RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/247 
4 April 2008 
 (08-1524) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
19 February 2008  
 
 
     
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 19 February 2008  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Bruce Gosper (Australia) 
 
 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 – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........5  
(d) European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products:  Status report by the European Communities..............................................................6  
2. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  Implementation of the recommenda tions adopted by the DSB ............................................8
 
(a) Statements by the European Communities and Japan ................................................................8  
3. United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews ........................................9  
(a) Statement by Japan ............................................................................................................. ........9  
4. Election of Chairperson........................................................................................................ ..11 
 
 WT/DSB/M/247 
Page 2  
 
  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.63) 
 (b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.63) 
 (c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.38) 
 
(d) European Communities – Measures affecting th e approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status report by the European Communities (WT/DS291/37/Add.1–WT/DS292/31/Add.1–WT/DS293/31/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 four 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.63) 
2. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS176/ 11/Add.63, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning 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 7 February 2008, in accordance with Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in that status 
report, a number of legislative proposals that would implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings in this dispute had been introduced in th e current US Congress, in both the US Senate and the 
US House of Representatives.  The US administra tion continued to work with the US Congress to 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
4. The representative of the European Communities  said that Section 211 had been ruled to be 
WTO-incompatible more than six years ago, but th e EC was still waiting for implementation.  The EC 
hoped that the bipartisan bills introduced in the US Congress to repeal Section 211 would finally 
progress and bring the United States into compliance with its TRIPS obligations. 
5. The representative of Cuba  noted that under Item 1 of the Agenda of the present meeting:  
"Surveillance of Implementation of the Recommenda tions and Rulings Adopted by the DSB", three 
sub-items concerned the United States.  Cuba wondered whether, apart from disregarding its 
commitments in the area of international trade, th e United States wanted to dismantle the dispute 
settlement mechanism and to impose its power.  Sec tion 211 had already been in place for the past 
10 years.  Eight years ago, on 30 June 2000, the EC  had requested the DSB to establish a panel to 
examine Section 211.  It had now been six year s since the DSB had adopted the Appellate Body 
report and had requested the United States to bring its WTO-inconsistent measure into conformity 
with the US obligations under th e TRIPS Agreement.  No changes had taken place since then.  There 
was nothing to celebrate.  In the DSB meetings the United States kept repeating the same statement, 
while no changes had been made towards legislativ e proposals on Section 211.  The  United States 
had not even mentioned that the current US admi nistration had done nothing in the US Congress to 
support unsuccessful attempts to repeal Section 21 1, which violated WTO rules and principles.   WT/DSB/M/247 
 Page 3 
 
 
  6. On several occasions, Cuba had reiterated – and it would never get tired of doing this – that 
Section 211 had extended the illegal and extraterr itorial trade, economic and financial blockade, 
which had been imposed on Cuba, into the area of intellectual property rights.  Furthermore, the 
United States had failed to comply with its interna tional obligations.  The establishment of  the WTO 
dispute settlement system marked the importance attached by Members to compliance with their 
WTO obligations.  A failure on the part of big tradin g partners, such as the United States, to comply 
with the WTO obligations affected the balance betw een the rights and obligations of Members.  It  
also affected Members' confiden ce in the WTO and the dispute settlement system. This, in turn, 
contradicted the view that the DSB was the "jewel  in the crown" and one of the major achievements 
of the Uruguay Round negotiations.   
7. Cuba noted that the issues related to intellect ual property rights had been considered by the 
G-8 Summit held in Germany in 2007.  The G- 8 leaders had recognized the need for increased 
cooperation in an effort to combat counterfeiting an d piracy of intellectual property rights, and had 
requested the OECD to make recommendations so as to ensure that intellectual property rights were 
respected.  Therefore, it was difficult to understand th at one of the key participants in the Summit, 
which presumably attached great importance to this issue, had failed to comply with its obligations 
under the TRIPS Agreement and other legal instruments in the area of intellectual property rights, and 
that this non-compliance was tolerated.  It was clear that the objective was to prevent developing 
countries from taking actions that could pose threat s to intellectual property rights in developed 
countries, while the industrialized countries tole rated and kept in place regulations promoting 
counterfeiting of third-party trademarks.  It was evid ent that the attempt was to impose the law of the 
strongest, double standards and demagogy.  Counte rfeiting actions not only affected intellectual 
property rights owners and their economic and moral interests, but were also damaging to economies 
and social structures.  It was, therefore, not surp rising that the United States was one of the Members 
most concerned about this.  Cuba considered that this extreme situation should be resolved without 
further delay and requested the United States to imme diately repeal Section 211.  As Cuba had stated 
previously, this issue was not only about a blocka de imposed on a small country, it was also about 
violating WTO rules.  At present, Cuba was one of the most affected countries in this dispute, but other Members could also be affected in future since the United States disregarded its obligations.  
The United States was prepared to meet its oblig ations only if it was convenient to do so.  
8. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
 said that, like Cuba, her country 
wished to underline the importance of prompt  and satisfactory implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations to the proper functioning of the di spute settlement mechanism.  It was not enough 
to announce intentions to comply.  The measures mu st be taken to compensat e affected Members.  
WTO-commitments should be taken seriously, and the DSB's recomme ndations and rulings should be 
fully implemented.  It was for this reason that he r country called on the parties to take the necessary 
measures to settle this dispute.  
9. The representative of India  said that her country thanked the United States for the status 
report and the statement made at the present meeting.  India appreciated the steps taken thus far to repeal Section 211 as steps in the right direction.  However, India noted that there was no substantive 
change and felt compelled, yet again, to stress that the principle of prompt compliance continued to be 
missing in this dispute.  India, therefore, wished to  reiterate its systemic con cerns about this situation 
of non-compliance as it clearly undermined the cred ibility and confidence that Members had reposed 
in the system. 
10. The representative of Brazil
 said that his country called the attention of all Members to the 
US non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations  in this dispute. There was increased 
apprehension in Brazil regarding the authority and integrity of the WTO dispute settlement system as 
no implementation action had been taken and there w as no sign of compliance in this dispute.  In WT/DSB/M/247 
Page 4  
 
