile  said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  The approval and signing of the Defic it Reduction Omnibus Reconc iliation Act, with the 
provision on the Byrd Amendment, was undoubtedly th e first step towards actually abolishing the 
Amendment.  Such progress was highly significant for Chile.  His country, therefore, was satisfied with the efforts made by the US administrati on towards fulfilment of its WTO commitments. 
Nonetheless, Chile pointed out that it could not cons ider that the United States had complied with the 
DSB's rulings and recommendations as long as the Un ited States maintained the Amendment, which 
had been declared to be WTO-inconsistent, and co ntinued to give money to US companies competing 
with Chilean exporters in a manner that had been found by the DSB to be in breach of the US WTO 
obligations.  Although the United States had, at the present meeting, announced the repeal of the Byrd 
Amendment, this would not be effective until 1 October 2007.  Compliance was thus postponed and 
the measure found to be WTO-inconsistent was still in force.  Consequently, the overall objective of 
the dispute settlement mechanism had been obstruc ted because a withdrawal of the measures found to 
be inconsistent with the covered agreements  had not been secured, as required by Article 3.7 of the 
DSU.   Chile, therefore, asked the United States to  reply to the following questions:  "(i) When does 
the United States think that it will actually comply  with the recommendations? and (ii) What is to 
happen to any monies collected up to 1 October 2007 which go undistributed because of administrative reviews or judicial proceedings?  Wi ll it be possible for such monies to be distributed 
even beyond that date?"  Like other co-complai nants, Chile welcomed the recent progress made by 
the United States.  At the same time, Chile wished to express its concern about the fact that the Byrd 
Amendment was still in force and, three years afte r being declared WTO-inconsistent, continued to 
adversely affect trade and to impair the founding principles of the WTO. 
26. The representative of Brazil
 said that his country thanked the United States for both the status 
report and the statement made at the present meet ing regarding the dispute in question.  These 
confirmed that, finally, the repeal of the Byrd Amendment had been passed into law.  Brazil 
welcomed that development, which constituted a signi ficant step in the direction of compliance with 
WTO obligations in an economically and systemically important case.  At the same time, Brazil 
stressed again its dissatisfaction with the timing for implementation of the DSB's recommendations.  
It had now been more than three years since the United States had informed the DSB of its intention 
to comply with those recommendations, and more th an two years since the end of a long reasonable 
period of time.  More importantly, the repeal of the Byrd Amendment would only produce actual 
effects from 1 October 2007, adding almost two more years to this protracted process of 
implementation.  During that additional period, di stributions under that illegal measure would amount 
to US$249 million and US$1.93 billion for 2006 an d 2007, respectively, according to estimates by the 
US President's 2007 budget.  Moreover, given the characteristics of the US trade remedy system, it might be the case that Byrd Amendment disbursements related to duties collected up to 30 September
 2007 could still occur many years after the repeal had effectively entered into force. 
27. Under these circumstances, Brazil disagreed with the US statement that with the mere passing 
into law of a prospective repeal of the Byrd Am endment, "the United States will have taken the 
actions necessary to implement the rulings and reco mmendations in this dispute".  In Brazil's view, 
there would be no full compliance on the part of the United States until and unless all disbursements 
under the Byrd Amendment were to stop.  In othe r words, all rights conferred by the DSU on the co-
complainants with respect to this situation of non-compliance would remain as valid as they were 
before the adoption of the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act. 
28. The representative of Thailand  said that his country wished to join previous speakers in 
welcoming the US status report on the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, or the 
Byrd Amendment.  Thailand viewed  the Congressional repeal of the Byrd Amendment, coupled with 
the President's signing of the Deficit Reduction Om nibus Reconciliation Act into law, as a major step 
forward by the United States towards fulfilling its WTO obligations to implement the DSB's rulings 
and recommendations in this dispute. As large a step as these actions might comprise, Thailand WT/DSB/M/205 
Page 8  
 
believed that more steps would be required to bring the United States into full compliance.  Regrettably, full compliance would not be achieved unless and until duty collections and 
disbursements under the Byrd Amendment were comp letely terminated.  To that end, Thailand 
reaffirmed its right to be granted the DSB's author ization to suspend concessi ons or other obligations, 
pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU at any future da te.  Therefore, recalling that the reasonable period 
of time for implementation in this dispute ha d expired, more than two years ago, on 
27 December 2003, Thailand strongly urged the United  States to bring its actions into full conformity 
with the DSB's rulings and recommendations in this  dispute as soon as possible.  Until such time, and 
until this matter had been fully resolved, Thailand also urged the United States to continue providing 
status reports in DSB meetings. 
29. The representative of India
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status report. 
India noted with satisfaction that finally, on 1 February 2006, the United States had completed the 
legislative processes to repeal the CDSOA.  India also noted from the additional information provided 
by the United States at the present meeting that the US President had signed the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act into law, which include d the repeal of the CDSOA.  India welcomed 
these steps taken by the United States.  However, I ndia noted that duties collected on imports entering 
the United States, and those to be collected up to 30 September 2007 would remain subject to disbursements under the repealed CD SOA, a law which the DSB had ruled as being inconsistent with 
the US obligations under the WTO rules.  Thus, th e United States would remain in violation of its 
WTO obligations until such time as disburseme nts under the CDSOA had fully and completely 
ceased.  It was also clear that the matter had not b een resolved in terms of Article 21.6 of the DSU.  
As India had stated many times on previous occasions that it preferred full compliance by the United 
States with the DSB's decision to taking retaliato ry measures under the authority obtained from the 
DSB.  India, therefore, continued to reserve all its rights under the DSU, including the right to suspend the application vis-à-vis  the United States of concessions  or other obligations under the 
covered agreements. 
30. The representative of Korea
 said that his country welcomed the latest development and 
extended appreciation to the US Congress and the US administration for  their actions to repeal the 
CDSOA or the Byrd Amendment.  This case might be the best example of "better late than never."  
However, as far as the implementation of the DSB' s rulings and recommendations was concerned, it 
was always "better early than late", as explicitly s tipulated in Article 21.1 of the DSU.  As had been 
pointed out by previous speakers, the repeal of  the Byrd Amendment would not take effect until 
1 October 2007 by virtue of a transition clause, a nd disbursements of collected duties would continue 
to occur even thereafter.  Under these circumstanc es, Korea found it difficult to agree with the US 
statement in its status report that:  "Once the Presi dent signs this Act into law, the United States will 
have taken the actions necessary to implement the rulings and recommendations in these disputes."  
The full implementation would only be completed when  the repeal of the Act were to take actual 
effect and disbursements stopped functioning.  As a co -complainant in this case, Korea wished to join 
other co-complainants in expressing its concerns a bout the lack of full compliance by the United 
States with the DSB's rulings and recommendations. 
31. The representative of Japan  said that his country thanked the United States for its most recent 
status report.  Japan welcomed the fact that th e Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act, which 
included provisions to repeal the CDSOA, had been adopted by the US Congress at long last and had 
been signed into law by the US President.  This w as, in fact, a significant step forward as mentioned 
by previous speakers.  Japan wished to congrat ulate and pay respect to those who had exerted 
themselves to pass the legislation and had supported the actions taken by the US Congress and the US 
administration.   Nevertheless, Japan was obliged to  express its concerns since the repealing provisions 
of the CDSOA stipulated that, in spite of the rep eal of the CDSOA itself, duties collected for imports 
prior to 1 October 2007 would continue to be distri buted to the US domestic industries.  That meant 
that up to until September 2007 at the latest,  the WT O-inconsistent CDSOA would be kept in force.  
Japan was concerned about that situation and calle d on the United States to secure the repeal once and  WT/DSB/M/205 
 Page 9 
 
