WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS/OV/34 
26 January 2009 
 (09-0338) 
  
  
 
 
 
UPDATE OF WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT CASES 
 
NOTE : This summary has been prepared by the Secret ariat under its own res ponsibility.  The summary 
is for general information only and is not inte nded to affect the rights and obligations of 
Members. 
 
NEW DEVELOPMENTS SINCE LAST UPDATE 
(FROM 3 JUNE 2008 UNTIL 21 JANUARY 2009) 
 
WT/DS No. Short Title Action 
WT/DS390 China – Grants, Loans and other Incentives 
(Guatemala) Request for consultations 
WT/DS389 EC – Poultry (US) Request for consultations 
WT/DS388 China – Grants, Loans and other Incentives 
(Mexico) Request for consultations 
WT/DS387 China – Grants, Loans and other Incentives 
(US) Request for consultations 
WT/DS386 US – Labelling Requirements (Mexico) Request for consultations 
Request to join consultations 
WT/DS385 India – Expiry Reviews on PET Request for consultations 
WT/DS384 US – Labelling Request for consultations 
Request to join consultations 
Acceptance of request to join consultations 
WT/DS383 US – Carrier Bags Request for consultations 
WT/DS382 US – Orange Juice Request for consultations 
Request to join consultations 
WT7DS381 US – Tuna II (Mexico) Request for consultations 
Requests to join consultations 
WT/DS380 India – Imported Wines and Spirits Request for consultations and further 
consultations Requests to join consultations 
WT/DS379 US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing 
Duties Request for consultations 
Establishment of a panel 
WT/DS378 China – Financial Information Services 
(Canada) Request for consultations 
Request to join consultations Memorandum of Understanding 
WT/DS377 EC – IT Products (Chinese Taipei) Request for consultations 
Requests to join consultations 
Acceptance of request to join consultations Establishment of a panel 
WT/DS376 EC – IT Products (Japan) Requests to join consultations 
Establishment of a panel 
WT/DS375 EC – IT Products (US) Requests to join consultations 
Establishment of a panel WT/DS/OV/34 
Page ii  
 
  WT/DS No. Short Title Action 
WT/DS374 South Africa – Paper Withdrawal of request for consultations 
WT/DS373 China – Financial Information Services 
(US) Memorandum of Understanding 
WT/DS372 China – Financial Information Services 
(EC) Memorandum of Understanding 
WT/DS371 Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines) Establishment of a panel 
WT/DS360 India – Additional Duties Circulation of Panel report 
Notification of an appeal Circulation of Appellate Body report 
Adoption of Appellate Body and Panel reports 
WT/DS354 Canada – Taxes on Wine and Beer Mutually agreed solution 
WT/DS352 India – Wines and Spirits Lapse of authority 
WT/DS351, 
WT/DS356 Chile – Milk Safeguards Lapse of authority 
WT/DS350 US – Continued Zeroing Circulation of Panel report 
Notification of an appeal 
WT/DS344 US – Stainless Steel Appointment of Article 21.3 arbitrator 
Circualation of the award of the arbitrator 
WT/DS343, 
WT/DS345 US – Shrimp (Thailand) 
US – Customs Bond Directive Circulation and adoption of Appellate Body 
report Agreements under Article 21.3(b) 
WT/DS341 Mexico – Olive Oil Circulation and adoption of Panel report 
WT/DS339, 
WT/DS340, 
WT/DS342 China – Auto Parts Circulation of Panel and Appellate Body reports 
Notification of an appeal 
Adoption of Panel and Appellate Body reports 
WT/DS336 Japan – DRAMS (Article 21.5 – Korea) Establishment of an Article 21.5 panel 
WT/DS332 Brazil – Retreaded Tyres Request for arbitration under Article 21.3(c) 
Appointment of Arbitrator 
Circulation of the award of the Arbitrator Understanding regarding procedures under 
Article 22 
WT/DS322 US – Zeroing (Japan) (Article 21.5 – Japan) Constitution of the compliance panel 
Suspension of the Article 22.6 arbitration 
WT/DS320 WT/DS321 US / Canada – Continued Suspension Circulation and adoption of Appellate Body 
reports 
WT/DS294 US – Zeroing (EC) Circulation of compliance panel report 
WT/DS292 
WT/DS293 EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech 
Products (Argentina) Modification of the Agreement under 
Article 21.3(b) 
WT/DS282 US – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil 
Country Tubular Goods (Article 21.5 – Mexico Lapse of authority 
WT/DS267 US – Upland Cotton (Artickle 21.5 – Brazil) Adoption of Appellate Body and Panel reports 
Resumption of Article 22.6 arbitration 
proceedings 
WT/DS48 EC – Hormones (Canada) Request for consultations under Article 21.5 
WT/DS27 EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 – Ecuador 
II) and (Article 21.5 – US) Notice of appeal of compliance panel reports 
Circulation of Appellate Body reports 
Adoption of Panel and Appellate Body reports 
WT/DS26 EC – Hormones (United States) Request for consultations under Article 21.5 
  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page iii 
 
