WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
WT/DSB/M/308 
29 February 2012 
 (12-1147) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
19 December 2011  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard 
on 19 December 2011 
 
Chairperson:  Mrs. Elin Østebø Johansen (Norway) 
 
 Subjects discussed: Page 
 
1.  Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB ......................... 2  
(a)  United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States ............................................................................................................. ............ 3 
(b)  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan:  Status report by the Unite d States ................................................................................... 5 
(c)  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by 
the United States  ............................................................................................................ ............ 6 
(d)  European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products:  Status report by the European Union ......................................................................... 6  
(e)  United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by 
the United States ............................................................................................................. ............ 7 
(f)  United States – Continued existence and a pplication of zeroing methodology:  Status 
report by the United States ................................................................................................... ....... 8 
(g)  United States – Laws, regulations and methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status report by the United States .......................................................................... 8  
(h)  China – Measures affecting trading righ ts and distribution services for certain 
publications and audiovisual entertainment products:  Status report by China .......................... 9  
(i)  European Communities and Certain member  States – Measures affecting trade in 
large civil aircraft:  Status re port by the European Union .......................................................... 9  
(j)  United States – Anti-dumping administrative reviews and other measures related to 
imports of certain orange juice from Brazil:  Status report by the United States ..................... 12  
2.  United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  
Implementation of the recommenda tions adopted by the DSB .......................................... 13  
(a)  Statements by the European Union and Japan .......................................................................... 13  
3.  European Communities - Export subsidies on sugar .......................................................... 14  
(a)  Statements by Australia, Brazil and Thailand ........................................................................... 14  
4.  United States – Use of zeroing in an ti-dumping measures involving products 
from Korea .................................................................................................................... .......... 16 
(a)  Statement by the United States on implementation of the recommendations adopted 
by the DSB .................................................................................................................... ............ 16  WT/DSB/M/308 
Page 2  
 
  5.  China – Definitive anti-dumping duties on x-ray security inspection equipment 
from the Euro pean Union ...................................................................................................... 16 
(a)  Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Union ............................................ 16  
6.  China – Anti-dumping and countervailing duty measures on broiler products 
from the United States ........................................................................................................ .... 17 
(a)  Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States ................................................. 17  
7.  European Union – Anti-dumping measures on certain footwear from China .................. 18  
(a)  Joint request by China an d the European Union for a decision by the DSB............................. 18  
 
 1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appr opriations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.109) 
 (b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.109) 
 (c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.84) 
 (d) European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of  biotech products:  
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.47) 
 (e) United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS322/36/Add.27) 
 
(f) United States – Continued existence and appli cation of zeroing methodology:  Status report 
by the United States (WT/DS350/18/Add.24) 
 (g) United States – Laws, regulations a nd methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status report by the United States (WT/DS294/38/Add.18) 
 
(h) China – Measures affecting trading rights and distribution services for certain publications 
and audiovisual entertainment products:  Status report by China (WT/DS363/17/Add.11) 
 (i) European Communities and Certain member St ates – Measures affecting trade in large civil 
aircraft:  Status report by the European Union (WT/DS316/17) 
 
(j) United States – Anti-dumping administrative revi ews and other measures related to imports of 
certain orange juice from Brazil:  Status report by the United States (WT/DS382/10) 
  1. The Chairperson recalled that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that unless the DSB decided 
otherwise, the issue of implementation of the re commendations or rulings shall be placed on the 
Agenda of the DSB meeting after six months follo wing the date of establis hment of the reasonable 
period of time and shall remain on the DSB's Agenda  until the issue was resolv ed.  She proposed that 
the ten sub-items under Agenda item 1 be considered separately.   WT/DSB/M/308 
 Page 3 
 
 
  (a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.109) 
2. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS176/11/Add.109, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning US Section 211 Om nibus Appropriations Act of 1998. 
3. The representative of the United States said that  his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 December 2011, in accordance with  Article 21.6 of the DSU.  Legislative proposals 
had been introduced in the current 112th US C ongress that would implement the recommendations 
and rulings of the DSB.  The US Administration w ould continue to work on solutions to implement 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
4. The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked the United States for its 
status report and hoped that the US authorities woul d very soon take steps towards implementing the 
DSB's ruling and resolve this matter. 
5. The representative of Cuba said that, following the conclusion of  the Eighth Ministerial 
Conference, Members now had to meet their WTO ob ligations and, more impor tantly, to strike the 
right balance in the negotiations and future work.  This would reaffirm the effectiveness of the WTO.  
In that regard, one should not un derestimate the role of the dispute settlement system towards 
safeguarding the credibility of the multilateral tradi ng system, which entailed more commitments than 
benefits, more restrictions than opportunities and more discriminati on than equality.  Cuba regretted 
to note that, once again, the US status report confir med the US failure to implement the DSB's rulings 
and recommendations regarding Section 211.  Cuba continued to denounce trade and economic 
effects of Section 211.  Under Section 211, th e Cuban company CUBAEXPORT had been prevented 
from renewing the "Havana Club" rum trademark in the United States so that the Bacardi Company 
could market its rum under that name, even though it was not of Cuban origin.  The US authorities 
encouraged unfair trade practices, which had been found to be inconsistent with the 
TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention.  At this  point, there was no evidence to suggest that the 
United States would meet its legal responsibility to comply with the DSB's decision, which must not 
be circumvented. 
6. As Cuba had already explained, Section 211 w as part of the illegal economic, financial and 
trade embargo policy imposed by the United States ag ainst Cuba, which had been rejected by the vast 
majority of the international community for the p ast 20 years.  The recently formed Community of 
Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), co nsisting of 33 countries that were also WTO 
Members, had just reiterated, in an official statem ent, "firm rejection of the economic blockade that 
Cuba has endured for more than five decades at th e hands of the United States".  They had also asked 
that the United States "put an end to its econom ic, trade and financial em bargo against Cuba, in 
accordance with the su ccessive resolutions adopted by the Un ited Nations General Assembly and in 
response to repeated calls from th e Latin American and Caribbean countries".  The Fourth Summit of 
Heads of State and Government of the member countries of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) 
and Cuba, held in Trinidad and Tobago on 8 Dece mber 2011, had also requested that this unfair 
blockade against Cuba be  lifted immediately.  The arguments fo r demanding the repeal of Section 211 
were overwhelming, as Section 211 had been found to  be inconsistent with the WTO rules almost a 
decade ago.  Cuba urged all Members to adhere to  and respect WTO principles, rules and decisions, 
which were the very essence of the multilateral trad ing system.  Cuba preserved its rights and urged 
Members to respect their obligations.  
7. The representative of Nicaragua said that his c ountry was disappointed that, once again, the 
US status report before the DSB at the present meeting contained the same information as the 
previous reports submitted by the United States for a number of years.  The only change was the date WT/DSB/M/308 
Page 4  
 