 
  for all by stopping the distribution as well.  In that  regard, as with previous speakers, Japan was not 
convinced that the United States had complete d the necessary steps to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings.  Japan wanted to know  on what basis the United States could claim to 
be in compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings despite the fact that the CDSOA in its 
substance would remain in force for some time by vi rtue of the transitional clause.  Japan also would 
like to know how future distributions under the CDSOA would be effectuated. 
32. The representative of Australia  said that his country thanked the United States for the status 
report in this dispute and welcomed the steps taken by the US Congress and the US administration towards the implementation of the rulings of the DSB in this dispute.  However, Australia also noted 
the concerns that had been raised by other co-com plainants regarding the extent to which these steps 
would implement fully the rulings in this dispute, including the possibility that dispute disbursements 
would continue even beyond the 1 October 2007 a nd accordingly, as with other co-complainants, 
Australia would continue to reserve its  rights in respect of this dispute. 
33. The representative of Hong Kong, China
 welcomed the passing of the Deficit Reduction 
Omnibus Reconciliation Act by the US Congress and its signing into law by the President of the 
United States, thus securing the repeal of the Continued Dumping and Subsidies Offset Act 
(CDSOA).  However, we remain concerned about th e fact that the repeal of the CDSOA would take 
effect only from October 2007.  That meant that illegal payments under th e CDSOA would continue 
for a further period of some 20 months, delaying th e repeal of the CDSOA for some five years after 
the Act had been found by the Appellate Body to be WTO-inconsistent.  As Members moved towards 
the conclusion of this Round of negotiations, it was especially important that they demonstrated their 
commitment to the multilateral trading system th rough prompt compliance with the DSB's rulings.  
Hong Kong, China strongly urged the United States to  take further necessary steps to stop the illegal 
disbursements of duties with imme diate effect.  In the meantime, Hong Kong, China requested that 
this item be kept on the agenda of the DSB so  that Members could effectively monitor the 
implementation progress. 
34. The representative of Indonesia  said that, like other speakers, his country welcomed the US 
status report on the Continued Dumping and Subsid y Offset Act of 2002. Indonesia had a bilateral 
agreement with the United States regarding this case.   Nevertheless, Indonesia strongly wished that 
the United States implement the DSB's decision by repealing CDSOA as soon as possible. 
35. The representative of the United States  said that he wished to make a few of points with 
respect to the interventions that  had just been made.  First, he thanked those Members who had 
welcomed the US action that he had reported a fe w moments ago.  Second, with respect to the 
requests made by some Members, the EC, Thailand and some others; i.e. with respect to specific US 
actions on this dispute in future, he would refer tho se requests back to capital for consideration.  With 
respect to the question by Japan regarding the distri bution of duties, he would also refer that question 
to capital for review.  Finally, he had taken note of the fact that a couple of Members had stated in 
their interventions that they had reserved their ri ghts to adopt measures or suspend concessions.  His 
delegation was perplexed by that.  Indeed in the course of these disputes, Members had made clear 
that the purpose of suspending concessions was to induce compliance.  He recalled what had been 
stated a few moments ago, namely, that the Unite d States had taken all the necessary steps to comply 
with the DSB's rulings and recommendations.  Th e United States failed to see how the continued 
suspension of concessions could further that purpo se.  In any event, the United States would be 
reviewing carefully measures taken by Members.  He recalled that, as it had been discussed 
previously, the DSB only authorized suspension of  concessions or other obligations, as provided in 
the awards of the arbitrators. 
36. The representative of the European Communities  said that as had just been explained, the EC 
could not agree with the United States that the en actment of a repeal, which would not come into WT/DSB/M/205 
Page 10  
 
operation for at best two years, had now brought the United States into compliance with its obligations under the WTO Agreements.  As long as distributions of anti-dumping and countervailing 
duties to certain US companies continued, the WTO-in compatibility persisted.  Therefore, the EC did 
not have any obligation to stop the retaliatory measur es.  In fact, given that the retaliatory measures 
were precisely based on the actual amount of WTO illegal distributions, they would disappear at the 
same rhythm as the Byrd Amendment, and would na turally stop when the United States had fully 
complied with the recommendations.  This was not ju st about principles.  A large variety of EC 
industries were seriously affected by the illegal di stributions under the Byrd Amendment, and would 
continue to sustain damaging effects for years.  As mentioned earlier the forecasted amounts for the 
next two distributions were far from being negligible .  The EC had partners in this dispute and would 
consult with them before taking any decision. 
37. The representative of Canada
 said that there might have been a bill signed into law, but the 
principle of the Byrd Amendment still remained. Di sbursements of the duties had not yet seized.  In 
fact, the Act had not been repealed.  It would be  repealed on 1 October 2007, but it still remained in 
force.  As long as the disbursements of duties co llected on imports continued to occur, the United 
States would continue to violate the DSB's ru lings and recommendations and remained out of 
compliance with the WTO Agreement.  His delegati on failed to see how the United States could claim 
that it had brought itself into compliance merely by the signing of a prospective appeal.  Canada would continue to review all options and would co nsult with the co-complainants in this regard. 
38. The representative of Japan
 said that his country wished to know on what basis the United 
States could claim the full implementation in this dis pute.  As it had already been stated, Japan was 
not convinced that the United States had fulfilled its  obligation regarding the implementation of the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings.  After examini ng the relevant explanations provided by the 
United States and the information on the applicati on of the transitional clause, Japan would like to 
consider all its options.  In that process, Japan would work closely w ith other co-complainants in this 
case. 
39. The DSB took note  of the statements.   
(d) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.14) 
40. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/ 24/Add.14, 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. 
41. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 6 February 2006, in accordance with Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in the report, 
the US administration was working closely with th e US Congress, and conferring with the European 
Communities, in order to reach a mutually  satisfactory resolution of this matter. 
42. The representative of the European Communities  said that the EC deeply regretted the slow 
progress shown by the United States in solving this di spute.  Indeed, five and a half years after the 
adoption of the Panel Report, the United States had obstinately maintained legislation that violated 
intellectual property rights and hurt the interests of music creators.  This regrettable attitude did no 
service to the United States as regards its stated  goal, namely, to enhance intellectual property 
protection worldwide.  The EC, therefore, called upon  the United States to take the necessary action to 
end this situation of non-complia nce that had already lasted for too long.  The EC had received 
assurances from the United States that the US ad ministration was actively discussing with the US 
Congress possible solutions to this dispute.  In that regard, the EC hoped to get more detailed 
information on the concrete initiatives of the US administration, including at what level these  WT/DSB/M/205 
 Page 11 
 