 
  STATISTICAL OVERVIEW 
 Complaints 
notified to the 
WTO1 Active 
Panels2 Appellate Body 
and Panel Reports 
Adopted3 Mutually Agreed 
Solutions Other Settled 
or Inactive4 
Disputes  
Reporting 
period/ date since 1.1.1995 on reporting 
date since 1.1.1995 since 1.1.1995 since 1.1.1995 
Number  390 20 116 61 38 
EXPLANATORY NOTES: 
 1 This category encompasses all requests for consultati ons notified to the WTO, including those requests which 
have led to panel and appe llate review proceedings.    
2 This category encompasses pending or suspended panel pr oceedings or appellate revi ew proceedings, with the 
exception of proceedings pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. 
3 This category does not include reports resulting from proceedings pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. 
4 This category includes cases where the contested measur e has been terminated, a pa nel request was withdrawn, 
etc. 
 
 Active 
Compliance 
Panels1 Adopted Appellate 
Body and Panel 
Compliance Reports2 Arbitrations on 
Level of Suspension 
of Concessions3  WTO 
Authorizations of 
Suspension of 
Concessions4 
Reporting 
period/ date on reporting date since 1.1.1995 since 1.1.1995 since 1.1.1995 
Number  2 24 17 15 
EXPLANATORY NOTES: 
1 This category encompasses pending or suspended panel or appellate  review proceedings pursuant to Article 21.5 
of the DSU. 
2 This category includes reports resulting from pr oceedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU. 
3 This category covers arbitration proceedings pursuant to Article 22.6 and 22.7 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the 
Subsidies Agreement. 
4 This category covers authorizations granted by the WTO pursuant to Article  22.7 of the DSU and Article 4.10 of 
the Subsidies Agreement. 
 WT/DS/OV/34 
Page iv  
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page
 
I. CONSULTATIONS REQUESTED  – NO PANEL ESTABLI SHED NOR SETTLEMENT 
NOTIFIED....................................................................................................................... .............................1  
A. YEAR  2009 ........................................................................................................................... ...................1  
1. WT/DS390 – China – Grants, Loans and other Incentives........................................................1  
2. WT/DS389  European Communities – Certai n Measures Affecting Poultry Meat and 
Poultry Meat Products from the United States...........................................................................1  
B. YEAR  2008 ........................................................................................................................... ...................2  
1. WT/DS388 – China – Grants, Loans and other Incentives........................................................2  
2. WT/DS387 – China – Grants, Loans and other Incentives........................................................3  
3. WT/DS386 – United States  – Certain Country of Or igin Labelling Requirements.................3  
4. WT/DS385 – European Communities – Ex piry Reviews of Anti-Dumping and 
Countervailing Duties imposed on Imports of  PET from India ................................................4  
5. WT/DS384 – United Stat es – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) 
Requirements ................................................................................................................... ..............4  
6. WT/DS383 – United States – Anti-Dumping  Measurs on Polyethylene Retail Carrier 
Bags from Thailand............................................................................................................. ..........5  
7. WT/DS382 – United States – Anti-Dumping Administrative Reviews and other 
Measures Related to Imports of Ce rtain Orange Juice from Brazil .........................................5  
8. WT/DS381 – United States – Measures Concerning the Im portation, Marketing and 
Sale of Tuna a nd Tuna Pr oducts................................................................................................. .5 
9. WT/DS380 – India – Certain Taxes and other Measures on Imported Wines and 
Spirits........................................................................................................................ ......................6  
10. WT/DS370 – Thailand – Customs Valuation of Certain Products from the European 
Communities .................................................................................................................... ..............7  
C. YEAR  2007 ........................................................................................................................... ...................7  
1. WT/DS369 – European Communities – Certain Measures Prohibiting the 
Importation and Marketin g of Seal Products .............................................................................7  
2. WT/DS368 – United States – Preliminary Anti-Dum ping and Countervailing Duty 
Determinations on Coated Free Sheet Paper from China..........................................................8  
3. WT/DS364 – European Communities – Regi me for the Importation of Bananas ...................8  
4. WT/DS361 – European Communities – Regi me for the Importation of Bananas ...................8  
D. YEAR  2006 ........................................................................................................................... ...................9  
1. WT/DS349 – European Communities – Me asures Affecting the Tariff Quota for 
Fresh or Ch illed Ga rlic ........................................................................................................ .........9  
2. WT/DS346 –United States – Anti-Dumping Administrative Review on Oil Country 
Tubular Goods from Argentina .................................................................................................10  
3. WT/DS338 – Provisional Anti-Dumping an d Countervailing Duties on Grain Corn 
from the Unit ed States......................................................................................................... ........10  
E. YEAR  2005 ........................................................................................................................... .................10  
1. WT/DS333 – Dominican Republic – Foreign Exchange Fee Affecting Imports from 
Costa Rica ..................................................................................................................... ...............10  
2. WT/DS330 – Argentina – Countervailing Du ties on Olive Oil, Wheat Gluten and 
Peaches ........................................................................................................................ .................11  
3. WT/DS328 – European Communities – Defi nitive Safeguard Measure on Salmon ..............11  
4. WT/DS325 – United States – Anti-Dumping  Determinations regarding Stainless Steel 
from Mexico .................................................................................................................... .............13  
F. YEAR  2004 ........................................................................................................................... .................13  
1. WT/DS324 – United St ates – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measures on Shrimp from 
Thailand ....................................................................................................................... ................13  
2. WT/DS319 – United States – Section 776 of the Tariff Act of 1930 ........................................14  
3. WT/DS318 – India – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Products from the Separate 
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu ...................................................14   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page v 
 