  order to ensure and enhance the effectiveness of the system, Brazil urged the United States to take 
immediate action to ensure the implementation of the DSB's recommendations.  
11. The representative of China
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting.  Chin a, once again, wished to reiterate its systemic 
concerns with the protracted implementation process in this dispute.  The prompt and full 
implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommenda tions was one of the major cornerstones of the 
WTO dispute settlement system.  China hoped that the present US Congress would realize that it was not only in the interest of other Members, but also in  the interest of the United States, to put an end to 
this situation, which undermined the authority of  the TRIPS Agreement and the creditability of the 
WTO dispute settlement system.  Therefore, China ur ged the United States to make an extra effort to 
bring itself promptly into conformity with the decision of the DSB. 
12. The representative of Thailand
 said that his country wished to thank the United States for its 
status report and the statement made at the present meeting.  Like previous speakers, Thailand wished 
to express its concern over the systemic implications of this dispute.  Non-implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommendations undermined th e rules-based multilateral trading system.  
Thailand, therefore, called on the United States to ta ke the necessary and urgent steps to comply with 
its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. 
13. The representative of Bolivia
 said that her country wished, once again, to express its concern 
about the situation of non-compliance in this disput e and the lack of respect for WTO rules.  Once 
again, there was no progress towards the removal of  the measure in question. This had a negative 
impact on the credibility of the world trading sy stem and the dispute settlement mechanism, and 
undermined a proper balance between the right s and obligations of Members under the WTO 
Agreement.  Therefore, once again, Bolivia urged the United States to comply with the DSB's rulings 
and to make further efforts to repeal Section 211. 
14. The representative of Mexico  said that in accordance with Article 21.3 of the DSU: "Prompt 
compliance with recommendations or rulings of the DSB is essential in order to ensure effective 
resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Member s".  Mexico, therefore, urged the parties to the 
dispute to take the necessary steps to comply with  the recommendations and rulings of the DSB to the 
benefit of all Members. 
15. The representative of the United States  said that his delegation wished to respond briefly to 
two points that had been raised.  First, in respon se to the statements regarding concerns about non-
compliance, the facts really did not support those concerns.  The facts were that the US compliance 
record was not poor.  To the contrary, the record sh owed that the United States had fully complied in 
a vast majority of its disputes, and as for the re maining few, the United States was actively working 
towards compliance.  With respect to statements concerning undermin ing of the TRIPS Agreement, as 
the United States had stated on previous occasions, the United States regretted very much that some 
Members, including some whose record of protectin g intellectual property rights appeared to be less 
than robust, continued to critici ze the US commitment to intellectua l property rights.  These criticisms 
were completely unfounded.  It was, of course, tr ue that the United States remained a strong advocate 
of substantial protections for intellectual propert y internationally.  However, the United States was 
also second to no one in providing strong intellectua l property protection within its own territory.  The 
United States, therefore, looked forward to continue  to work with all Members, including all those 
Members who had spoken at the present meeting, to secure the protection of intellectual property 
rights around the world. 
16. The representative of Cuba  said that his delegation wished to make some brief comments.  It 
was difficult to see that there had been compliance in this dispute since the status report submitted this 
month was exactly the same as the one submitted in previous years, and the matter continued to be  WT/DSB/M/247 
 Page 5 
 