 
  initiatives were being undertaken.  Finally, the EC wi shed to recall that it had reserved its right to 
reactivate, at any point in time, the arbitration proceedings on retaliation. 
43. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(e) European Communities – Protection of trad emarks and geographical indications for 
agricultural products and foodstuffs:  Stat us report by the European Communities 
(WT/DS174/25/Add.1 – WT/DS290/23/Add.1) 
44. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/D S174/25/Add.1 – WT/DS290/23/Add.1, 
which contained the status report by the Europ ean Communities on progress in the implementation of 
the DSB's recommendations in the case concerni ng protection of tradem arks and geographical 
indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs. 
45. The representative of the European Communities  recalled that at the 20 January 2006 DSB 
meeting, the EC had provided information to the effect that the European Commission had proposed 
to the Council of the European Union a new Re gulation on geographical i ndications, which would 
implement the findings and recommendations of the DS B in this dispute.  As stated in the status 
report submitted before the DSB, that proposal w as still under discussion within the Council of the 
European Union and the European Parliament.  Th e EC was confident that the proposal would be 
adopted within the agreed reasonable period of time .  With regard to the concerns raised, in a 
preliminary manner by certain Members at the 20 January 2006 DSB meeting, he wished to make some clarifications.  First, concerns had been  expressed that certain provisions regulating the 
relationship between geographical indications and trademarks, used in the Panel's analysis under 
Articles 16 and 17 of the TRIPS Agreement, app eared to have been omitted from the proposed 
Regulation.  That concern appeared to rest on a misunderstanding.  The provisions in question had 
been moved to a different section of the Regulation and their substance had been fully maintained.  
Second, concerns had been expressed in relation to the right under the proposed Regulation for 
persons, which were not EC nati onals or residents to object to  the proposed registration of 
geographical indications.  The proposed regulation distinguished between two procedural phases in 
the registration of geographical indications.  The initial procedural phase had taken place before the 
member State applying for registration was aimed at resolving objections of persons resident or 
established in that member State only.  The subs equent procedural phase, before the European 
Commission, was aimed at resolving objections of  persons resident or established in other EC 
member states or third countries, and the proposed  regulation allowed such objections to be submitted 
directly to the European Commission. 
46. The representative of the United States
 said that his country thanked the EC for its status 
report concerning its proposed revised GI regulati on.  As the United States had mentioned at the 
previous meeting, the initial review of the proposed regulation caused the United States some 
concern; more thorough review since that time ha d only heightened those concerns.  In particular, 
there were a number of respects in which the propo sed GI regulation appeared to introduce further 
encroachments on TRIPS-protected trademark rights beyond those in the current GI regulation.  This was of serious concern because the DSB had found th at the current GI regulation's inconsistency with 
Article 16 of the TRIPS Agreement was justifie d only by the narrow exceptions permitted under 
Article 17.  The DSB had made this finding based on EC representations with respect to the current GI regulation, concerning the criteria for registerin g GIs, the scope of the protection for registered 
GIs, and the safeguards in place to minimize the possible conflict with trademarks.  Proposed 
amendments in these areas, therefore, were worri some, especially considering that they appeared 
unnecessary as a response to the DSB's recommendations and rulings. WT/DSB/M/205 
Page 12  
 
47. In addition, there appeared to be a number of ways in which non-EC nationals would not have 
the same access to the EC GI system as EC nationals, with respect both to the registration and protection of GIs and objections to the registration of EC GIs.  This was a general summary of US 
concerns thus far. The United States thanked the EC for its comments on some of these matters.  
However, as it had been stated in January 2006, the United States would welcome the opportunity to 
discuss the proposed regulation in more detail with the EC. 
48. The representative of Australia
 said that his country thanked the EC for its status report in this 
dispute.  Australia had undertaken a careful anal ysis of the EC's proposed new GI regulation. 
Australia's analysis confirmed that there were uncer tainties about the regulatio n's consistency with the 
EC's national treatment obligations under the GA TT 1994 and the TRIPS Agreement with regard to 
inspection bodies and the rights of trademark owners.  The analysis also confirmed that there were 
uncertainties concerning the regulation's consistency w ith the EC's obligations in respect of the rights 
required to be granted to tradem ark owners and under the TRIPS Ag reement. Australia continued to 
trust that, before the expiry of the reasonable peri od of time in this dispute on 3 April 2006, the EC 
would ensure that the proposed regulation and the as sociated implementing rules were fully consistent 
with the EC's obligations under the GATT 1994 and th e TRIPS Agreement and like the United States,  
Australia would welcome the opportunity to furthe r discuss the regulations and the implementation. 
49. The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu had participated in this  dispute as a third party and had been closely 
monitoring the issue of GIs.  His delegation thanked the EC for its status report and noted with keen 
interest the revised regulation proposed on 23 Decemb er 2005.  He recalled that at the previous DSB 
meeting, both the United States and Australia had rai sed questions regarding co-existence.  It was his 
delegation's intention to review carefully this i ssue and the response given by the EC at the present 
meeting, as well as the overall implementation pursuant to the DSB's recommendations.  His 
delegation looked forward to par ticipating in future discussions. 
50. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
2. Implementation by the European Communiti es of the recommendations and rulings of 
the DSB in relation to "European Communiti es – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas"1 and related subsequent WTO proceedings 
(a) Statements by Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama 
51. The Chairman  said that the above-mentioned item was on the agenda of the present  meeting 
at the request of Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama .  He then invited the representatives of the 
respective countries to speak. 
52. The representatives of Honduras  recalled that in January 2006 when this item had first 
appeared on the DSB's agenda, Nicaragua, Panama and Honduras had provided a brief description of 
the EC's new and unlawful regime for the importation of bananas.  For the sake of brevity, Honduras 
would not repeat that description, but wished  to note that the new unbound tariff and the 
discriminatory quota established by the EC did not comply with the rulings and recommendations issued in the Bananas – III case. That dispute had given rise to a ruling in favour of Honduras and 
other Members since it had expressly stated that the EC  had to bring its measure s into conformity with 
the GATT 1994 and the GATS.  The EC had chosen  to do the opposite.  The EC had introduced a 
regime which was obviously discriminatory since it w as no longer covered by the Article I waiver or 
the Article XIII waiver.  At the same time, the EC had neither consulte d with Honduras and other 
Members that qualified as suppliers under Article XXVIII regarding a tariff that was more than 
                                                     