 
  4. WT/DS314 – Mexico – Provisional Counterv ailing Measures on Olive Oil from the 
European Co mmunities ........................................................................................................... ...15 
5. WT/DS310 – United States – Determination  of the Internatio nal Trade Commission 
in Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada .................................................................................16  
6. WT/DS307 – European Communities – Aid for Commercial Vessels ....................................16  
G. YEAR  2003 ........................................................................................................................... .................17  
1. WT/DS304 – India – Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Certain Products from 
the European Communi ties ....................................................................................................... .17 
2. WT/DS303 – Ecuador – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Medium 
Density Fi breboard............................................................................................................. .........18  
3. WT/DS300 – Dominican Republic – Meas ures Affecting th e Importation of 
Cigarettes ..................................................................................................................... ................18  
4. WT/DS297 – Croatia – Measures Affecting Imports of Live Animals and Meat 
Products....................................................................................................................... .................19  
5. WT/DS289 – Czech Republic – Additional Duty  on Imports of Pig-Meat from Poland .......19  
6. WT/DS288 – South Africa – Definitive Anti -Dumping Measures on Blanketing from 
Turkey ......................................................................................................................... .................20  
H. YEAR  2002 ........................................................................................................................... .................20  
1. WT/DS279 – India – Import Restrictions Maintained Under the Export and Import 
Policy 2002-2007 ............................................................................................................... ...........20  
2. WT/DS278 – Chile – Definitive Safeguar d Measure on Imports of Fructose.........................20  
3. WT/DS275 – Venezuela – Import Licensing Measures on Certain Agricultural 
Products....................................................................................................................... .................21  
4. WT/DS274 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain 
Steel Products................................................................................................................. ..............22  
5. WT/DS272 – Peru – Provisional Anti-Dumping Duties on Vegetable Oils from 
Argentina...................................................................................................................... ................22  
6. WT/DS271 – Australia – Certain Measures Affecting the Importation of Fresh 
Pineapple ...................................................................................................................... ................22  
7. WT/DS263 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Imports of Wine......................23  
8. WT/DS262 – United St ates – Sunset Reviews of An ti-Dumping and Countervailing 
Duties on Certain Steel Produc ts from France and Germany.................................................23  
9. WT/DS256 – Turkey – Import Ban on Pet Food from Hungary.............................................24  
I. YEAR  2001 ........................................................................................................................... .................24  
1. WT/DS242 – European Communities – Generalized System of Preferences .........................24  
2. WT/DS239 – United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Silicon Metal from Brazil................25  
3. WT/DS233 – Argentina – Measures affecting the Import of Pharmaceutical Products .......25  
4. WT/DS230 – Chile – Safeguard Measures and Modification of Schedules Regarding 
Sugar.......................................................................................................................... ...................26  
5. WT/DS229 – Brazil – Anti-Dumping Duti es on Jute Bags from India ...................................26  
6. WT/DS226 – Chile – Provisional Safeguard Measure on Mixtures of Edible Oils ................27  
7. WT/DS225 – United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Seamless Pipe from Italy.................27  
8. WT/DS224 – United States  – US Patents Code .........................................................................27  
9. WT/DS223 – European Communities – Tariff -Rate Quota on Corn Gluten Feed from 
the United States.............................................................................................................. ............28  
10. WT/DS220 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain 
Agricultural Products.......................................................................................................... ........28  
J. YEAR  2000 ........................................................................................................................... .................29  
1. WT/DS218 – United States  – Countervailing Duties on Certain Carbon Steel 
Products from Brazil........................................................................................................... ........29  
2. WT/DS216 – Mexico – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Electric Transformers .......29  
3. WT/DS215 – Philippines – Anti-Dumping Me asures Regarding Polypropylene Resins 
from Korea..................................................................................................................... ..............29  
4. WT/DS209 – European Communities – Me asures Affecting Soluble Coffee .........................29  
5. WT/DS208 – Turkey – Anti-Dumping Duty  on Steel and Iron Pipe Fittings.........................30  
6. WT/DS205 – Egypt – Import Prohibition on Canned Tuna with Soybean Oil......................30  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page vi  
 