  of the circulation of the report.  As had been stated at previous DSB meetings, Nicaragua was 
concerned that this matter had been on the DSB's Agenda for such a long time, with no indication as 
to when a solution would be found.  Nicaragua str ongly supported Cuba's argu ments and believed that 
the US non-compliance with the DSB's recomme ndations undermined the credibility of the 
multilateral trading system and the DSB.  Once ag ain, Nicaragua urged the United States to comply 
with its obligations, to bring its measures into conformity with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings and to seek a mutually satisfactory solutio n to this dispute by taking urgent and necessary 
measures so as to end the violations. 
8. The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia said that his country noted that the US 
status report did not contain any new information and demonstrated the continued lack of political 
will by the United States to resolve this dispute.  Therefore, Bolivia wished to reiterate its concern 
about the US failure to comply with its obligations.  As Bolivia had previously stated, this situation 
undermined the credibility and integrity of the multilate ral trading system and caused serious harm to 
a developing-country Member.  Once again, Bolivia  urged the United States to comply with the 
DSB's rulings and to take steps to remove the rest rictions imposed under Section 211.  Finally, he said 
that Bolivia supported Cuba's concerns.    
9. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela said that, once again, her 
delegation noted that the information contained in the US status report amounted to "action without 
results".  Venezuela regretted that Section 211 re mained in place regardless of the fact that it was 
contrary to the TRIPS Agreement, that it was inco nsistent with the principles of national treatment 
and most favoured-nation treatment, and undermined the dispute settlement system.  For almost ten 
years Venezuela had witnessed the US failure to im plement the DSB's ruling.  As had already been 
done on previous occasions, Venezuela urged the United States to put an end to its economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba a nd to respect its WTO obligations by implementing 
the DSB's recommendations. 
10. The representative of Brazil said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report pertaining to this dispute.  Once again, Brazil noted that the United States reported lack of 
progress.  Brazil remained concerned about the US  non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations 
and urged the United States to bring its measures into conformity with WTO rules. 
11. The representative of China said that her country  thanked the United States for its status 
report and statement made at the present meeting.  China regretted that the United States had, once 
again, reported non-compliance.  This prol onged situation of non-compliance was highly 
incompatible with the prompt and effective im plementation required under the DSU provisions, in 
particular since the interests of a developing-coun try Member were affected.  Thus, China urged the 
United States to implement the DSB's rulings and recommendations without any further delay. 
12. The representative of Angola said that her count ry thanked the United States for its status 
report.  Angola recalled that prompt complianc e with the DSB's recommendations and rulings was 
fundamental to ensuring an effective resolution of di sputes to the benefit of all Members.  The delay 
in the implementation of the DSB's decision and th e Appellate Body's findings of 12 February 2002 
on Section 211 was clearly incompatible with the DSU provisions and affected the security and 
predictability of the multilateral trading system.  A ngola believed that concrete signs and actions by 
the parties in this dispute would send a positive signal of respect for WTO rules. 
13. The representative of Ecuador said that his c ountry supported the statement made by Cuba 
and, once again, wished to stress that Article 21 of the DSU referred specifically to prompt 
compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings, in particular with regard to issues affecting 
the interests of a developing-count ry Member.  Ecuador re gretted the US lack of commitment towards 
prompt compliance with the DSB's recommendations  and rulings by repealing Section 211.  In  WT/DSB/M/308 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Ecuador's view, the non-compliance of the DSB's re commendations and rulings in this long-standing 
dispute demonstrated the main shortcomi ng of the WTO dispute settlement system. 
14. The representative of Mexico said that his count ry thanked the United States for its status 
report and urged the parties to settle this disput e through the legal remedies provided under the DSU 
provisions.  Mexico noted that, if a dispute was not resolved, any Member could initiate its own 
dispute if it considered that its rights were being im paired or nullified.  Mexico also noted that the 
discussion under this Agenda item could provide usef ul input for the on-going discussions carried out 
in the context of the DSU negotiations, in particular w ith regard to the issue of effective compliance.   
15. The representative of Argentina said that his c ountry thanked the United States for its status 
report and, once again, wished to express its concer n about the lack of progress in this dispute.  
Argentina was particularly concerned about the effect of non-compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings on the credibility of th e multilateral trading system.  Argentina, once 
again, urged the parties, in particular the Unite d States, to take all necessary steps to ensure 
implementation and compliance with the DSB's r ecommendations and rulings pertaining to this 
dispute.   
16. The representative of Viet Nam urged the United States to implement fully, and without any 
delay, the DSB's recommendations in this dispute as well as in other disputes. 
17. The representative of Uruguay said that, once again, his country wished to express its 
systemic concern about the length of time that had passed without any compliance in this case.  
Uruguay urged the parties to find a prompt solu tion through the remedies provided under the DSU 
provisions.    
18. 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.109) 
19. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS184/15/Add.109, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan. 
20. The representative of the United States said that  his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 December 2011, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As of November 2002, 
the US authorities had addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of anti-dumping margins in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumping duty inv estigation at issue in 
this dispute.  With respect to the DSB's recomme ndations and rulings that had not already been 
addressed by the US authorities, the US Administ ration would work with the US Congress with 
respect to appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter.  
21. The representative of Japan said that his country  thanked the United States for its statement 
and its most recent status report.  Japan took note  of the US report that the United States had taken 
certain measures to implement part of the DSB' s recommendations in November 2002.  Japan hoped 
that the United States would soon be in a position to report to the DSB on more tangible progress with respect to the implementation of the remaining part  of the DSB's recommendations.  Full and prompt 
implementation of the DSB's recommendations and ru lings was "essential to the effective functioning 
of the WTO and the maintenance of a proper bala nce of the rights and obligations of Members".
1 
                                                      
1 Article 3.3 of the DSU. WT/DSB/M/308 
Page 6  
 
  Japan called on the United States to fully implement the DSB's recommendations in this long-standing 
dispute without further delay. 
22. 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.84) 
23. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS160/24/Add.84, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning Section 110(5)  of the US Copyright Act. 
24. The representative of the United States said that  his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 December 2011, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The US 
Administration would continue to confer with the EU, and to work closely with the US Congress, in order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter.  
25. The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked the United States for its 
status report.  The EU took note of the status re port and remained keen to resolve this dispute.  
26. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(d) European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.47) 
27. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS291/37/Add.47, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning its measures a ffecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products. 
28. The representative of the European Union said th at his delegation hoped that the EU and the 
United States would continue on the constructive path of dialogue.  Th e last technical meeting held on 
27 September 2011 had given the parti es another opportunity to discuss directly issues of concern on 
both sides and to follow up closely on developments in the biotech field.  Since the last DSB meeting, 
four authorization decisions would be up for a doption by the Commission following a vote in the 
Council on 15 December 2011.  In addition, four mo re draft decisions may be adopted soon in 2012, 
following their submission to the appeal Committee in  January 2012, after the vote in the meetings of 
the relevant Committee held on 14 November and 12 December 2011.  Furthermore, since 
September 2011, EFSA had adopted four scientific opini ons for food and feed authorizations and two 
opinions for cultivation. 
29. The representative of the United States said that  his country thanked the EU for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeting.  At this last regular DSB meeting in 2011, the 
United States wished to take a moment to compare th e record of the EU's biotech approval system in 
2011 as compared to the record in 2010.  The United States said that Members may recall that, at the 
November DSB meeting, the EU had stated that  it had made 11 biotech approvals during 2010.  
Unfortunately, the record for 2011 indicated growi ng problems in the operation of the EU's biotech 
approval system.  In 2011, the EU had made fi nal decisions on only two of the dozens of pending 
biotech product applications.  As compared to 2010 , this represented a substantial decline of over 80 
per cent in the number of final decisions.  This decline in final decisions did not result from a reduction in the number of pending applications.  To the contrary, the backlog in the EU's biotech  WT/DSB/M/308 
 Page 7 
 