 
1 WT/DS27.  WT/DSB/M/205 
 Page 13 
 
 
  double the one applied to Honduras previously, nor ha d given so much as an indication of the new 
bound tariff rate.  These were the reasons for the requ est that Honduras had made in January 2006 that 
the DSB carry out its surveillance function regarding this matter. 
53. Unfortunately, there was nothing new to repor t because no progress had been made.  On the 
contrary, far from resolving the regime's WTO-inc onsistencies, the EC had informed Honduras that it 
would not even entertain its concerns unless Latin Am erican countries managed to demonstrate in the 
future with positive evidence that its  access had been impaired.  In ot her words, in the EC's view the 
favourable ruling in the Bananas – III case, an outcome to which Honduras had undoubtedly 
contributed, and the rulings in two rounds of the waiv er arbitration should be set  aside and be replaced 
by a new standard of "injury" to be defined and judged by the EC at some future point in time.  Such 
an approach would entirely relieve the EC of its compliance obligations; and Honduras as well as 
other MFN suppliers would have the burden of c onvincing the EC – the offending party – that it 
deserved something better.  This was not the wa y Honduras construed the "prompt compliance" with 
the Bananas – III rulings, as required under Article 21 of the DSU.  There was obviously a "disagreement" between Honduras and the EC "as to  the existence or consistency with a covered 
agreement of measures taken to comply with the re commendations and rulings" of the DSB, and that  
situation fell within Article 21 of the DSU, including paragraph 5. 
54. Honduras had informed the DSB that Article 21 of the DSU must be applied to the EC's 
regime introduced in 2006.  As indicated in the mi nutes of the DSB meeting held in the beginning of  
2002, some of the complainants in the Bananas – III case, including Honduras, had expressed concern 
as to whether the "single tariff" that the EC planne d to introduce was consistent with the rulings and 
recommendations in the Bananas – III case.  Honduras in  particular had expressed concern that the EC 
would "impose a prohibitive tariff that would make it impossible for Honduran bananas to enter the EC".  For that reason, Honduras and other Member s had informed the DSB that they had reserved 
their rights under Article 21 of the DSU regardi ng the EC arrangement for 2006, and had made it 
plain that they would exercise those rights, if necessary.  Pursuant to that express Article 21 
reservation, Honduras was now examining its paragraph 5 rights in consultation with other interested 
Members, as it was not prepared to tolerate unlawfu l measures.  While Honduras was engaged in this 
task, it requested the DSB to keep the offending EC  measures under the closest possible surveillance, 
as provided for under Article 21.6 of the DSU.  He also asked the DSB to work with Honduras to get 
its rights restored promptly, because the measures were causing irreparable harm to his country's 
economy.  Until a lasting and satisfactory solution was found, Honduras would have no choice, but to 
continue to request the inclusion of th is item on the DSB agenda, as necessary. 
55. The representatives of Nicaragua
 said that even after the EC ha d refused to consult with the 
Latin American countries before approving its ille gal banana import regime  in November 2005, 
Nicaragua had continued to support constructive dialogue  with the EC on this matter.  In concert with 
other Latin American suppliers, Nicaragua had reach ed out to the EC before and during the Hong 
Kong Ministerial Conference as well as in the previous month for the purpose of seeking a mutually 
acceptable solution.  Nicaragua had done so with th e sincere hope that the EC's banana import policy 
would not require further recourse to legal proce dures after so many successful challenges that had 
already been undertaken on this matter.  Unfortun ately, these consultation initiatives had not been 
fruitful.  Despite its repeated efforts, Nicaragua ha d been unable to elicit assurances, or even input, 
from the EC on any of the issues central to secu ring a positive solution.  The EC would not provide 
information as to how it derived its €176 rate per tonne.  It would not explain how Latin American 
access would be maintained into the future under an  applied tariff 140 per cent higher than the €75 per 
tonne in effect for the past decade.  The EC was unwilling to tell Nicaragua what was the new bound 
MFN rate. It would not indicate if ACP advantages would be further expanded in the coming months. 
It would neither indicate what it intended to do wi th its Article XIII waiver request.  The EC would 
not clarify the circumstances, if any, under which it would be willing to lower its  exorbitant tariff.  It 
would not confirm whether it had a negotiating ma ndate to alter the current MFN measures.  WT/DSB/M/205 
Page 14  
 