  7. WT/DS203 – Mexico – Measures Af fecting Trade in Live Swine............................................30  
8. WT/DS201 – Nicaragua – Measures Affecting Imports from Honduras and Colombia.......31  
9. WT/DS200 – United States – Section 306 of the Trade Act 1974 and Amendments 
thereto........................................................................................................................ ...................31  
10. WT/DS197 – Brazil – Measures on Minimum Import Prices..................................................31  
11. WT/DS191 – Ecuador – Definitive Anti-Dum ping Measure on Cement from Mexico..........32  
12. WT/DS187 – Trinidad and Tobago – Pr ovisional Anti-Dumping Measure on 
Macaroni and Spaghett i from Costa Rica .................................................................................32  
13. WT/DS186 – United States – Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and Amendments 
thereto........................................................................................................................ ...................32  
K. YEAR  1999 ........................................................................................................................... .................32  
1. WT/DS185 – Trinidad and Tobago – Anti-Dumping Measures on Pasta from Costa 
Rica ........................................................................................................................... ....................32  
2. WT/DS183 – Brazil – Measures on Import Licensing and Minimum Import Prices ............33  
3. WT/DS182 – Ecuador – Provisional Anti-Dum ping Measure on Cement from Mexico.......33  
4. WT/DS180 – United States – Reclassification of Certain Sugar Syrups.................................33  
5. WT/DS173 – France – Measures Relati ng to the Development of a Flight 
Management System.............................................................................................................. ......33  
6. WT/DS172 – European Communities – Meas ures relating to the Development of a 
Flight Manag ement System ....................................................................................................... .33 
7. WT/DS168 – South Africa – Anti-Dumpi ng Duties on Certain Pharmaceutical 
Products from India ............................................................................................................ ........34  
8. WT/DS167 – United St ates – Countervailing Duty Invest igation with respect to Live 
Cattle from Canada............................................................................................................. ........35  
9. WT/DS159 – Hungary – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Steel Products from the 
Czech Republic ................................................................................................................. ...........35  
10. WT/DS158 – European Communities – Re gime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bana nas ........................................................................................................ ......35  
11. WT/DS157 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dum ping Measures on Imports of Drill Bits 
from Italy..................................................................................................................... .................36  
L. YEAR  1998 ........................................................................................................................... .................36  
1. WT/DS154 – European Communities – Measures Affectin g Differential and 
Favourable Treatm ent of Coffee ................................................................................................3 6 
2. WT/DS153 – European Communities – Pa tent Protection for Pharmaceutical and 
Agricultural Chemi cal Products ................................................................................................3 6 
3. WT/DS150 – India – Measures Affecting Customs Duties.......................................................36  
4. WT/DS149 – India – Im port Restrictions..................................................................................37  
5. WT/DS148 – Czech Republic – Measure Af fecting Import Duty on Wheat from 
Hungary........................................................................................................................ ................37  
6. WT/DS147 – Japan – Tariff Quotas and Subsidies Affect ing Leather ...................................37  
7. WT/DS145 – Argentina – Countervailing Duti es on Imports of Wheat Gluten from 
the European Communi ties ....................................................................................................... .38 
8. WT/DS144 – United States – Certain Measu res Affecting the Import of Cattle, Swine 
and Grain from Canada.......................................................................................................... ....38 
9. WT/DS143 – Slovak Republic- Measure Affecting Import Duty on Wheat from 
Hungary........................................................................................................................ ................38  
10. WT/DS140 – European Communities – Anti-dumping Investigations Regarding 
Unbleached Cotton Fa brics from India.....................................................................................38  
11. WT/DS137 – European Communities – Meas ures Affecting Impo rts of Wood of 
Conifers from Canada........................................................................................................... ......39  
12. WT/DS134 – European Communities – Restri ctions on Certain Import Duties on 
Rice ........................................................................................................................... ....................39  
13. WT/DS133 – Slovak Republic  – Measures Concerning the Importation of Dairy 
Products and the Tr ansit of Cattle............................................................................................. 39 
14. WT/DS131 – France – Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies......................40  
15. WT/DS130 – Ireland – Certain Income Ta x Measures Constituting Subsidies .....................40   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page vii 
 