 
  approval pipeline continued to grow .  At present, over 70 applications were awaiting a decision.  The 
United States said that it would also emphasize that delays in making decisions on biotech product applications had real world implications, resulting in substantial barriers to international trade in 
products derived from modern biotechnology that ha d been scientifically reviewed and found to be 
safe.  The United States urged the EU to address the on-going problems in the operation of its 
approval system for biotech products.   
30. The representative of the European Union said that the EU approval system continued to 
operate normally and that delays we re frequently due to incomplete files or insufficient information 
from applicants.  The Commission would continue  processing authorizations in line with the 
legislation.  Eleven decisions on GMO authorizations had been adopted in 2010 and seven more in 
2011, which demonstrated that the approval procedur e continued to operate at a normal pace.  The 
GMO regulatory regime was not the subject of the or iginal Panel's findings and neither its "operation" 
nor the status of specific applications not dealt with  in the original Panel was covered by this Agenda 
item.  
31. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(e) United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS322/36/Add.27) 
32. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS322/36/Add.27, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning US measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews. 
33. The representative of the United States said that  his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 December 2011, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  In December 2010, the 
Arbitrator in the proceeding under Article 22.6 of th e DSU in this dispute had issued a communication 
stating that it had accepted a joint request by the parties to the dispute to suspend its work.  On 
30 November 2011, in response to a joint request of the United States and Japan, the Arbitrator had 
issued a communication stating that it had decide d to continue further the suspension.  The 
communication of the Arbitrator had been circulat ed to the DSB in document WT/DS322/41.  As the 
United States had explained in its status report,  in December 2010 the US Department of Commerce 
had announced a proposal to change the calcula tion of weighted average dumping margins and 
assessment rates in certain anti-dumping proceedings .  At the present time, the US Department of 
Commerce was continuing with its ongoing work on the proposal.   
34. The representative of Japan said that his country  thanked the United States for its statement 
and its most recent status report.  Japan took note of the report that "the United States is continuing its 
ongoing work on the proposal" that had been announced on 28 December 2010 by the US Department of Commerce.  As stated in previous meetings, Japan took the US implementation effort as a positive 
step forward and urged the United States to comple te its work on the proposal without any further 
delay.  Japan, however, continued to seek prom pt and full compliance by the United States with 
respect to all of the measures at issue that were subj ect to the DSB's recommendations in this dispute.  
As the United States had stated, upon request by the par ties, the Article 22.6 arbitrator in this dispute 
"has decided to continue the suspension of its wo rk" but it would automatically resume the work on 
9 January 2012.
2  Japan called on the United States to full y comply by then.  Japan hoped that its 
continued dialogue with the United States and the US  implementation efforts would lead to a final 
resolution of this dispute that would address a ll aspects of the DSB's recommendations.  Japan 
reserved its rights under the DSU to take appropriate action. 
                                                      
2 WT/DS322/41. WT/DSB/M/308 
Page 8  
 
  35. The representative of China said that her country  thanked the United States for its status 
report and its statement made at the present mee ting.  China welcomed the steps taken by the 
United States towards the implementation of th e DSB's rulings and recommendations on zeroing 
matters.  However, China remained very concerne d as to how the United States would implement the 
DSB's decision on zeroing matters.  China would mo nitor the US implementation steps and urged the 
United States to take actions to fully comply with the DSB's rulings and recommendations without 
further delay. 
36. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(f) United States – Continued existence and appli cation of zeroing methodology:  Status report 
by the United States (WT/DS350/18/Add.24) 
37. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS350/18/Add.24, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning the existence and application of zeroing methodology by the United States. 
38. The representative of the United States said th at his country had addressed the issue of 
compliance with the recommendations in this dispute in the status report provided on 
8 December 2011, and earlier in the present mee ting's discussion of Agenda item 1(e).  The 
United States referred Members to that repor t and statement for further details.    
39. The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked the United States for its 
status report.  Since the United States had not reported on any steps taken to address the concerns 
raised by the EU in the DSB, the EU referred Member s to its statements made at the DSB meetings in 
January and February 2011.  As it had already stat ed several times before, the EU remained ready to 
engage with the United States in discussions in th e WTO and bilaterally in order to ensure that its 
concerns were addressed by the United States.  
40. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(g) United States – Laws, regul ations and methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status report by the United States (WT/DS294/38/Add.18) 
41. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS294/38/Add.18, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning US laws, regulations and me thodology for calculating dumping margins. 
42. The representative of the United States said th at his country had addressed the issue of 
compliance with the findings in this dispute in the status report provided on 8 December 2011, and 
earlier in the discussion of Agenda item 1(e).  The United States referred Members to that report and 
statement for further details.    
43. The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked the United States for its 
status report and referred Members to its stat ement made under Agenda item 1(f) of the present 
meeting. 
44. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  WT/DSB/M/308 
 Page 9 
 