According to certain Commission officials, the EC would not even share its monitoring statistics if 
Nicaragua exercised its legal rights.  Nicaragua  could only conclude from these various responses, 
and the EC's unilateral actions of November 2005, th at the EC was not prepared to alter its current 
arrangement.  Accordingly, Nicaragua  wished to join Honduras and Panama in  stating that additional 
legal steps would need to be take n before a satisfactory adjustment of this matter could be found.  
Because of the economic risks at issue for Nica ragua's banana industry and its fragile economy, 
Nicaragua believed that  those legal steps would need to be pursued on an urgent and expedited basis.  
Honduras was now coordinating with other Members towards that end. 
56. The representatives of Panama
 said that his country fully shared the concerns expressed by 
Honduras.  The EC had developed, announced, and defended this new discriminatory regime through 
irregular means that could not be reconciled with the compliance obligations under Article 21 of the 
DSU or even basic principles of fairness.  He then briefly reviewed some of those irregularities.  After 
losing twice in arbitration, the EC had made only a minor adjustment to its invalidated measures, had 
never consulted with Latin American countries, and had rushed the new arrangement through its 
internal enactment procedures.  Now that the new arrangement was in force, the EC had informed 
Panama that it could not be  "rushed" to consider cha nges.  In fact, the EC had stated it would not even 
consider Panama's concerns unless it could "prove" sp ecific harm after an extended period of time had 
passed, likely a year or more.  According to the EC , even though all of its previous 2006 proposals 
were subject to strict arbitral review under which the EC bore the heavy burden of demonstrating that 
Latin American access would at least be maintained in the future, its GATT obl igations had now been 
lifted.  It its view,  the EC was free to pick what ever arrangement it wanted and had no responsibility 
to consider Panama's concerns unless it could sta tistically persuade the EC that changes should be 
made.  Panama had been told by the EC that if it tried to assert its legal rights, it would not even be 
allowed to have access to monitoring data.  Panama had been told, moreover, that while the EC was 
free to withdraw its tariff concessions, it did not n eed to clarify to any country what the new bound 
rate of duty was.  Indeed, according to the EC, it had no obligation even to consult with its 
Article XXVIII suppliers about the new applied rate  of €176 per tonne before their bindings were 
withdrawn.  These and other EC's actions made cl ear to Panama that the EC would not bring its 
banana measures into conformity with the GA TT 1994 absent additional action.  Like Honduras, 
Panama was consulting with Members on the most expedited means of ensuring full compliance.  
Until the EC met its obligations on this matter or a mutually satisfactory solution was found Panama, 
too, would be asking that the DSB keep this illegal regime under close surveillance. 
57. The representative of the European Communities   said that the EC had, once more, listened 
carefully to the statements made by Honduras, Nicar agua and Panama on this matter.  However, the 
EC had to insist on two points that had been rais ed at the 20 January 2006 DSB meeting.  First, the 
EC did not consider the DSB meeting to be an a ppropriate forum to discuss this matter. The issues 
being raised at the present meeting had already been discussed at length with Honduras, Nicaragua 
and Panama in the consultations under the DSU pr ovisions held on 19 January, pursuant to their 
request.  The EC was ready to engage in further discu ssions with the complainants in that context,  if 
necessary.  In addition, the EC had agreed to con tinue discussions with all interested MFN suppliers 
with the assistance of Minister Støre (Norway) and on the basis of the information drawn from the 
monitoring of the impact of the new MFN tariff.  A meeting on this matter had taken place on 16 February 2006.  The EC regretted that Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama had thus far opted for the 
litigation "route" rather than a dialogue.  Second, th e EC had to note once more its disagreement with 
the categorization of this matter as an "implementati on issue" relevant to Article 21 of the DSU.  The 
EC had already made its objection clear in the contex t of the WTO consultations, held on 19 January.  
The matter under discussion could not be consid ered an issue of "implementation of DSB 
recommendations and rulings" in the sense of Article  21 of the DSU for two main reasons. First, the 
EC had already amended the regime  found inconsistent with the DSB' s  recommendations and rulings 
in the so-called EC – Bananas III case (DS27), acco rding to the recommendations of the Article 21.5 
Panel requested by Ecuador.  The new EC bananas import regime introduced by Council Regulation 
1964/2005 and in force since 1 January 2006 was ther efore not "a measure taken to comply with"  WT/DSB/M/205 
 Page 15 
 
 
  those recommendations and rulings.  In addition, th e EC noted that Nicaragua and Panama had not 
been even parties to the EC – Bananas III proceedings . Second, the arbitration awards referred to by 
Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama had been issued pur suant to an "ad hoc" arbitration agreed in the 
context of the adoption of the Doha Waiver on the Cotonou Agreement, and not pursuant to WTO 
DSU proceeding, and, therefore, the EC's re action to those awards was not a question of 
implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommendations.  That being said, the EC remained ready 
to address the issues raised at the present meeting a nd any other issues related to the new EC bananas 
import regime in the appropriate fora. 
58. The representative of the United States  said that as delegations had heard both at the previous 
DSB meeting as well as at the present meeting, some  Members had serious concerns about the EC's 
bananas regime.  The United States reiterated that it too had concerns  about that regime.  The bananas 
issue was a matter of great importance for many Members.  Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama had 
filed requests for consultations with the EC in this regard.  In light of this, the United States, again, 
urged the EC to work with interested Members to  reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this 
dispute as expeditiously as possible. 
59. The representative of Canada  said that he wished to make a statement relating to the 
procedural point raised by the EC.  As it had prev iously been stated under the Byrd Amendment item, 
in Canada's view, the DSB must monitor the matter until the issue "is resolved" between the disputing 
parties.  If there had been a dispute and if there was a dispute and if the parties to that dispute considered that the issue was not resolved, indeed the DSB was the fo rum for the matter to be raised 
and that was why Canada urged the United States to continue to make statem ents in relation to the 
implementation in the Byrd Amendment case because th e issue in that case remained to be resolved.  
60. The representative of Honduras
 drew attention to document WT/DSB/M/119, in which 
Honduras had expressed its reservation to be able to  continue to discuss the banana issue and had 
asked the EC to be mindful of its obligations and to respect the rights of other Members granted by 
the WTO.  With regard to the point made by the EC concerning any other parallel processes under 
way, Honduras did not think that this w as the right forum to discuss these matters. 
61. The representative of Ecuador  said that, like Honduras, her country was concerned about the 
unilateral establishment by the EC of the regime fo r the importation of bananas, which had come into 
effect on 1 January 2006, and which did not comp ly with the EC's commitments either towards 
Ecuador or to the WTO.  As Members were aware, Ecuador had been involved in a number of panels 
as well as two arbitration procedures in 2005, which had found in favour of Ec uador, and the EC had 
thus far failed to establish a banana import regime that was consistent  with the decisions and the basic 
principles of the WTO such as non-discrimination a nd MFN treatment.  This was why Ecuador fully 
sympathized with the frustration of a number of Latin  American countries at the lack of political will 
which had compelled them to seek relief under WT O law. Ecuador was participating in the good 
offices procedure with the Foreign Minister of Norway, but such a process did not preclude recourse 
to the rights and obligations of WTO membership.  Ecuador trusted that the EC was interested in 
resolving the matter once and for all without furt her recourse to dispute settlement.  Ecuador, 
therefore, encouraged the EC to show true commit ment to the development dimension with regard to 
those countries which, although competitive, we re nonetheless developing countries, by seeking 
mutually satisfactory solutions.  Otherwise it would be  difficult to avoid further decisions like those of 
the Central American countries, which had made statements at the present meeting. 
62. The representative of the United States  said that he would communicate to his authorities the 
request made by Canada regarding the matter discussed under the previous agenda item. 
63. The DSB took note  of the statements.  WT/DSB/M/205 
Page 16  
 