 
  discussed in the DSB.  He noted that under Item 1 of the Agenda of the present meeting, there were 
four matters regarding the DSB surveillance of th e implementation of recommendations.  Three out of 
those matters concerned the United States.  According to the DSU provisions:  "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the recommendations and rulings ....... shall remain on the DSB's agenda, until the issue is resolved".  In this regard, Cuba reiterated that it had not seen 
any action regarding the Section 211 dispute in the US Congress for years.  There had been a number 
of legislative bills to correct the situation, but some of them were contrary to the decision of the DSB.  
Cuba did not see any sign of political will to address this matter nor any solution in sight. 
17. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.63) 
18. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/ 15/Add.63, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan. 
19. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 7 February 2008, 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 would work with the US Congress with respect to the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB that had not already been addressed by the US authorities by 23 November 2002. 
20. The representative of Japan
 said that his country thanked the United States for its statement 
and its latest status report.  Japan acknowledged that, in November 2002, the United States had taken 
certain measures to implement part of the DSB's recommendations, as had been reported by the United States.  The fact remained, however, that the remaining part of the recommendations had not 
yet been implemented, and the issue of implemen tation in this case was still on the DSB's agenda.  
Japan strongly hoped that the United States would soon be in a position to report to the DSB on more tangible progress in this long-standing dispute.  A full and prompt implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings was essential for ma intaining the credibility of the WTO dispute 
settlement system.  Japan urged the United States  to come into full compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations without further delay. 
21. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.38) 
22. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/ 24/Add.38, 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. 
23. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 7 February 2008, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The US administration 
would work closely with the US Congress and would c ontinue to confer with the EC, in order to reach 
a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter.  In  this regard, the United States appreciated the EC's 
recent statements that it remained pr epared to work with the United St ates to seek a resolution to this WT/DSB/M/247 
Page 6  
 
  dispute.  The United States shared the EC's goa l of discussing how such a mutually satisfactory 
solution could be achieved. 
24. The representative of the European Communities
 said that this item had been on the agenda 
for too long, and the situation was well-known to the DSB, so she would not repeat the same 
statement that the EC had made many, many times re garding this matter.  The EC was still waiting for 
a solution in this long-standing dispute.  
25. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(d) European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status report by the European Communities (WT/DS291/37/Add.1–WT/DS292/31/Add.1–
WT/DS293/31/Add.1) 
26. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.1–WT/DS292/31/Add.1–
WT/DS293/31/Add.1, which contained the status report by the European Communities on progress in 
the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in  the case concerning the EC's measures affecting 
the approval and marketing of biotech products. 
27. The representative of th e European Communities  said that this case was an example of good 
faith cooperation between the complainants and the defendant in relation to compliance with a WTO 
panel report.  The EC had been holding regular technical discussions with the three complainants, 
which had addressed all relevant biotech-related i ssues of their concern.  In recognition of the 
usefulness of this dialogue and progress made in the processing of pending applications, the three 
complainants had agreed to further extend th e initial 12-month reasonable period of time for 
implementation (RPT) until 11 January 2008.  Two of  the complainants (Argentina and Canada) had 
agreed to a second extension of the RPT of five and one months respectively.  Canada had even 
agreed to a third extension of 20 weeks (i.e. un til 30 June 2008), which clearly showed recognition of 
progress being made. 
28. The EC noted that the United States, while ta bling its retaliation re quest, had concluded a 
sequencing agreement with the EC that would susp end proceedings conducive to  the determination of 
any retaliation until compliance procedures under Artic le 21.5 of the DSU were concluded.  Numbers 
may be illustrative in assessing progress.  Seventee n applications had b een approved since the 
establishment of a WTO panel in August 2003.  On ly in 2007, seven new GM products had been 
authorized and four other products would likely be  approved in early 2008.  The EC believed that 
given the inevitably sensitive nature of biotech i ssues, dialogue was the appropriate way forward and 
remained open to continue discussions with the three complainants. 
29. The representative of the United States  said that his country thanked the EC for its written 
status report and for its statement made at the pr esent meeting.  The reasonable period of time for the 
EC's compliance in this dispute had expired on 11 January 2008.  The issues covered in the dispute 
remained unresolved, even though more than four an d a half years had passed since the United States 
had filed its consultation request in May 2003.  As the EC representative had noted, on 14 January, 
the United States and the EC had agreed to certa in procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU 
for the purposes of this dispute.1  These agreed procedures were intended to allow continued 
discussions aimed at the goal of resolving this dis pute and related issues.  On 17 January 2008, the 
United States had requested authorization under Ar ticle 22.2 of the DSU to suspend concessions and 
other obligations with respect to the EC under th e covered agreements.  Pursuant to the agreed 
procedures, the authorization request had been referred to arbitration. 
                                                      