 
  (h) China – Measures affecting trading rights and distribution services for certain publications 
and audiovisual entertainment products:  Status report by China (WT/DS363/17/Add.11) 
45. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS363/17/Add.11, which contained the 
status report by China on progress in the implemen tation of the DSB's recommendations in the case 
concerning China's measures affecting trading rights and distribution services for certain publications 
and audiovisual entertainment products. 
46. The representative of China said that her country had provided a status report in this dispute 
on 8 December 2011, in accordance with Article 21. 6 of the DSU.  China had made tremendous 
efforts to implement the DSB's rulings and re commendations and had, thus far, completed 
amendments to most measures at issue.  China be lieved that this matter would be properly resolved 
through joint efforts and mutual cooperation by relevant parties. 
47. The representative of the United States said that his country thanked China for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting.  As it had previously noted, the United States remained 
concerned by the lack of progress by China in br inging its measures relating to films for theatrical 
release into compliance with the DSB's recommenda tions and rulings.  The United States also had 
significant concerns about the incomplete progress re lative to China's measures relating to audiovisual 
home entertainment products, reading materials,  and sound recordings.  The United States was 
conferring with China on these matters and hoped that China would take steps to resolve this matter 
soon.    
48. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(i) European Communities and Certain member Stat es – Measures affecting trade in large civil 
aircraft:  Status report by the European Union (WT/DS316/17) 
49. The Chairperson drew attention to the communi cation from the European Union contained in 
document WT/DS316/17 concerning the dispute with re gard to the EU's measures affecting trade in 
large civil aircraft. 
50. The representative of the European Union said that, with regard to the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings pertaining to this disp ute, the EU had, on 17 June 2011, informed the 
DSB that it intended to implement the DSB's recomm endations and rulings in a manner that respected 
its WTO obligations.  Pursuant to the final senten ce of Article 21.6 of the DSU, the EU had provided 
a report on 1 December 2011 to address "its progr ess in the implementation of the recommendations 
or rulings" of the DSB.  With that report and its statement at the present meeting, the EU wished to 
inform the DSB that it had taken appropriate steps to bring its measures into full compliance with its 
WTO obligations and with the DSB's recommendations  and rulings.  The EU had provided this report 
on 1 December 2011, rather than 10 days before the regular DSB meeting following the six-month 
deadline established by Article 21.6 of the DSU, to communicate to the DSB full implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings by the deadline of 1 December 2011, established under 
Article 7.9 of the SCM Agreement.  The EU reca lled that the DSB's recommendations and rulings in 
this dispute addressed various forms of adverse eff ects, resulting from various categories of subsidies 
benefiting various models of Airbus Large Civil Airc raft (LCA).  Specifically, the subsidies that had 
been found by the Panel and confirmed by the A ppellate Body were:  (i) Member State Financing 
(MSF) for the development of Airbus LCA;  (ii) certain capital contributions provided by the French 
and German governments;  (iii) elements of a lease for an Airbus facility in Hamburg;  (iv) fees for 
use of the extended portion of a runway at Bremen ai rport;  and, (iv) regiona l aid support in Spain and 
Germany.   WT/DSB/M/308 
Page 10  
 
  51. The Appellate Body had found that those subsidi es covered by its findings were incompatible 
with Article 5(c) of the SCM Agreement because they had caused serious prejudice to US interests.  Specifically, the Appellate Body had found that the e ffect of the subsidies was to displace exports of 
Boeing single-aisle and twin-aisle LCA from the EU, Chinese, and Korean markets, and Boeing 
single-aisle LCA from the Australian market.  Moreover, the Appellate Body had confirmed the 
Panel's determination that the subsidies caused Boeing to lose sales of LCA in the campaigns 
involving the A320 (Air Asia, Air Berlin, Czech Airlines, and easyJet), A340 (Iberia, South African Airways, and Thai Airways International), and A380 (Emirates, Qantas, and Singapore Airlines) 
aircraft.   
52. However, by reversing the Panel, the Appellate  Body had excluded several measures from the 
scope of its serious prejudice findings:  (i) a 1998 capital contribution by the French government;  
(ii) the lease of special purpose facilities at an Airbus facility in Hamburg;  (iii) the sale to Airbus of a 
site in Toulouse;  the lease of special purpose faciliti es at an Airbus facility in Toulouse;  (iv)  all 
research and technology development funding from the French government;  (v)  research and 
technology development funding under the Span ish PROFIT Programme;  (vi) research and 
technology development funding under the German Luftfahrtfor schungsprogramm I, II and III;  
(vii) research and technology development f unding by the Bavarian, Bremen, and Hamburg 
authorities;  (viii)  research and technology de velopment funding under civil and aeronautics 
programmes maintained by the UK government;  a nd, (ix) research and technology development 
funding under the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth an d Sixth EC Framework Progr ammes.  Furthermore, 
the Appellate Body had reversed the Panel's findings  of displacement in Brazil, Mexico, Singapore, 
and Chinese Taipei, and of threat of displacement  in India.  Moreover, the Appellate Body had 
reversed the Panel's findings, under Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement, that member State 
Financing for the development of Airbus LCA was contingent on export performance.  With respect 
to the actionable subsidies found to cause adverse eff ects to US interests, the Appellate Body had let 
stand the Panel's recommendation that the EU "take appropriate steps to remove the adverse effects or 
… withdraw the subsidy".  The Appellate Body had recommended that the DSB request the EU to 
bring its WTO-inconsistent measures into  conformity with its WTO obligations. 
53. In considering appropriate steps to bring its measures into conformity with its WTO 
obligations, the EU had taken note of all elemen ts of the DSB's recommendations and rulings, 
including, in particular, the Appellate Body's gui dance on the way in which subsidies and adverse 
effects expired, dissipated, terminated or were othe rwise removed or withdrawn.  In undertaking this 
review, the EU had consulted, am ong others, independent experts in financial economics;  investor 
behaviour;  financial and cost a uditing, accounting and controlling;  product engineering;  and LCA 
fleet management.  The EU had also closel y monitored and assessed LCA product and market 
developments in the months and years following the period covered by the Pane l's review.  As a result 
of this review, the EU had adopted a course of acti on that addressed all forms of adverse effects, all 
categories of subsidies, and all models of Airbus  aircraft covered by the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings.  Specifically, in bringing its measures into conformity with its WTO obligations, the EU had 
addressed all categories of subsidies covered by th e DSB's recommendations and rulings:  MSF loans, 
capital contributions, infrastructure support and re gional aid.  Amongst others, the EU had secured 
repayment of MSF loans and had terminated MSF agreements, had increased fees and lease payments 
on infrastructure support to accord with market prin ciples, and had ensured that capital contributions 
and regional aid subsidies had, in th e Appellate Body's words, "come to an end" so that they were no 
longer capable of causing adverse effects.  A dditionally, the course of action adopted by the EU 
affected Airbus' A300, A310, A320, A330, A340 a nd A380 aircraft, as well as derivatives thereof, as 
implicated by the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  Finally, as a result of these steps and other 
intervening market events, the EU had addressed th e forms of adverse effects covered by the DSB's 
rulings.    WT/DSB/M/308 
 Page 11 
 