3. United States – Countervailing measures co ncerning certain products from the 
European Communities 
(a) Statement by the European Communities 
64. The Chairman
 said that this item was on the agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the EC and he invited the representative of the European Communities to speak. 
65. The representative of the European Communities  said that the EC could not, but deplore again 
the fact that the United States had not submitted the re quired status report this time either.  During the 
20 January 2006 DSB meeting, the EC had expressed its  disappointment over that fact, but apparently 
to no avail.  There was no question that this practice did not promote the objectives of Article 21 of the DSU, namely, to allow the DSB and the WTO Members to monitor the implementation of the 
relevant DSB's findings and recommendations.  While deploring the US unwillingness to submit 
detailed status reports, the EC, at the DSB meeti ng of 28 November 2005, had submitted a number of 
questions and had hoped to receive replies to those questions.  At that meeting, the US representative 
had stated that his delegation was not in a positi on to address the questions and that it would refer 
them all to capital for review.  Unfortunately, no re plies or clarifications had been received thus far. 
The EC reiterated that the USTR had re-opened the Section 129 proceeding in the DS212 case on 
29 November 2005 and had given itself 180 days to co mplete the process.  EC firms and governments 
had already received and had replied to four questionnaires 
.from the US authorities.  In connection to 
the proceeding, the EC would very much apprecia te receiving certain clarifications concerning in 
particular the estimate time-table regarding the issuance of preliminary findings from the Department of Commerce.  In addition, the EC wished to recei ve more detailed information on the expected dates 
for the issuance of final findings in these proceedings .  Furthermore, the EC would be interested to 
know what other procedural steps would be envisag ed in the new 129 proceeding in this particular 
case.  The EC hoped that the United States would provide the necessary clarification at the present  meeting.  Furthermore, the EC trusted that the Un ited States would report on this exercise at each 
DSB meeting, and was confident that the US au thorities would implement the Article 21.5 Panel's 
findings by repealing these very old, unjustifie d and WTO incompatible measures without undue 
delay. 
66. The representative of the United States
 said that, as his delegation had indicated at the 
20 January 2006 DSB meeting, on 29 November 2 005 the US Trade Representative had requested 
that the Department of Commerce issue, "as quickly  as possible," revised determinations with respect 
to the sunset reviews involving Spain and the Unite d Kingdom.  Shortly thereafter the Department of 
Commerce had initiated proceedings.  As part of that process, the Department of Commerce had 
issued questions to the respondents in the two proceedings.  The Department of Commerce had 
received responses to those questions, and currently  was in the process of analyzing them.  With 
respect to the EC's specific questions regarding these proceedings, the United States would be happy 
to refer those questions to capital.  With respect to the EC's comments at the present meeting about 
possible US status reports, by way of background,  he recalled that the United States had made a 
statement at the meeting of 27 September when the DSB had adopted the Report of the Article 21.5 panel in this dispute.  At the meeting held on 28 November 2005, the United States had followed up 
on that statement with a report to the DSB on the status of US implementation.  And, in that 
connection, Members would recall that the second sente nce of Article 21.6 of the DSU provided that 
"the issue of implementation of the recommendations  or rulings may be raised at the DSB by any 
Member at any time following their adoption."  The United States would be happy to discuss with the 
EC their views on this issue. 
67. The DSB took note
 of the statements.   WT/DSB/M/205 
 Page 17 
 
 
  4. United States – Measures affecting trade in large civil aircraft 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Communities (WT/DS317/5) 
68. The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
2 February 2006 and had agreed to revert to it. At th e present meeting, he wished to draw attention to 
the communication from the EC contained in docum ent WT/DS317/5, and invited the representative 
of the EC to speak. 
69. The representative of the European Communities  said that the EC had requested, for the 
second time, the establishment of a panel in this ma tter to help resolve a number of procedural 
imbroglios that had arisen in this dispute, with a view to reaching a positive solution thereto.  That 
situation of procedural limbo, which the EC had d escribed at the previous meeting, needed to be 
resolved quickly, since the US non-cooperation in the Annex V process had deprived the EC of access 
to documents relevant to the dispute, in partic ular regarding NASA and the Department of Defence 
subsidies.  At the same  time, the United States had submitted a supplementary consultation request in 
the DS316 case, which had largely the same purpose as th e EC request;  i.e. to explicitly list measures 
which were contained in the US panel request, but not explicitly in the consultation request.  The EC 
and the United States had already engaged in disc ussions on how to efficiently follow up on this 
request.  While it would have been preferable to come to a solution before the present meeting, the 
EC was still willing to fully engage in this end eavour in good faith with  a view to reaching a 
pragmatic solution to this dispute.  Finally, the EC  also noted that, as requ ested in WT/DS317/5, the 
DSB, together with the establishment of the pane l, shall initiate the procedures for developing 
information concerning serious prejudice under Annex V of the SCM Agreement.  The EC also noted 
that the DSB had already designated, pursuant to  paragraph 4 of Annex V of the SCM Agreement, 
Mr. Mateo Diego-Fernández to serve as a fac ilitator in the information-gathering process. 
70. The representative of the United States  said that his country regretted that the EC had 
requested the establishment of a panel at this ti me.  The United States considered that the best 
approach would be for the parties to this dispute to  reach agreement on the re lationship of this panel 
request to the Panel established on 20 July 2005 (D S317).  Although the United States and the EC had 
made substantial progress in this regard since the previous DSB meeting, they had not achieved an 
understanding.  Therefore, while a panel would be established at the present meeting, the 
United States was not in a position to agree to any additional steps regarding the relationship between 
the panel established at the present meeting and th at established on 20 July 2005.  However, the 
United States remained ready to continue discussi ons with the EC on the relationship between these 
panels. 
71. The United States was also not in a position to  agree to the EC's request concerning an 
information-gathering process under Annex V of the SCM Agreement.  In that regard, the 
United States recalled the point made by the EC at  several DSB meetings in 2005 that the Annex V 
process could not begin until the parties had mutua lly agreed on initiation and on modalities.  For 
example, the EC had expressed this vi ew at the 3 August 2005 DSB meeting.2  The United States 
noted again that the parties had not been able to reach  agreement on procedures in this dispute.  In this 
connection, the United States noted that the previ ous Annex V procedures were  inadequate, with the 
EC simply ignoring many of the rules to which it ha d agreed.  For example, in the dispute regarding 
aircraft subsidies by the EC and certain member States (DS316), which had th e same rules, the EC 
had simply refused to submit information on progr ams that had been explicitly covered by both the 
consultations and the panel requests.  Furthermore, inasmuch as the EC considered this to be part of 
the same dispute, there had already been a lengthy  Annex V process.  The United States saw no basis 
for the EC to seek a second Annex V process. 
                                                      