 
  16. WT/DS129 – Greece – Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies......................40  
17. WT/DS128 – Netherlands – Certain Income Ta x Measures Constituting Subsidies.............40  
18. WT/DS127 – Belgium – Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies....................40  
19. WT/DS123 – Argentina – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear ...............................41  
20. WT/DS120 – India – Measures Affecting Export of Certain Commodities............................41  
21. WT/DS118 – United States – Harbour Maintenance Tax........................................................41  
22. WT/DS117 – Canada – Measures Affe cting Film Distribution Services.................................41  
23. WT/DS116 – Brazil – Measures Affect ing Payment Terms for Imports ................................41  
M. YEAR  1997 ........................................................................................................................... .................41  
1. WT/DS112 – Peru – Countervailing Duty In vestigation against Imports of Buses 
from Brazil .................................................................................................................... ...............41  
2. WT/DS111 – United States – Tariff Ra te Quota for Imports of Groundnuts ........................42  
3. WT/DS109 – Chile – Taxes on  Alcoholic Be verages.................................................................42  
4. WT/DS107 – Pakistan – Export Meas ures Affecting Hides and Skins ...................................42  
5. WT/DS105 – European Communities – Re gime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bana nas ........................................................................................................ ......42  
6. WT/DS104 – European Communities – Me asures Affecting th e Exportation of 
Processed Cheese ............................................................................................................... ..........42  
7. WT/DS100 – United States – Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry Products....................42  
8. WT/DS97 – United States – Countervailing Du ty Investigation of Imports of Salmon 
from Chile ..................................................................................................................... ...............43  
9. WT/DS81 – Brazil – Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the 
Automotive Sector .............................................................................................................. .........43  
10. WT/DS80 – Belgium – Measures Affecting Commercial Telephone Directory Services ......43  
11. WT/DS78 – United States – Safeguard Me asure Against Imports of Broom Corn 
Brooms......................................................................................................................... .................43  
12. WT/DS71 – Canada – Measu res Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft ...........................43  
13. WT/DS66 – Japan – Measures A ffecting Imports of Pork.......................................................44  
14. WT/DS65 – Brazil – Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the 
Automotive Sector .............................................................................................................. .........44  
N. YEAR  1996 ........................................................................................................................... .................44  
1. WT/DS63 – United States – Anti-Dumping Me asures on Imports of Solid Urea from 
the Former German Demo cratic Republic................................................................................44  
2. WT/DS61 – United States – Import Proh ibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp 
Products....................................................................................................................... .................44  
3. WT/DS53 – Mexico – Customs Valuation of Imports ..............................................................44  
4. WT/DS52 – Brazil – Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the 
Automotive Sector .............................................................................................................. .........44  
5. WT/DS51 – Brazil – Certain Auto motive Investment Measures.............................................45  
6. WT/DS47 – Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products .................45  
7. WT/DS45 – Japan – Measures Affe cting Distributi on Services ..............................................45  
8. WT/DS41 – Korea – Measures Concerning In spection of Agricultural Products .................45  
9. WT/DS30 – Brazil – Countervailing Duties on Imports of Desiccated Coconut and 
Coconut Milk Powder from Sri Lanka......................................................................................45  
10. WT/DS29 – Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products .................45  
O. YEAR  1995 ........................................................................................................................... .................46  
1. WT/DS16 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bana nas ........................................................................................................ ......46  
2. WT/DS3 – Korea – Measures Concerning th e Testing and Inspection of Agricultural 
Products....................................................................................................................... .................46  
II. PANELS ESTABLISHED BY DSB/RE PORTS NOT YET CIRCULATED .......................................46  
A. ORIGINAL PANELS ............................................................................................................................... ....46 
1. WT/DS379 – United States – Definitive An ti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on 
Certain Products from China.................................................................................................... .46 WT/DS/OV/34 
Page viii  
 