 
  54. In short, by having taken appropriate steps to  bring its measures into conformity with its 
WTO obligations, as required by Article 7.8 of the SCM Agreement and Article 19.1 of the DSU, the 
EU had ensured full implementation of the DSB' s recommendations and rulings.  The EU looked 
forward to working with the United States to en sure a similar result in the companion dispute 
concerning adverse effects caused by US subsidies to  Boeing.  The EU wished to express its serious 
systemic concern that despite its compliance repor t, the United States had already made a request 
under Article 22.2 of the DSU to authorize the susp ension of concessions.  Following that request, the 
United States had also initiated consultations under Ar ticle 21.5 of the DSU.  There was, therefore, 
necessarily not only a determination by the United St ates that the conditions set out in Article 22.2 of 
the DSU were already fulfilled, but also a disagr eement as to the existence or consistency with a 
covered agreement of measures taken to comply.  Th e EU was puzzled and naturally reserved its right 
to address this sequence of events in any future proceedings.  The EU remained ready to secure an 
orderly conduct of any future procedural steps in this case but was, at least for the time being, 
awaiting the response of the United States. 
55. The representative of the United States said th at the EU had made a long statement with a 
number of points that his country would need to address.  First, the United States said that it would 
like to start by thanking the EU for its written notif ication and for its statement made at the present 
meeting.  The United States had carefully reviewed the EU's notification enumerating steps taken in 
relation to the DSB's recommendations.  Regrettably, the US review indicated that these steps did not, 
in fact, bring the EU into compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  The areas of 
deficiency in the EU's assertion of compliance were  too large to present in the statement at the present 
meeting.  Therefore, the United States would mention but a few examples.  First, the largest and most 
recent subsidy at the time of the Panel Report was launch aid for the A380, the largest and most recent aircraft produced by the EU's subsidized large civi l aircraft industry.  Although the EU claimed to 
have terminated launch aid agreements for certa in older models, the EU had not indicated any 
changes to its financing of the A380.  This fact alone called into serious question any EU claim of 
compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings .  Second, with respect to subsequent large 
civil aircraft programs, the Unite d States understood that EU member States had continued to grant 
the same form of financing covered by the DSB' s recommendations and rulings, and nothing in the 
EU's notification indicated otherwise.  In light of its serious questions regarding the EU's compliance, 
and the many areas of deficiency in the EU's  notification, the United States had requested 
consultations with the EU and EU member States,  as the EU representative had already mentioned.  
That request had been circulated to  the DSB in document WT/DS316/19.  
56. As the EU had also mentioned, pursuant to Article 7.9 of the SCM Agreement and 
Article 22.2 of the DSU, the United States had requested the DSB's authorization to take 
commensurate countermeasures.  That request, which had been circulated in document WT/DS316/18 
was on the Agenda of a DSB meeting scheduled fo r 22 December 2011, the present week.  In relation 
to the EU's expression of systemic concern regarding this request, the EU's concern did not appear to 
be consistent with the clear text  of relevant provisions of the DSU or with past practice.  Under 
Article 22.6 of the DSU, the negative consensus rule  applied within 30 days of the end of the period 
for compliance.  By submitting the Article 22.2 re quest, the United States was preserving its negative 
consensus rights.  Taking this step was neither su rprising nor unusual, and similar actions had been 
taken by other Members in other disputes.  In par ticular, the United States said that it would draw 
Members' attention to the EU's own actions in the Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) dispute.  In that 
dispute, the United States had claimed that it had fully complied on 17 November 2000.  On that same 
date, the EU had filed both a request for consulta tions pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU and a 
request for authorization to take countermeasures.  The United States had objected on 27 November 2000, automatically refe rring the matter to arbitration, a nd the EU had left its request on 
the Agenda of the DSB meeting on 28 November 2000.   The parties had subsequently requested that 
the arbitration be suspended.  Thus, the EU as the complaining party in the FSC dispute had made the same request for authorization as the United States had made in this dispute.  Presumably, the EU had WT/DSB/M/308 
Page 12  
 
  done so to preserve its rights under the DSU in a dispute that was important to it.  There was, of 
course, one difference between thes e two disputes.  In FSC, the EU had requested authorization to 
take approximately US$4 billion in countermeasures wh ereas, in this dispute, the United States had 
requested authorization to take countermeasu res that it estimated could range between 
US$7-10 billion.  Thus, this dispute was up to 250 per cent the size of the FSC dispute.  As the EU 
had noted in its statement, it had proposed a sequencing agreement to the United States.  The 
United States was considering this proposal and wo uld respond shortly.  In conclusion, as it had long 
said, the United States remained prepared to engage  in any meaningful efforts, including through the 
formal consultations it had requested, that would lead  to the goal of ending subsidized financing of 
large civil aircraft at the earliest possible date.   
57. The representative of the European Union said th at it was clear that there was a disagreement 
and the EU looked forward to addressing that di sagreement under the appr opriate procedures under 
Article 21.5 of the DSU. 
58. The DSB took note of the statements. 
(j) United States – Anti-dumping administrative review s and other measures related to imports of 
certain orange juice from Brazil:  Status report by the United States (WT/DS382/10) 
59. The Chairperson drew attention to document WT/DS382/10, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US anti-dumping administrative reviews and other measures related to imports of certain orange juice from Brazil. 
60. The representative of the United States said that  his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 December 2011, in accordance with Article 21.6 of th e DSU.  As noted in the status 
report, the United States had informed the DSB on 17 June 2011, of its intention to implement the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute.   Brazil and the United States had agreed that the 
reasonable period of time to implement would e xpire on 17 March 2012.  As the United States had 
explained in its status report, in December 2010  the US Department of Commerce had announced a 
proposal to change the calculation of weighted  average dumping margins and assessment rates in 
certain anti-dumping proceedings.  At the present time, the US Department of Commerce was continuing with its on-going work on the proposal.  
61. The representative of Brazil said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report on this dispute.  However, Brazil was disappoi nted with the content of the status report, which 
limited itself to report that th e US Department of Commerce (U SDOC) had announced a proposal to 
change the methodology for calculating weighted-a verage dumping margins and assessment rates in 
certain anti-dumping proceedings, including administ rative reviews.  This proposal, published almost 
a year ago, was still to be made final, and althou gh it indicated a willingness of the US Government to 
change the calculation of the margin of dumping in  administrative reviews, it still contained a number 
of gaps that did not allow for a clear understanding of  the extent of the proposed modifications.  In 
that regard, Brazil recalled that the USDOC had reta ined the possibility, pursuant to the proposal, to 
use a different approach in reviews besides the weighted average-to-weighted-average method in 
some instances, i.e. "where the Department dete rmines that applications of a different comparison 
method is more appropriate".  Brazil wished that the United States clarify which "alternative method" 
that was, when it would be used and, mainly, whether "zeroing" would be permitted in connection 
with this new "alternative method".   
62. Brazil was also concerned about the temporal applicability of the proposed changes.  The 
proposal indicated that the chang es in calculation would apply only in relation to new entries of 
merchandise occurring on or after the date of the Se ction 129 determination.  In order to implement  WT/DSB/M/308 
 Page 13 
 