2 WT/DSB/M/195, para. 24. WT/DSB/M/205 
Page 18  
 
72. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the position of the United States 
was surprising to say the least.  Only in 2005,  th e United States had stressed at several DSB meetings 
the importance of the Annex V process: "The pro cedures for developing information provided for in 
Annex V are an important part of a disput e concerning actionable subsidies under the SCM 
Agreement.  It provides a way for both parti es as well as the Panel to have access to relevant 
information." (31 August 2005 DSB meeting).  The United States had not provided essential 
information during the Annex V process for various procedural reasons.  Despite disagreement about 
the relevance of those reasons or the justification for the US refusals to provide information, the EC 
had acted to remove the procedural flaws perceived by the United States.  The EC was now taking the United States by its word and requested that the United States engage promptly and constructively in 
this process. 
73. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Articles 4.4 and 7.4 of the SCM Agre ement and Article 6 of the DSU with standard 
terms of reference. 
74. The representatives of Australia , Brazil , Canada , China  and Japan  reserved their third-party 
rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings.  
75. The Chairman  said that with regard to the issue of the procedures for developing information  
concerning serious prejudice under Annex V of the SCM Agreement, which the EC had requested to 
be initiated pursuant to paragra ph 2 of Annex V of the SCM Agreement, he proposed that the DSB 
take note of the statements made by the pa rties to the dispute regarding this matter. 
76. The DSB took note  of the statements.  
5. Mexico – Anti-dumping duties on steel pipes and tubes from Guatemala 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Guatemala (WT/DS331/2) 
77. The Chairman   drew attention to the communicati on from Guatemala contained in document 
WT/DS331/2, and  invited the represen tative of Guatemala  to speak. 
78. The representative of Guatemala  said that his country regarded the DSB as one of the main 
underpinnings of the multilateral trading system a nd an indispensable tool for ascertaining Members' 
compliance with their obligations.  Naturally, this en abled countries such as Guatemala, in situations 
like the one to be outlined, to secure the benefits they expected from participation in the WTO. On 
17 June 2005, Guatemala had requested consultations with Mexico pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU, 
Article XXIII:1 of the GATT 1994, and Article 17 of  the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI 
of the GATT 1994, regarding the definitive anti- dumping measures imposed by Mexico on imports of 
certain steel pipes and tubes from Guatemala.  Guat emala and Mexico had held  consultations on this 
matter on 15 July, 26 August and 28 September 2005.  Despite being highly useful and serving to 
exchange views and information, those consultations  had regrettably failed to resolve the dispute.  
Mexico was one of Guatemala's most important tr ading partners both on account of its geographical 
proximity and the complementarity of their markets.  Much of Guatemala's leading and most 
competitive exports had gone to the Mexican market.  It  was, therefore, of interest to Guatemala that 
all measures put in place by that country should be consistent with its obligations under the WTO 
Agreements.  Accordingly, Guatemala had respectfu lly requested, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU 
and Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, that the DSB establish a panel with the standard 
terms of reference contained in Article 7.1 of th e DSU to examine this matter on the basis of the 
complaints outlined in the request it had submitted for th e establishment of a panel.  Finally, he stated 
that as a small economy, Guatemala had every confid ence in the multilateral trading system and, even 
while availing itself of its legitimate right to resort  to the dispute settlement mechanism, it kept the 
door open to dialogue, with a view to finding a mutually acceptable solution to this matter at any time.  WT/DSB/M/205 
 Page 19 
 
 
  79. The representative of Mexico  said that his delegation regre tted that two Latin American 
countries were obliged to resort to the DSB to settle  their differences.  Mexico further regretted that 
the consultations held with Guatemala in July , August and September 2005 had failed to produce a 
satisfactory outcome with respect to Guatemala's complaints over the anti-dumping duties levied by 
Mexico on steel pipes and tubes originating in that country, and that Guatemala had decided to file its 
request for the establishment of a panel.  Mexico opposed the establis hment of a panel requested by 
Guatemala at the present meeting given, inter alia , the details outlined in the panel request submitted 
on 6 February to enable the authorities in capitals  to continue to examine the matter.  Mexico 
reiterated that it was open to dialogue with a view to finding a solution to this problem without the 
need to establish a panel. 
80. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter. 
6. Turkey – Measures affecting the importation of rice 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States (WT/DS334/4) 
81. The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from the United States contained in 
document WT/DS334/4, and invited the representative of the United States to speak. 
82. The representative of the United States  said that it was with regret that his delegation had had 
to ask the DSB to establish a panel at the present mee ting in this dispute.  As outlined in its panel 
request, Turkey maintained a number of restrictions on the importation of rice.  For example, Turkey operated tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) for rice imports that included a domestic purchase requirement.  That was, Turkey required importers first to purchase  specified quantities of domestic rice in order to 
be permitted to import specified quantities of ri ce under the TRQs.  Moreover, under its import 
regime for rice, Turkey required an import license to import rice.  However, Turkey did not grant 
import licenses without domestic purchase.  As a r esult of these measures, US exports of rice to 
Turkey had plummeted, from nearly 300,000 metric  tons in 2000 to 58,000 metric tons in 2004.  
Indeed, according to Turkey's own State Institute of  Statistics, total rice imports from all sources into 
Turkey in 2004 had fallen 60 per cent from 2003.  Turkey 's measures appeared to be inconsistent with 
several provisions of the WTO Agreements, including Articles X and XI:1 of the GATT 1994, 
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, Article 2.1 and paragraph 1(a) of  Annex 1 of the TRIMs 
Agreement, and several provisions of the Import Licensing Agreement.  The United States had discussed these issues with Turkey during dispute se ttlement consultations as well as bilaterally over 
the course of the past three years.  Regrettably, consultations had not resolved this dispute.  The 
United States, therefore, requested that the DSB establish a panel at the present meeting. 
83. The representative of Turkey
 said that regarding the US panel request on Turkey's import 
regime on rice, the parties to the dispute had held one round of consultation in December 2005 and another meeting in February 2006.  Turkey had attempted to answer the US questions and had 
provided the relevant data in those meetings. Turkey  believed that the consultations had not yet been 
concluded.  At this stage, Turkey objected to the establishment of a panel and wished to continue with 
the consultations in the course of which it sincer ely believed that a mutually satisfactory solution 
could be found. 
84. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter. 
7. Selection process for appointment of an Appellate Body member 
85. The Chairman  said that the untimely passing of the Appellate Body member,  
Mr. John Lockhart, on 13 January 2006 had left the A ppellate Body with one v acancy that needed to 
be filled at the earliest opportunity.  As had been  announced at the 20 January 2006 DSB meeting, he WT/DSB/M/205 
Page 20  
 