  2. WT/DS375, WT/DS3 76, WT/DS377 – European Comm unities and its member States 
– Tariff Treatment of Certain In formation Technology Products..........................................47  
3. WT/DS371 – Thailand – Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the 
Philippi nes.................................................................................................................... ................47  
4. WT/DS367 – Australia – Measures Affectin g the Importation of Apples from New 
Zealand........................................................................................................................ .................48  
5. WT/DS366 – Colombia – Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry ....................49  
6. WT/DS363 – China – Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services 
for Certain Publications and Audi ovisual Entertainment Products .......................................50  
7. WT/DS362 – China – Measures Affect ing the Protection and Enforcement of 
Intellectual Prop erty Rights................................................................................................... .....51  
8. WT/DS357, WT/DS365 – United States – S ubsidies and other Domestic Support for 
Corn and other Agricultural Products;  United States – Domestic Support and 
Export Credit Guarantees fo r Argricultural Products ............................................................53  
9. WT/DS355 – Brazil – Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Certain Resins from 
Argentina...................................................................................................................... ................54  
10. WT/DS353 – United States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft 
(Second Complaint) ............................................................................................................. ........55  
11. WT/DS317 – United States – Measures A ffecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft..................56  
12. WT/DS316 – European Communities an d Certain Member States – Measures 
Affecting Trade in La rge Civil Aircraft ....................................................................................57  
13. WT/DS280 – United States – Countervailing Duties on Steel Plate from Mexico..................58  
14. WT/DS270 – Australia – Certain Measures Affecting the Importation of Fresh Fruit 
and Vegetables ................................................................................................................. ............58  
15. WT/DS260 – European Communities – Provisional Safeguard Measures on Imports 
of Certain Steel Products ...................................................................................................... ......59  
16. WT/DS214 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Steel Wire 
Rod and Circular Welded  Quality Li ne Pipe............................................................................59  
17. WT/DS195 – Philippines – Measures Affect ing Trade and Investment in the Motor 
Vehicle In dustry............................................................................................................... ............60  
18. WT/DS188 – Nicaragua – Measures Affecting Imports from Honduras and Colombia.......60  
19. WT/DS164 – Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear......................................61  
B. ACTIVE COMPLIANCE PANELS ................................................................................................................61  
1. WT/DS336 – Japan – Countervailing Duties  on Dynamic Random Access Memories 
from Korea..................................................................................................................... ..............61  
2. WT/DS322 – United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews.................61  
III. REPORTS CIRCULATED BUT NOT YET ADOPTED BY THE DSB..............................................62  
A. ORIGINAL PANEL REPORTS .....................................................................................................................62  
B. COMPLIANCE PANEL REPORTS (ARTICLE  21.5) ......................................................................................62  
1. WT/DS294 – United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating 
Dumping Margin s (Zeroing)...................................................................................................... .62 
C. APPELLATE BODY REPORTS ....................................................................................................................64  
D. APPELLATE BODY COMPLIANCE REPORTS (ARTICLE  21.5) ....................................................................64  
IV. REPORTS CURRENTLY UNDER APPEAL ........................................................................................64  
A. ORIGINAL PANEL REPORTS .....................................................................................................................64  
1. WT/DS350 – United States  – Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing 
Methodology.................................................................................................................... .............64  
B. COMPLIANCE PANEL REPORTS (ARTICLE  21.5) ......................................................................................66  
V. COMPLETED PANEL AND APP ELLATE BODY REVIEW.............................................................66  
A. APPELLATE BODY AND PANEL REPORTS ADOPTED ................................................................................66  
1. WT/DS360 – India – Additional and Extra-Additional Duties on Imports from the 
United States .................................................................................................................. ..............66   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page ix 
 
 
  2. WT/DS345 – United States – Customs Bo nd Directive for Mercha ndise subject to 
Anti-Dumping/Countervailing Duties........................................................................................68  
3. WT/DS344 – United States – Final Anti-Dum ping Measures on Stainless Steel from 
Mexico......................................................................................................................... ..................70  
4. WT/DS343 – United States – Measures Relating to Shrimp from Thailand ..........................72  
5. WT/DS341 – Mexico – Definitive Counter vailing Measures on Olive Oil from the 
European Co mmunities ........................................................................................................... ...73 
6. WT/DS339, WT/DS340, WT/DS342 – China – Measures Affecting Imports of 
Automobile Parts............................................................................................................... ..........74  
7. WT/DS337 – European Communities – An ti-Dumping Measure on Farmed Salmon 
from Norway .................................................................................................................... ............81  
8. WT/DS336 – Japan – Countervailing Duties  on Dynamic Random Access Memories 
from Korea..................................................................................................................... ..............82  
9. WT/DS335 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measure on Shrimp from Ecuador .................84  
10. WT/DS334 – Turkey – Measures Aff ecting the Importation of Rice......................................85  
11. WT/DS332 – Brazil – Measures Affect ing Imports of Re treaded Tyres.................................86  
12. WT/DS331 – Mexico – Anti-Dumping Du ties on Steel Pipes and Tubes from 
Guatemala ...................................................................................................................... ..............88  
13. WT/DS322 – United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews.................89  
14. WT/DS321 – Canada – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones 
Dispute........................................................................................................................ ..................91  
15. WT/DS320 – United St ates – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – 
Hormones Dispute ............................................................................................................... ........94  
16. WT/DS315 – European Communities – Selected Customs Matters........................................97  
17. WT/DS312 – Korea – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from 
Indonesia ...................................................................................................................... ................99  
18. WT/DS308 – Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Othe r Beverages........................101  
19. WT/DS302 – Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Import ation and Internal 
Sale of Cigarettes ............................................................................................................. ..........102  
20. WT/DS301 – European Communities – Me asures Affecting Trade in Commercial 
Vessels........................................................................................................................ .................104  
21. WT/DS299 – European Communities – Countervailing Measures on Dynamic 
Random Access Memory Chips from Korea...........................................................................106  
22. WT/DS296 – United St ates – Countervailing Duty Inve stigation on Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMs) from Korea........................................................107  
23. WT/DS294 – United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margin s (Zeroing).....................................................................................................1 09
 