1 WT/DS291/38.  WT/DSB/M/247 
 Page 7 
 
 
  30. On 13 February 2008, the Secretariat had pr ovided notice that the Arbitrator had been 
constituted and that the arbitration would be carried out by the three original panelists.2  T h e  
United States thanked the panelists for their willingness to serve in this proceeding.  Pursuant to the 
agreed procedures, on 15 February 2008, the EC a nd the United States had jointly requested that the 
arbitrator suspend the arbitration.  On 18 February , the arbitrator had issued a decision suspending the 
arbitration proceedings.  The arbitration would resu me, at the request of the United States, if and 
when the DSB found that a measure taken to comp ly with the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB in this dispute did not exist or was inconsistent with a covered agreement.  
31. At the present meeting, the EC had cited pr ogress in making approvals, and indeed some 
approvals had occurred.  The United States would not e, however, that the DSB had found that the EC 
had adopted a general moratorium starting in 1999 – nearly nine years ago – and lasting at least 
through mid-2003.  A handful of approvals over a nine-year period was, unfortunately, of little 
commercial significance.  Rather, the essential facts were that over 40 biotech applications were 
currently pending in the EC approval system – in cluding many applications currently approved and 
marketed in major world markets.  At least one pe nding application had been filed over 10 years ago.  
The United States was likewise concerned that some of the member State product bans found by the 
DSB to be in breach of the EC's SPS obligations  remained unchanged.  Moreover, additional EC 
member States had adopted new bans on the very same biotech products covered by the member State 
measures found to be in breach of SPS obliga tions.  Most recently, on 7 February 2008, the 
Government of France had announced that it would be extending a ban on the only biotech variety 
currently grown commercially in the EC.  Such ac tions were not conducive to a resolution of this 
dispute.  The United States looked forward to continuing its dialogue with the EC.  The United States 
continued to hope that the EC would take the step s necessary to resolve this dispute so that there 
would be no need for the United States to resort to  the withdrawal of concessions or other obligations. 
32. The representative of Argentina  said that his country welcomed the status report provided by 
the EC.  As it had been pointed out by the EC, th e efforts made thus far had enabled the parties to 
make progress in some aspects of the matter concer ning this dispute.  Argentina was confident that 
those efforts, aimed at reaching a definitive  solution to this matter, would continue.  
33. The representative of Canada  said that her country thanked the EC for its status report.  With 
respect to the DS292 dispute, Canada agreed with th e EC that progress had been made on this file.  It 
was due to this progress that Canada had decided that it was worthwhile to extend the reasonable 
period of time until the end of June 2008.  Canada hoped, and fully expected, that this extra time 
would be used well by the EC to complete all steps necessary to achieve a mutually satisfactory 
resolution of this dispute. 
34. The representative of the European Communities  said that the EC was working on the two 
applications referred to.  The GMO regulator y regime was working normally, as could be 
demonstrated by the seven authorizations grante d in 2007 (17 since the establishment of the WTO 
panel in August 2003).  Four more applications were in the final stage of the authorization procedure.  
The EC had acted upon all the various national m easures covered by the ruling of the WTO Panel 
Report.  All those measures had become obsolete, with the only exception being the Austrian measures on GM maize MON810 and T-25.  Concerni ng the Austrian measures, the Commission had 
tabled revised proposals to the Environment C ouncil held on 30 October 2007, requesting Austria to 
lift the ban on import and processing of these GM events.  The Commission had also requested 
Austria to provide scientific information supportin g the ban on cultivation of these GMO events.  The 
Commission was currently examining the informatio n provided by Austria.  Member States could 
adopt safeguard measures provided that they co mplied with the conditions established by the EC 
legislation, notably scientific information suppor ting the need for such me asures.  The Commission 
                                                     
 
2 WT/DS291/41. WT/DSB/M/247 
Page 8  
 
  was determined to act upon any measure of member Stat es that was in violation of that legislation.  As 
expected, on 7 February 2008, the French Ministry  of Agriculture had adopted a Decree suspending 
the cultivation of GM maize MON 810 until a decisi on on the renewal of the EC authorization of 
cultivation of MON810 was adopted.  This measu re had been notified to the Commission on 8 
February as a safeguard measure under the relevant  legislation.  The Commission would now act upon 
this measure according to this legislation.  It sh ould be noted that, following discussions between the 
applicant (Monsanto) and the German authorities, on 5 December 2007, Germany had lifted the ban 
imposed on the cultivation of MON810 in April 2007 (due to come into force in 2008).  
35. The DSB took not
e of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
2. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsid y Offset Act of 2000:  Implementation of 
the recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) Statements by the European Communities and Japan 
36. The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the EC and Japan.  He invited th e respective representatives to speak. 
37. The representative of the European Communities  said that the CDSOA had been condemned 
more than five years ago.  Though nominally repeal ed, this legislation continued to produce its trade-
distorting effects to the detriment of all WTO Members as collected anti-dumping and countervailing duties would still be distributed for a number of years.  Slightly more than US$262 million had just been distributed to US companies, which put the total amount disbursed thus far under the CDSOA close to US$2 billion.  The EC wished to ask agai n the United States if and what steps it intended to 
take to stop the transfer of anti-dumping and countervailing duties to its industry. The EC also 
renewed its call on the United States to abide by its  clear obligation under Article 21.6 of the DSU 
and to submit implementation reports in this dispute. 
38. The representative of Japan
 said that the latest distributions under the CDSOA, which had 
been announced in December 20073, amounted to some US$262 million.  This recent US action 
demonstrated that the CDSOA was still operational.  The CDSOA continued to have negative trade 
impacts on Japan and other WTO Members.  Japan, once again, urged the United States to immediately terminate the illegal distributions and to repeal the CDSOA not just in form but in substance.  According to Article 21.6 of the DS U, the United States was under obligation to provide 
the DSB with a status report in this dispute "until the issue is resolved".  Japan reserved all its rights 
under the DSU until the United States came into fu ll compliance with the DSB's recommendations. 
39. The representative of China
 said that his country thanked the EC and Japan for, once again, 
raising this item at the DSB meeting.  China s upported the views expressed by previous speakers and 
joined them in urging the United States to fully comply with the DSB's recommendations. 
40. The representative of Canada  said that her country was pleased that duty deposits collected by 
the United States after 30 September 2007 would no lo nger be subject to the Byrd Amendment.  
While this was a significant step forward, duty deposits collected by the United States before 
1 October 2007, would, nevertheless, continue  to be disbursed under the CDSOA.  Until the 
United States ceased to administer the CDSOA, Cana da shared the view that surveillance by the DSB 
must continue. 
                                                      