 
  the DSB's recommendations and rulings in the "Orange  Juice" dispute, the United States would also 
be required to revise its calculations, without "zeroing", in relation to past entries that remained unliquidated at the end of the reasonable period of time.  However, the proposal, as currently drafted, 
did not suggest that the United States was planning to take any steps to comply with this aspect of the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings.   
63. As Members were aware, the issue of "zeroing" was not a new one, after 14 disputes and 14 
findings of WTO-inconsistency.  With regard speci fically to the use of "zeroing" in administrative 
reviews, one of the main issues of the "Orange Jui ce" dispute, the Appellate Body had, already in 
2006, declared that this methodology was incons istent with the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement.  After so many decisions over so many  years reaffirming the prohibition of "zeroing" and 
after an explicit characterization of this met hodology as being "inherently unfair", it would be 
reasonable for Brazil to expect more from the United States at the present meeting.  The United States 
still had some time to meet its WTO obligations in  the "Orange Juice" dispute.  Although progress in 
terms of implementation should have been much more expressive at the present juncture, Brazil 
remained confident that the United States would adjust its internal rules and practices so as to comply 
fully with the DSB's recommendations  and rulings by the end of the agreed reasonable period of time. 
64. The representative of the United States said that his country had taken note of Brazil's 
questions and would refer them to capital. 
65. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
2. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsid y Offset Act of 2000:  Implementation of 
the recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) Statements by the European Union and Japan 
66. The Chairperson said that this item was on the Agen da of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Union and Japan.  She then invited the respective representatives to speak. 
67. The representative of Japan said that, on 5 December 2011, US Customs and Border 
Protection had published its CDSOA Annual Report for FY 2011 which contained information on 
disbursements made under the CDSOA for FY 2011.3  This latest action showed that the CDSOA 
remained operational.  As the US Customs and Bo rder Protection had explained, "the distribution 
process will continue for an undetermined period".4  Japan urged the United States to stop the illegal 
distributions and repeal the CDSOA, not just in form but in substance, so as to resolve this dispute.  
According to Article 21.6 of the DSU, the Unite d States was under obligation to provide the DSB 
with a status report pertaining to this dispute. 
68. The representative of the European Union said th at as it had done many times before, the EU 
wished to ask the United States to stop transfe rring anti-dumping and countervailing duties to the US 
industry.  Every disbursement that still took place was clearly an act of non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  Once again, the EU renewed its call on the United States to 
abide by its clear obligation under Article 21.6 of the DSU and to submit status reports on 
implementation in this dispute. 
                                                      
3 See US Customs and Border Protection's website at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/ priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dum p/cdsoa_11/2011_annual_report/  
4 See US Customs and Border Protection's website at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/tr ade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/cont_dump_faq.xml  WT/DSB/M/308 
Page 14  
 
  69. The representative of Canada said that his count ry thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda.  Canada agreed with  the EU and Japan that the Byrd Amendment 
remained subject to the surveilla nce of the DSB until the United St ates ceased to administer it. 
70. The representative of India said that his count ry thanked the EU and Japan for regularly 
bringing this issue before the DSB.  The con tinuation of the CDSOA was affecting the rights of 
Members and undermining the credibility of the WTO.  India requested the United States to report full 
compliance without any further delay. 
71. The representative of Thailand said that her count ry thanked the EU and Japan for continuing 
to bring this item before the DSB.  Thailand supp orted the statements made by previous speakers and 
urged the United States to cease the disbursements and fully implement the DSB's rulings and 
recommendations on this matter. 
72. The representative of Brazil said that his country  thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda.  As it had expressed in previous meetings, Brazil was of the view that the 
United States was under an obligation to submit stat us reports pertaining to this dispute until such 
time as no more disbursements were  made pursuant to the Byrd Amendment.  Only then the issue 
would be "resolved" within the meaning of the DS U and the United States would be released from its 
obligation to provide status repor ts pertaining to this dispute. 
73. 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 recalled, furthermore, that 
Members had acknowledged during previous DSB m eetings that the 2006 Deficit Reduction Act did 
not permit the distribution of duties collected on goo ds entered after 1 October 2007.  Therefore, the 
United States did not understand the purpose for wh ich the EU and Japan had inscribed this item on 
the Agenda of the present meeting.  With respect to  comments regarding further status reports in this 
matter, as it had previously explained numerous times, the United States failed to see what purpose 
would be served by further submission of status reports repeating, again, that the United States had taken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disputes.  
Finally, in light of the EU's statement at the present meeting, the United States said that it would 
expect to see the EU submit a further status repor t in DS316, the dispute on EU subsidies for large 
civil aircraft, at the January 2012 DSB meeting.  
74. The DSB took note of the statements. 
3. European Communities - Export subsidies on sugar  
(a) Statements by Australia, Brazil and Thailand 
75. The Chairperson said that this item was on the Agen da of the present meeting at the request of 
Australia, Brazil and Thailand.  She then i nvited the respective representatives to speak. 
76. The representative of Australia said that, together  with Brazil and Thailand, her country had, 
once again, put this item on the DSB's Agenda due to growing concerns over recent EU action with 
regard to out-of-quota sugar exports.  Australia r ecalled that, along with Brazil and Thailand, it had 
taken successful WTO action against the EU in respect  of its subsidized sugar exports in the "EC - 
Sugar" dispute.  The dispute outcome had determin ed that all EU out-of-quota sugar exports were in 
receipt of export subsidies and that the EU had exceeded its WTO scheduled export subsidy quantity 
commitment levels for sugar over a number of years.  But the EU's recent decision to authorize a  WT/DSB/M/308 
 Page 15 
 