24. WT/DS295 – Mexico – Defini tive Anti-Dumping Measures  on Beef and Rice.....................111  
25. WT/DS291, WT/DS292, WT/DS2 93 – European Communities – Measures Affecting 
the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products..................................................................112  
26. WT/DS285 – United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of 
Gambling and Betting Services ................................................................................................11 4 
27. WT/DS282 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular 
Goods (OCTG) from Mexico ....................................................................................................116  
28. WT/DS277 – United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada...............................................................................................117
 
29. WT/DS276 – Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of Imported Grain................................................................................................................. .........118
 
30. WT/DS273 – Korea – Measures Affect ing Trade in Commerci al Vessels............................120  
31. WT/DS269, WT/DS286 – European Communities – Customs Classification of Frozen 
Boneless Chic ken Cuts .......................................................................................................... ....121  
32. WT/DS268 – United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil 
Country Tubular Goods from Argentina ................................................................................123  
33. WT/DS267 – United States -Sub sidies on Upla nd Cotton......................................................125  
34. WT/DS265, WT/DS266, WT/DS283 – European Communities – Export Subsidies on 
Sugar.......................................................................................................................... .................128  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page x  
 
  35. WT/DS264 – United States  – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber 
from Canada .................................................................................................................... ..........131  
36. WT/DS257 – United States – Final Countervailing Duty De termination with respect 
to certain Softwood Lumb er from Canada .............................................................................133  
37. WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/D S251, WT/DS252, WT/DS253, WT/DS254, WT/DS258, 
WT/DS259 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain 
Steel Products................................................................................................................. ............134  
38. WT/DS246 – European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff 
Preferences to Developi ng Countries .......................................................................................137  
39. WT/DS245 – Japan – Measures Affect ing the Importatio n of Apples..................................139  
40. WT/DS244 – United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan .................................................................140  
41. WT/DS243 – United States – Rules of Orig in for Textiles and Apparel Products...............141  
42. WT/DS241 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dum ping Duties on Poultry from Brazil ...........142  
43. WT/DS238 – Argentina – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Preserved 
Peaches ........................................................................................................................ ...............143  
44. WT/DS236 – United States – Preliminary Determinations with Respect to Certain 
Softwood Lumber from Canada...............................................................................................144  
45. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines...............................146  
46. WT/DS222 – Canada – Export Credits and Lo an Guarantees for Regional Aircraft.........147  
47. WT/DS221 – United States – Section 129(c)(1) of  the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act............................................................................................................................ ...................148  
48. WT/DS219 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron 
Tube or Pipe Fitti ngs from Brazil ............................................................................................14 9 
49. WT/DS217, WT/DS234 – United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset 
Act of 2000.................................................................................................................... ..............150  
50. WT/DS213 – United St ates – Countervailing Duties on  Certain Corrosion-Resistant 
Carbon Steel Flat Produc ts from Germany ............................................................................152  
51. WT/DS212 – United States – Countervailing Measures Co ncerning Certain Products 
from the European Communities.............................................................................................153  
52. WT/DS211 – Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dum ping Measures on Steel Rebar from 
Turkey ......................................................................................................................... ...............155  
53. WT/DS207 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain 
Agricultural Products.......................................................................................................... ......158  
54. WT/DS206 – United States – Anti-Dumping  and Countervailing Measures on Steel 
Plate from India............................................................................................................... ..........160  
55. WT/DS204 – Mexico – Measures Affect ing Telecommunicatio ns Services..........................161  
56. WT/DS202 – United States – Definitive Sa feguard Measures On Imports Of Circular 
Welded Carbon Quality Line  Pipe From Korea.....................................................................163  
57. WT/DS194 – United States – Measures Treating Export Restraints as Subsidies...............165  
58. WT/DS192 – United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton 
Yarn from Pakistan............................................................................................................. ......166  
59. WT/DS189 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Carton-Board 
Imports from Germany and Definitive An ti-Dumping Measures on Imports of 
Ceramic Tiles from Italy....................................................................................................... ....167  
60. WT/DS184 – United States – Anti-Dumping  Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel 
Products from Japan............................................................................................................ .....168  
61. WT/DS179 – United States – Anti-Dumping measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils 
and Stainless Steel Sheet an d Strip from Korea .....................................................................169  
62. WT/DS177, WT/DS178 – United States – Sa feguard Measure on Imports of Fresh, 
Chilled or Frozen Lamb from New Ze aland ...........................................................................171  
63. WT/DS176 – United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 ................173  
64. WT/DS174, WT/DS290 – European Communities – Protection of Trademarks and 
Geographical Indications for Agricult ural Products and Foodstuffs ...................................174  
65. WT/DS170 – Canada – Term of Patent Protection.................................................................176  
66. WT/DS166 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat 
Gluten from the Euro pean Communities ................................................................................176   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page xi 
 