3 "FY2007 Annual Disbursements Report" issued by the US Customs and Border Protection 
5 December 2007.  WT/DSB/M/247 
 Page 9 
 
 
  41. The representative of Brazil  said that his country appreciated that this matter continued to be 
placed on the DSB's agenda and insisted that the United States take necessary actions to discontinue 
all disbursements made to its domestic industry unde r the Byrd Amendment.  More than five years 
had elapsed since the adoption by the DSB of the Panel and the Appellate Body Reports in this 
dispute, but the United States had not yet fully co mplied with the recommendations and rulings.  As a 
consequence of the enactment of the "Deficit Re duction Omnibus Reconciliati on Act of 2005", duties 
on entries of goods made and filed before 1 October 2007, which woul d fall within the scope of the 
CDSOA, were still being distributed.  Such a measure was detrimental to the rights of the WTO Members, and was in contradiction with the US oblig ations under the DSU.  Therefore, it was Brazil's 
understanding that the United States should fully im plement the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB by ceasing all disbursements carried out under the Byrd Amendment.  Furthermore, Member's 
rights arising in relation to this dispute shall be preserved. 
42. The representative of India
 said that her country thanked the EC and Japan for bringing this 
matter, once again, before the DSB.  India noted with appreciation the corrective steps taken by the 
United States, and was pleased that duty depo sits collected by the United States after 
30 September 2007 would no longer be subjected to  the Byrd Amendment.  While this was a 
significant step forward, duties collected before 1 October 2007 would, neverthe less, continue to be 
subject to the Byrd Amendment.  This had trade-di storting effects on foreign producers and exporters.  
India, therefore, urged the United States to cease its WTO inconsistent di sbursements, and supported 
the view that continued surveillance by the DSB was needed. 
43. The representative of Thailand  said that his country wished to join previous speakers in 
thanking the EC and Japan for bringing this item before the DSB.  Thailand appreciated the positive 
steps taken by the United States to not disburse to its industries AD/CVD duties collected on goods 
entering the United States from 1 October 2007.  However, AD/CVD duties collected on goods that 
had entered the United States prior to 1 October 2007 continued to be disbursed to the domestic 
industry under the Byrd Amendment.  Thailand, th erefore, urged the United States to cease its WTO-
inconsistent disbursements, to repeal the Byrd Amendment with immediate practical effect, and to 
resume providing status reports until such actions we re taken and this matter had been fully resolved. 
44. 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.  Th e United States welcomed the EC's and Japan's 
recognition that the 2006 Deficit Reduction Act did not  permit the distribution of duties collected on 
goods entered after 1 October 2007.  With respect to comments made at the present meeting regarding 
further DSB surveillance in this matter, as the Un ited States had already explained at previous DSB 
meetings and at the present meeting, the United Stat es had taken all steps necessary to implement the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disputes.  In this light, the United States failed to see 
what purpose would be served by further submissi on of status reports repeating the progress the 
United States had made in the implementati on of the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
45. The DSB took note  of the statements.  
3. United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews  
(a) Statement by Japan 
46. The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Japan, and invited the represen tative of Japan to speak. WT/DSB/M/247 
Page 10  
 