 
  further 700,000 tonnes of out-of-quota sugar exports in marketing year 2011/2012 meant that EU out-
of-quota sugar exports in that marketing year, which ran from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012, 
were likely to exceed the EU's scheduled WTO expor t subsidy quantity commitment level for sugar.  
Such limit had also been exceeded in 2009/10.  Th is was because the EU had already authorized 
separate exports of 650,000 tonnes of out-of-quota sugar for export in MY 2011/2012 and 
700,000 tonnes of out-of-quota sugar for export in the period 1 September to 31 December 2011.  
Three months of this period, namely October to December 2011, fell in the 2011/12 marketing year.  
In that context, Australia noted that Commissi on Regulation 461/2011 which had authorized these 
exports stipulated that the measure covered "only sugar produced under the new, September harvest".  
It therefore seemed unlikely to Australia that all 700,000 tonnes of this sugar or, even, a majority of 
that amount, could have been produ ced and exported in September 2011.  It was more likely that such 
exports had in fact taken place after commencem ent of the 2011/12 marketing year.  However, 
Australia would welcome data from the EU that dem onstrated otherwise, and appreciated the recent 
dialogue that had taken place on this issue.  Austra lia was also concerned that these additional exports 
would depress the world sugar price to the detrim ent of unsubsidized Australian and other sugar 
producers and would encourage continued over-p roduction in the EU, thereby unwinding the 
important reforms the EU had undertaken to its s ugar industry since the WTO dispute.  Australia was 
closely examining the action taken by the EU and re quested the EU to respect its WTO export subsidy 
commitments. 
77. The representative of Brazil said that his country  had learned with concern that the EU had 
recently authorized exports of 700,000 tons of out -of-quota sugar for marketing year 2011-2012.  In 
Brazil's view, these exports of EU out-of-quota sugar were possibly in breach of the EU's WTO 
obligations.  Brazil recalled that the EU decision to allow exports of 650,000 tons of out-of-quota 
sugar for marketing year 2011-2012 had been published in April 2011.  Another decision to allow exports of 700,000 tons, from September to De cember 2011, had been published in May 2011.  
Despite the fact that the period of reference for these 700,000 tons of out-of-quota sugar exports was 
marketing year 2010-2011, a large majority of such  exports would take place during marketing year 
2011-2012, which began in October 2011.  The EU had thus authorized exports of two million and 
fifty thousand (2,050,000) tons of sugar, most of it taking place during marketing year 2011-2012, 
exceeding by far its export subsidies reduction commitmen ts.  It was not the first time that this had 
happened.  These decisions that had been taken by  the EU in respect to exports of sugar were 
particularly troubling in light of the findings of th e Panel and the Appellate Body in the "EC-Sugar" 
dispute.  The EU could not simply authorize the exports of subsidized sugar in excess of its WTO 
commitments every time its production overshot the re levant regulatory targets.  Brazil valued the 
constructive dialogue that it had had with the EU on those issues.  Nevertheless, Brazil, as well as 
other concerned Members, were monitoring the s ituation of sugar overproduction and increased 
exports in the European market closely and urged th e EU to take actions to rectify this situation. 
78. The representative of Thailand said that her count ry, along with Australia and Brazil, believed 
that the EU's authorization of its out-of-quota s ugar exports for the "marketing year" 2011-2012 was 
likely to exceed the EU's WTO export subsidy quantity  commitment level for sugar.  Thailand wished 
to recall that in the "EC - Sugar" dispute, all EU  out-of-quota sugar exports had been found to be 
subsidized, rendering the EU in violation of its  WTO export subsidy commitment.  Commission 
Regulation 461/2011 allowed for addi tional 700,000 tons of sugar to  be exported from 1 September 
until 31 December 2011.  Since the "marketing year ", as described in the Annex to the EU WTO 
schedule, ran from October to the end of September,  the majority, if not all, of 700,000 tons, would 
likely fall into the MY 2011/2012, where the EU had already authorized 650,000 tons of out-of-quota sugar.  Thailand believed that such authoriza tion by the EU ran the risk of exceeding its 
MY 2011/2012 obligations and Thailand would welcom e any information from the EU that suggested 
otherwise.  Thailand would monitor the situation very closely, and requested the EU to respect its 
WTO export subsidy commitments for sugar. WT/DSB/M/308 
Page 16  
 
  79. The representative of the European Union said th at the EU had carefully listened to the 
statements made by delegations on this matter.  He said that the EU abided by its international 
commitments on export subsidies for sugar.  The recent EU decision led to an increase of 
650,000 tonnes up to 1,350,000 tonnes of export for out-of-quota exports during the marketing year 2011/12.  The quantity of 1,350,000 tonnes rema ined well within the EU's WTO quantitative 
commitment on export subsidies (i.e. 1,374,000 tonnes).  However, the EU would study the points 
raised by delegations at the present meeting and would respond at a technical level, if necessary. 
80. The DSB took note of the statements. 
4. United States – Use of zeroing in anti-dumpi ng measures involving products from Korea  
(a) Statement by the United States on implementation of the recommendations adopted by 
the DSB 
81. The Chairperson said that this item was on the Agen da of the present meeting at the request of 
the United States.  She then invited the representative of the United States to speak. 
82. The representative of the United States said that  his country was pleased to report that it had 
implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute within the reasonable period 
of time agreed by the United States and Korea.  Th e parties had agreed that the reasonable period of 
time with respect to the diamond sawblades investig ation at issue in this dispute would end on 
24 October 2011.  With respect to this investiga tion, the US Department of Commerce had issued a 
revised determination in which it had calculated the anti-dumping duty margins with offsets, effective 
24 October 2011.  The order with respect to diamond sawblades and parts thereof from Korea had been revoked.  The parties had also agreed that the reasonable period of time with respect to the 
investigations on stainless steel plate in coils and stai nless steel sheet and strip in coils at issue in this 
dispute would end on 24 November 2011.  With resp ect to these investigations, the Department had 
issued a revised determination in which it had cal culated the anti-dumping duty margins with offsets, 
effective 16 November 2011.  The order with respect to stainless steel plate in coils from Korea had 
been revoked, and the order with respect to stainl ess sheet and strip in coils from Korea had been 
revoked with respect to two respondents.  Theref ore, the United States had fully implemented the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this di spute within the reasonable period of time agreed 
by the parties.  The United States had circulat ed further information to Members in a written 
communication contained in document WT/DS402/7.  
83. The representative of Korea said  that his country thanked the United States for its statement 
regarding the implementation of the DSB's recomme ndations and rulings in this dispute.  Korea 
welcomed the implementation by the United States and looked forward to a prompt solution with 
regard to other zeroing disputes. 
84. The DSB took note of the statements. 
5. China – Definitive anti-dumping duties on x- ray security inspection equipment from the 
European Union 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Union (WT/DS425/2) 
85. The Chairperson drew attention to the communi cation from the European Union contained in 
document WT/DS425/2, and invited the representative of the European Union to speak. 
86. The representative of the European Union said that the EU was seriously concerned that 
China's imposition of definitive anti-dumping duti es on x-ray scanners from the EU was inconsistent  WT/DSB/M/308 
 Page 17 
 