wished to propose at the present meeting that the DSB agree to launch the process for selecting an  
Appellate Body member to replace the late Mr. John Lockhart for the remainder of his term, until 11 
December 2009, in accordance with Article 17.2 of the DSU.  He also wished to propose that the DSB 
agree to establish a Selection Committee consisting of the Director General and the 2006 Chairpersons of the General Council, the Goods Council, the Services Council, the TRIPS Council 
and the DSB, in accordance with the procedures set out in document WT/DSB/1.  In that context, he 
wished to propose that nominations of candidates, t ogether with their curricula vitae, be submitted by 
WTO Members no later than 5 p.m. on 31 March 2006.  As it had been done in the past, nominations 
together with curricula vitae of candidates, which should be addressed to the Chairman of the DSB in 
care of the Council and TNC Division, would be circulated as Job Documents to all WTO Members.  
The Selection Committee would begin its work shortl y after the deadline of 31 March 2006 in order to 
be able to present its recommendation to the DSB at the earliest possible opportunity thereafter.  As in 
the past, the Selection Committee would interview ca ndidates and would make itself available to hear 
the views of interested WTO Members.  The objec tive, in any event, would be to allow the new 
Appellate Body member to begin his or her term by the early part of the summer, at the latest.  He 
hoped that this was agreeable to all delegations. 
86. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the late John Lockhart was a 
lawyer of the highest standing.  This was also why in selecting his successor the quality of candidates 
was of the utmost importance. 
87. The Chairman  thanked the EC for the statement, wh ich he believed all delegations could 
support.  He said that since there was no objection to proceed along the lines that he had just outlined, 
he would proposed that the DSB agree to his prop osal regarding the selection process for appointment 
of an Appellate Body member that had just been outlined. 
88. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to the Chairman's proposal regarding the 
selection process for appointment of an Appellate Body member. 
8. Proposed nomination for the indicative list of governmental and non-governmental 
panelists 
89. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DSB/W /310, 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.  Unless there was any objection, he proposed that the DSB 
approve the name contained in document WT/DSB/W/310. 
90. The DSB so agreed . 
9. United States – Subsidies on upland cotton  
(a) Statement by the United States  
91. The representative of the United States , speaking under "Other Business", said that the 
United States was very pleased to report that, on 2 February 2006, the US Congress had completed steps to repeal the Step 2 program that was a subj ect of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in the 
Cotton dispute.  The President had signed the legislation on 8 February 2006. 
92. The representative of Brazil
 thanked the US delegation for the information regarding this very 
important case.  Brazil would have preferred that the repeal of the Step 2 as well the repeal of all the 
other measures found to be WTO-inconsistent had occurred within the dead lines prescribed by the 
DSB.  Even though that had not been possible, Braz il considered that the repeal by the United States 
of the Step 2 programme was a very important step  towards compliance in th is case.  He noted that 
the repeal approved by the US Congress was due to  take place starting from 1 August 2006, while in  WT/DSB/M/205 
 Page 21 
 
 
  the US administration's proposal the repeal woul d take effect immediately upon approval of the 
legislation.  Brazil was carefully examining the measures and the actions taken by the United States in the context of the implementation of this case.  Once Brazil had a firm view on this matter it would 
inform the DSB of any actions that it would take in respect of this case. 
93. The DSB took note
 of the statements. 
10. Election of Chairperson 
94. The Chairman  recalled that, at its meeting on 8 Febr uary 2006, the General Council had taken 
note of the consensus on a slate of  names for Chairpersons to a number of WTO bodies, including the 
DSB.  On the basis of the understanding reached by the General Council, he proposed that the DSB 
elect by acclamation Ambassador Muhamad Noor Ya cob (Malaysia) as Chairperson of the DSB. 
95. The DSB so agreed . 
96. The outgoing Chairman   recalled that on 17 February 2005, he had been elected as the Chair 
of the DSB.  Since then he had had the pleasure to  chair quite a few DSB meetings.  At every meeting 
there had been a cordial, but serious atmosphere  once the meeting had commenced, as was required of 
a DSB meeting.  This was not only because Members were dealing with very important matters in 
economic terms, but also because the DSB was the cen tral pillar of the multilateral trading system or 
the jewel in the crown.  He said that it had been a great pleasure to have had the opportunity to chair 
the DSB,  which had made him to fully recognize the uniqueness of the DSB.  He expressed his sincere gratitude to all Members for their frie ndly cooperation through his tenure as Chair, and had 
asked them to extend the same spirit of cooperatio n to his successor.  He said that his work as chair 
would not have been possible without Members' support and the very able assistance of the 
Secretariat who deserved thanks.  He also thanked in terpreters for their tireless and fantastic work to 
the benefit of all.  When considering their tasks,  he reminded himself of the moral in the ancient 
Greek tale of the turtle and the ra bbit and wondered if others had been reminded too:  "It is not always 
the speed with which you talk or r ead that is the most decisive fact or in getting the message across."  
Finally, before giving the gavel to his close friend and esteemed colleague, Ambassador Muhamad 
Noor Yacob, he wished to congratulate him on his election as Chair of the DSB, and wished him the 
best of luck with this very important assignment. 
97. The incoming Chairman
 thanked the outgoing Chairman fo r his very kind words. He also 
thanked Members for having elected him to this position.  He said that this was an honour for 
Malaysia and in particular for the Malaysian Missi on.  He looked forward to the same co-operation, 
which had been extended to the outgoing Chairm an by all Members, the Secretariat and the 
interpreters. 
98. The DSB took note  of the statements.  
__________