  47. The representative of Japan
 said that his country had proposed that this item be placed on the 
Agenda of the present meeting, in accordance with Artic le 21.6 of the DSU.  In the status reports, the 
United States had reported that it no longer used  the zeroing methodology in average-to-average 
comparisons in original investigations.  At the previous regular DSB meeting, the United States had 
further explained that as a result, it "has thus el iminated the single measure that Japan challenged and 
that the Appellate Body found to be inconsistent with the WTO Agreement 'as such'".  In Japan's 
view, the United States had addressed only on e of multiple "manifestations" of the zeroing 
procedures.  Thus, there appeared to be disagreem ent between Japan and the United States at least as 
to the implementation of the DSB's recommendations  regarding other "manifestations" of the "as 
such" zeroing procedures.  The United States had also stated that the administrative reviews 
challenged "as applied" had been superseded by  subsequent reviews and that, therefore, the 
United States had complied with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  Presumably, the US 
statement referred to the compliance regarding 11 peri odic reviews and, to that extent, there appeared 
to be disagreement between Japan and the United St ates within the meaning of Article 21.5 of the 
DSU regarding those "as applied" measures. 
48. Japan was not sure, however, whether the US st atus reports and the statements previously 
made before the DSB covered the status of US  implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
regarding the two sunset reviews.  He recalled that  Japan had also challenged two sunset reviews, as 
applied in this dispute, and the Appellate Body had found that by relying, in these two sunset reviews, 
on dumping margins calculated through the use of zeroing in previous proceedings, the United States had acted inconsistently with Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Japan asked the 
United States to clarify its position on the status  of implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
regarding these two sunset reviews. 
49. Finally, since there appeared to be broader disagreement between Japan and the United States 
as to the issues of compliance in this dispute, Japan intended to initiate the compliance proceedings 
under Article 21.5 of the DSU.  In this respect, without prejudice to Japan's view on the proper 
interpretation of the relevant provisions of the DSU,  Japan was also ready to request an arbitrator 
established under Article 22.6 of the DSU to suspend its entire work during the compliance proceedings so as to facilitate the orderly resolution of this dispute without unnecessary 
complications.  To this end, Japan sought to conclude ad hoc  procedural arrangements regarding 
"sequencing" with the United States. 
50. The representative of th e European Communities
 said that the EC had a direct interest in this 
dispute as it was also awaiting full implementation of the DSB's ruling in its own Zeroing case against 
the United States (DS294).  In addition, the conti nued application of zeroing by the United States had 
left no choice, but to initiate another dispute whic h was now pending before a panel (DS350).  In the 
present dispute, Members were again confronted with a failure of the United States to comply with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings.  The EC had heard the United States claiming that the illegality 
of zeroing was not yet settled in the WTO.  This was anything but correct.  Since the first case 
brought against the EC in 1998, 12 disputes had been brought against the use of zeroing by the United States whether as the unique subject of the dispute or as part of a wider dispute.  All issues of law had been extensively pleaded and analyzed.  There was no doubt left that zeroing ran foul of 
fundamental obligations of the Anti-Dumping Agreem ent, which were to establish dumping in respect 
of an exporter and a certain product, and to con duct a fair comparison between the export prices and 
normal value.  The fact that the United States sought  a change to the WTO obligations in the future 
was no valid ground for not complying with the obligations as they currently stood.  Going down the route suggested by the United States would be the end of a system based on rules, which were enforced and respected to the equal benefit of a ll Members.  The EC hoped that the United States 
would finally accept this and put an end to  all remaining illegal practices of zeroing.  WT/DSB/M/247 
 Page 11 
 
 
  51. The representative of the United States  said that, first, with respect to the EC's intervention he 
would not comment on the substance of those comme nts as the United States has previously remarked 
on those issues on a number of occasions.  The United States referred delegations to those US 
comments.4  Second, the United States commented on tw o aspects of Japan's intervention.  With 
respect to Japan's comments that it would like to agree to a procedural arrangement regarding the 
sequencing of proceedings under Articles 21.5 and 22.6 of the DSU, the United States appreciated 
Japan's engagement on this issue and looked forward to continuing to work with Japan in this regard.  
With respect to the sunset reviews mentioned by Japan, the United States offered the following 
observations.  With respect to the sunset revi ew regarding corrosion resistant carbon steel flat 
products, the United States had conducted a subseque nt sunset review, and on 14 February 2007 had 
published a determination revoking that anti-dumping duty order, effective 15 December 2005.  With 
respect to the sunset review regarding anti-fri ction bearings, the United States had conducted a 
subsequent sunset review and on 15 September 2006, had publishe d a determination continuing the 
anti-dumping duty order. 
52. The DSB took note  of the statements. 
4. Election of Chairperson 
53. The outgoing Chairman  said that, before he would proceed with this Agenda item, he wished 
to say just a few words.  At the present meeting he  would not wish to propose to reflect more broadly 
on the work of the DSB, but he would just want to say  a few things.  First, he said that he had enjoyed 
the past year as Chairman of the DSB.  Member s had certainly had his admiration for the way in 
which they had gone about their work, the professionalism and the good sense they had shown in the 
way in which they had engaged in this process and had worked with other Members – it was quite 
impressive.  Second, he wanted to thank all Members for the role they had played in dealing with the 
Appellate Body selection process and the issues surr ounding that.  He had certainly appreciated their 
support for the process.  He appreciated the restra int and patience that all Members had shown while 
they had worked through those issues, and the re gard that they had shown for the views of all 
Members as part of that process.  He thought that was a sign that what all often said about the dispute 
settlement system as being the "jewel in the crown" actually had meaning.  And again, he thought that 
was a very good sign.  Finally, he wished to thank all the members of the Secretariat, not only Mr. B. Wilson and Mr. E. Rogerson who were there to preven t any attempt at the improvisation on the part of 
the Chairman, but all the members of the Secretariat and in particular, of course, Ms B. Mueller-Holyst who was a gem of the Secretariat, who was one  of the best examples of the way the Secretariat 
served the system through its assistance to Members.   He knew that she was of great help to all 
Members and she certainly had been to him.  With th ese words, he then proposed to move on with this 
Agenda item.  
54. The outgoing Chairman
 recalled that at its meeting on 6 February 2008, the General Council 
had taken note of the consensus on a slate of na mes for Chairpersons to a number of WTO bodies 
including the DSB.  On the basis of the understa nding reached by the General Council, he proposed 
that the DSB elect by acclamation H.E. Mr Mari o Matus of Chile as Chairperson of this Body. 
55. The DSB so agreed . 
56. The outgoing Chairman  further stated that, unfortunately, Amb. Mario Matus of Chile was 
absent from Geneva and, therefore, could not part icipate at the present meeting.  Nonetheless, he 
wished to take this opportunity to say a few words about Amb. Matus by way of introduction.  
Amb. Matus was well-known to most delegations for the years he had performed services of one sort 
                                                      