 
  with the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement both on pr ocedural and substantive grounds.  The EU 
wished to stress that it had a systemic interest in some of the issues indicated in its request for the 
establishment of a panel, in particular regardi ng the interpretation of the obligations concerning 
transparency, the right of defence and the determin ation of injury and causal link, including notably 
the analysis of the effects of the alleged dumped imports on the price of domestic products.  The EU 
had requested WTO consultations with China on 25 July 2011.  Although China had participated in 
those consultations in a constructive spirit, the c onsultations had unfortunately failed to resolve the 
dispute.  Therefore the EU requested the establishm ent of a panel to rule on the WTO compatibility of 
China's relevant measures as set out in more detail in the panel request.  The EU was confident that 
this would lead to China's removal of the anti-du mping duties that the EU considered to be in 
violation of WTO rules and, as a consequence, to the re-establishment of fair conditions of operation 
for the EU industry on the Chinese market. 
87. The representative of China said that her country regretted that the EU had chosen to request 
the establishment of a panel at the present meeting instead  of continuing consultations in this dispute.  
China had shown great sincerity by responding to many questions and clarifying facts and its views in 
the two consultations it had with the EU on 19 Se ptember and 18 October 2011, respectively.  China 
had always been willing to pursue further consultati ons in order to settle the dispute in a mutually 
satisfactory manner.  China reiterated that the re levant measure identified by the complainant was 
fully consistent with WTO anti-dumping rules.  In carrying out the anti-dumping investigation and adopting remedy measures, the Ministry of Commerce of China had aimed to offset the adverse effect 
produced by dumping imports to domestic industry and restore a fair trading environment.  Both the 
investigation and the measure were fully based on solid facts and evidence.  Therefore, China was 
puzzled by the EU's intention of initiating a panel pr ocess.  At the present meeting, China was not in a 
position to accept the establishment of a panel. 
88. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter. 
6. China – Anti-dumping and countervailing duty measures on broiler products from the 
United States 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States (WT/DS427/2) 
89. The Chairperson drew attention to the comm unication from the United States contained in 
document WT/DS427/2, and invited the representative of the United States to speak. 
90. The representative of the United States said that on 20 September 2011, the United States had 
requested consultations with China regarding China's imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing 
duties on chicken broiler products from the United  States.  As noted in the US request for 
consultations, China's dumping and subsidy determina tions appeared to be inconsistent with China's 
obligations under the GATT 1994, the Anti-Dumping Ag reement, and the Subsidies Agreement.  The 
United States had attempted to resolve its concerns  through dialogue with China both during and after 
the investigation at issue.  Formal WTO consulta tions had been held on 28 October.  Unfortunately 
these efforts failed to resolve the dispute.  Accord ingly, the United States was proceeding to request 
that the DSB establish a dispute settlement panel.  As  set out in the request for the establishment of a 
panel, US concerns related to every aspect of China' s investigation.  It appeared that China had failed 
to apply the appropriate procedur es and legal standards, including in finding injury to China's 
domestic industry without objectively examining the ev idence.  It appeared that China had improperly 
calculated dumping margins and subsidization rates and it appeared that China had failed to adhere to 
transparency and basic procedural requirements set out in the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the 
Subsidies Agreement. WT/DSB/M/308 
Page 18  
 
  91. The United States said that Members may recall that similar issues were involved in DS414, 
another dispute the United States had brought, which concerned anti-dumping and countervailing 
duties that China had imposed on a different product (grain-oriented electrical steel or GOES).  This raised the concern that, not only may there be profound procedural and substantive deficiencies in these specific investigations, but there may be system ic issues in the way China was applying its trade 
remedy laws.  The United States requested that th e DSB establish a panel to examine the matter set 
out in the US panel request, with standard terms of reference.  
92. The representative of China said that her c ountry regretted that the United States had 
requested the establishment of a panel to examine this  dispute.  In the investigations concerned, the 
Chinese Investigating Authority had determined that the imports of the product concerned, originating 
in the United States, constituted dumping and benefite d from the US Government's subsidizations and 
that the dumped and subsidized imports had caused mate rial injury to China's domestic industry.  As a 
result, the Chinese Investigating Authority had imposed an anti-dumping measure and a countervailing measure.  China regretted that the United States had come forward with its request, 
regardless of the facts and explanations that China had provided in the consulta tions.  In China's view, 
the impositions of the anti-dumping measure and th e countervailing measure were consistent with 
China's obligations under the WTO rules.  China wi shed to point out that the US request for the 
establishment of a panel contained claims which had not been listed in the request for consultations.  
Therefore, pursuant to the DSU, China could not ag ree to the establishment of a panel at the present 
meeting. 
93. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter. 
7. European Union – Anti-dumping measu res on certain footwear from China 
(a) Joint request by China and th e European Union for a decision by the DSB (WT/DS405/5) 
94. The Chairperson drew attention to the join t communication from China and the European 
Union contained in document WT/DS405/5 and invited the representative of China to speak. 
95. The representative of China said that, as had been  stated in the procedural agreement between 
the EU and China, the two parties, taking into acc ount the current workload of the Appellate Body, 
had agreed that the 60-day time period in Article 16.4 of the DSU, as applicable to the dispute: "EU – Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Footwear from Chin a" would be extended to 22 February 2012.  
China believed that a DSB decision for this purpose would provide greater flexibility in scheduling, 
given the current workload of the Appellate Body .  China requested the DSB to adopt the draft 
decision contained in document WT/DS405/5. 
96. The representative of the European  Union said that, in order to take into account the current 
workload of the Appellate Body, China and the EU had concluded a procedural agreement regarding 
the time period under Article 16.4 of the DSU.  With respect to the dispute:  "EU – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Footwear from China", the EU, th erefore, joined China in requesting that the 
DSB adopt the draft decision contained in document WT/DS405/5. 
97. The representative of the United States said that  his country thanked China and the EU for 
their communication to the DSB as well as their st atements made at the present meeting.  The 
United States was pleased that the Appellate B ody had consulted with the parties regarding its 
scheduling concerns and that the parties had coope rated to propose the draft decision at the present 
meeting.  As had been noted in several previous DSB meetings, the United States agreed that such a 
proposal should remain exceptional and made in response to the unusual circumstances in which 
Members and the Appellate Body found themselves presently.  The United States said that it also 
would like to express its understanding that the pro cedural agreement between the parties that was  WT/DSB/M/308 
 Page 19 
 
 
  appended to their communication to the DSB did not form any part of the DSB's decision, which was 
limited to the draft text set out in the parties' communication.  
98. The representative of Japan said that his country wi shed to refer to Japan's statements made at 
the previous DSB meetings of 21 April, 27 September and 11 November 2011, where the DSB had 
taken similar decisions regarding the 60-day time- period under Article 16.4 of the DSU.  Japan 
wished to emphasize that:  (i) the DSB decision would give greater transparency and legal certainty as 
to the procedures for adoption and appeals of the Panel Report subject to the decision;  and that 
(ii) the circumstances to be addressed by the DSB decision at the present meeting were exceptional in 
nature and a decision of this kind must remain as an exception. 
99. The DSB took note of the statements. 
100. The Chairperson proposed that: "The DSB ag ree that, upon a request by China or the 
European Union, the DSB shall, no later than 22 Fe bruary 2012, adopt the Report of the Panel in the 
dispute:  European Union – Anti-Dumping Measu res on Certain Footwear from China , contained in 
document WT/DS405/R, unless (i) the DSB decides by co nsensus not to do so or (ii) China or the 
European Union notifies the DSB of its decision to  appeal pursuant to Article 16.4 of the DSU." 
101. The DSB so agreed. 
102. The representative of China said that, as a resu lt of the adoption by the DSB of the draft 
decision contained in WT/DS405/5 to extend the time period for the adoption or appeal of the Panel 
Report, China wished to request that the DSB mee ting scheduled for this afternoon to consider the 
adoption of the Panel Report in document WT/DS405/R be cancelled. 
103. The Chairperson said that, in light of China's request, the special DSB meeting scheduled for 
19 December 2011 at 3 p.m. to consider the Pa nel Report in WT/DS405/R for adoption would be 
cancelled. 
104. The DSB took note of the statements.  
__________