4 See WT/DS322/16 (26 February 2007);  WT/DS294/18 (19 June 2006);  WT/DS294/16 
(17 May 2006). WT/DSB/M/247 
Page 12  
 
  or another to the Membership as a whole.  By way of illustration, of course, he had chaired the WTO's 
Working Party on the Accession of Ukraine, which ha d successfully concluded its work just recently.  
He had, over the last year, very ably chaired the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Environment.  And, of course, he was no strange r to the workings of the WTO dispute settlement 
system, having served on both the US–Cotton Subsidi es panel and the subsequent compliance panel.  
In light of this, there was no doubt that Amb. Matu s was an outstanding choice to chair the DSB over 
the coming year, and that he would provide the leader ship necessary for this B ody to conduct its work 
in a smooth and efficient manner.  With these words, he then invited delegations to make statements, 
if they so wished. 
57. The representative of Chile
 said that his country wished to take this opportunity to express its 
gratitude and appreciation to Amb. Gosper for his work as Chairman of the DSB over the past year.  
He said that Amb. Gosper had skilfully guided Memb ers through hard times and had helped them to 
find the right solution.  Chile wished Amb. Gosper  all the best in his new responsibilities as Chairman 
of the General Council.  On behalf of Amb. Matus,  who unfortunately was unable to participate at the 
present meeting, his delegation wished to thank Am b. Gosper for his kind words and his introduction 
and would convey them to Amb. Matus accordingly.   
58. The representative of the United States  said that his country wished to thank Amb. Gosper for 
his service to the DSB.  He said that Amb. Gosper  had been very patient, very inclusive, and had 
successfully worked toward  consensus.  This was especially so in his work on filling the vacancies on 
the Appellate Body.  He had cons istently provided a sense of direction – not imposing direction – but 
providing a sense of direction around which this Body could rally.  The United States was looking 
forward to Amb. Gosper's upcoming Chairmansh ip of the General Counc il.  This gave the 
United States optimism for the current year, and the United States pledged its support to 
Amb. Gosper's Chairmanship of the General Council.   Regarding the incoming Chairman of the DSB, 
he said that he had known Amb. Matus for over 15 y ears.  Amb. Matus was a very thoughtful person, 
who sought to solve problems, rather than to expl ain how problems could not be solved.  He was a 
worthy successor to the outgoing Chairman.  
59. The representative of the European Communities  said that her delegation wished to echo the 
United States and to take the opportunity to express the EC's deep gratitude to the outgoing Chairman 
of the DSB for his able leadership throughout the y ear.  The EC wished Amb. Gosper all the best in 
his new function as Chairman of the General Council and looked forward to working with him.  With 
regard to Amb. Matus, she said that he had been the leading negotiator for the EC–Chile Association 
Agreement.  During those negotiations, the EC ha d been impressed by his sharp legal mind, his 
diplomatic skills and his ability to get things done.   The EC was, therefor e, confident that these 
qualities would make Amb. Matus an excellent Chairman of the DSB.  
60. The representative of Costa Rica , speaking on behalf of GRULAC, said that the countries in 
question wished to echo previous speakers who ha d expressed thanks and appreciation for the work 
done by Amb. Gosper and his leadership as Chairman  of the DSB over the past year.  They wished 
him the best of luck in his new job.  They welc omed the newly-elected Chairman of the DSB, Amb. 
Matus.  They had no doubt that his professional and personal qualities would ensure that the DSB's 
work was properly discharged and the DSB would rema in the jewel in this organization.  Amb. Matus 
could count on them for their support. 
61. The representative of Japan  said that his country wished to join previous speakers in thanking 
Amb. Gosper for his leadership in the past year as Chairman of the DS B, in particular in the selection 
process for Appellate Body members, and wished him all the best in his new capacity as Chairman of 
the General Council.  Japan also welcomed Amb. Ma tus as the new Chairman of this very important 
decision-making Body and looked forward to working with him.  WT/DSB/M/247 
 Page 13 
 
 
  62. The representative of Brazil  said that his country wished to extend a warm welcome to 
Amb. Matus as the new Chairman of the DSB.  Brazil was sure that all would have the opportunity to do this personally.  Brazil wished to extend its si ncerest appreciation to Amb. Gosper for having 
conducted the DSB meetings in the past year.  Am b. Gosper had shown Members leadership, patience 
and wisdom in situations where those qualities had been needed the most.  Brazil was sure that 
Amb. Gosper would be discharging his new functions  as the Chairman of the General Council with 
the same qualities and sense of duty.  In this regard, Brazil wished him every possible success. 
63. The representative of Canada
 said that her country also wished to express its sincere thanks to 
Amb. Gosper for his work as Chairman of the DSB ov er the past 12 months.  Like other delegations, 
in particular, Canada wished to thank Amb. Gosper for his hard work and for the leadership that he 
had shown during the selection process for Appellate  Body members in Autumn 2007.  Canada felt 
that this difficult situation had been handled very ably.  So Canada thanked Amb. Gosper for that.  
Canada wished Amb. Gosper all the best as he moved on to his new responsibilities as Chairman of 
the General Council and looked forwar d to working with Amb. Matus. 
64. The representative of India  said that his country wished to be associated with the statement 
made by Brazil.  In addition, India wished to say  that Amb. Gosper had conducted DSB meetings with 
grace, calmness and patience.  In the difficult circum stances, Amb. Gosper had carried through with 
those qualities.  He had not indulged, in the cricke t term, in any "bodily intimidating fast bowling", 
but had conducted meetings with the "full grace of a glance stroke or a cover drive and fine spin 
bowling".  India looked forward to working closely with Amb. Gosper, as Chairman of the General Council, and extended to him its full support.  With regard to the newly-elected Chairman of the DSB, 
Amb. Matus, he noted that one would have to l earn a bit more about Chile.  He then referred to 
empanadas, salmon, wine and "Pisco Sour".  I ndia was certain that Members would smoothly sail 
under the leadership of Amb. Matus, and, once ag ain, thanked Amb. Gosper  for all the support and 
understanding that he had ex tended to all delegations.  
65. The representative of China
 said that his country thanked Amb. Gosper for his outstanding 
leadership and his good efforts over the past year  in safeguarding the smooth operation of the WTO 
dispute settlement system.  China wished Amb.  Gosper good luck and great success in his new 
capacity as the General Council Chairman.  China w as also pleased with the election of Amb. Matus 
as Chairman of the DSB and looked forward to working with him. 
66. The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that her delegation wished to join previous 
speakers in welcoming Amb. Matus as the new Chairm an of the DSB, and looked forward to working 
with him in the coming year in this important Body.  Hong Kong, China wished to take this 
opportunity to extend its thanks to Amb. Gosper for his excellent work and his contribution in the past 
year.  Amb. Gosper's efforts in upholding the high esteem of this Body were highly appreciated.  Her 
delegation wished to extend best wishes for Amb. Gosp er's success in his new role as Chairman of the 
General Council. 
67. The representative of Mexico  said that it had been a pleasure for his delegation to work with 
Amb. Gosper.  During his leadership, as Chairman of the DSB, he had been  careful and calm, which 
had helped Members in hard times.  There was no doubt that those qualities of Amb. Gosper had 
helped Members to settle difficult situations and woul d be very important in his upcoming tasks in his 
capacity as Chairman of the General Council.  With regard to Amb. Matus, his delegation wished to 
say that he was known as an excellent lawyer and that he knew a great deal about FTA provisions as 
well as the DSU provisions.  Mexico was certain that Amb. Matus would be an excellent Chairman of 
the DSB.  WT/DSB/M/247 
Page 14  
 
  68. The representative of Cuba
 said that her country wished to thank Amb. Gosper for his work, 
which, Cuba believed, had been very serious and pr ofessional.  Cuba wished Amb. Gosper all the best 
in the future, and warmly welcomed Amb. Matus as Chairman of the DSB and wished him good luck.  
69. The representative of Ecuador  said that his country supported the statement made by 
Costa Rica.  Ecuador wished to th ank Amb. Gosper for the work done  in the DSB and wished him all 
the best in his new capacity as Chairman of  th e General Council.  Amb. Gosper would have an 
important responsibility of hammering the gavel at the end of the Doha R ound.  Ecuador also hoped 
that Members would be in a position to settle the ba nana dispute in the course of the year.  He said 
that Amb. Matus was a friend of Ecuador and a br illiant negotiator for his country and the FTAs.  
Ecuador wished him success in his work as Chairman of the DSB.  
70. The representative of Argentina  said that his country, like previous speakers, wished to 
express Argentina's gratitude to Amb. Gosper for his work in the past year.  Argentina wished to echo 
Mexico in emphasizing how calm Amb. Gosper had b een during his leadersh ip as Chairman of the 
DSB, especially in some very difficult situations in the course of the year.  Argentina wished him 
success in his new job as Chairman of the General Council.  Argentina wished to extend its very 
warm welcome to Amb. Matus, and looked forw ard to working very closely with him.  
71. The representative of Korea  said that, like previous speakers, his country wished  to extend its 
appreciation for Amb. Gosper's work over the past year.  Korea wished him the best of luck and 
hoped to work closely with him as Chairman of the General Council.  
72. The Chairman  thanked delegations for the good wishes and for the expressions of support for 
the incoming Chairman of the DSB. 
73. The DSB took not e of the statements. 
__________