 
  67. WT/DS165 – United States – Import Measures on Certain Products from the 
European Co mmunities ........................................................................................................... .178 
68. WT/DS163 – Korea – Measures Aff ecting Government Procurement .................................180  
69. WT/DS162 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916.......................................................181  
70. WT/DS161, WT/DS169 – Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of  Fresh, Chilled and 
Frozen Beef.................................................................................................................... .............181  
71. WT/DS160 – United States – Section 110(5) of US Copyright Act........................................183  
72. WT/DS156 – Guatemala – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measure on Grey Portland 
Cement from Mexico............................................................................................................. ....184  
73. WT/DS155 – Argentina – Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hides and the 
Import of Fini shed Leather..................................................................................................... ..186 
74. WT/DS152 – United States – Sections 301 – 310 of the Tr ade Act 1974 ...............................186  
75. WT/DS146, WT/DS175 – India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector.....................187  
76. WT/DS141 – European Communi ties – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-
type Bed Linen from India...................................................................................................... ..189 
77. WT/DS139, WT/DS142 – Canada – Certai n Measures Affecting the Automotive 
Industry ....................................................................................................................... ...............191  
78. WT/DS138 – United St ates – Imposition of Counter vailing Duties on Certain Hot-
Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom .....192  
79. WT/DS136 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916.......................................................192  
80. WT/DS135 – European Communities – Meas ures Affecting Asbestos and Products 
Containing Asbestos ............................................................................................................ ......193  
81. WT/DS132 – Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup 
(HFCS) from the United States ................................................................................................19 5 
82. WT/DS126 – Australia – Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of 
Automotive Leather............................................................................................................. ......195  
83. WT/DS122 – Thailand – Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of 
Iron or Non-Alloy Steel an d H-Beams from Poland...............................................................196  
84. WT/DS121 – Argentina – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear .............................197  
85. WT/DS114 – Canada – Patent Protectio n of Pharmaceutical Products ...............................198  
86. WT/DS108 – United States – Tax Treatmen t for "Foreign Sales Corporations"................199  
87. WT/DS103, WT/DS113 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and 
the Exportation of Dairy Products...........................................................................................199  
88. WT/DS99 – United States – Anti-Dumpi ng Duty on Dynamic Random Access 
Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of On e Megabit or Above from Korea .......................200  
89. WT/DS98 – Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy 
Products....................................................................................................................... ...............201  
90. WT/DS90 – India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and 
Industrial Products............................................................................................................ ........201  
91. WT/DS87, WT/DS110 – Chile – Taxe s on Alcoholic Beverages ............................................202  
92. WT/DS79 – India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical 
Products....................................................................................................................... ...............202  
93. WT/DS76 – Japan – Measures Affect ing Agricultural  Products...........................................203  
94. WT/DS75, WT/DS84 – Korea – Taxe s on Alcoholic Beverages.............................................203  
95. WT/DS70 – Canada – Measu res Affecting the Export of Civilian Ai rcraft .........................204  
96. WT/DS69 – European Communities – Measu res Affecting Importation of Certain 
Poultry Products............................................................................................................... .........204  
97. WT/DS62, WT/DS67, WT/DS68 – European Communities – Customs Classification 
of Certain Computer Equipment .............................................................................................205  
98. WT/DS60 – Guatemala – Anti-Dumping In vestigation Regarding Portland Cement 
from Mexico .................................................................................................................... ...........205  
99. WT/DS58 – United States – Import Proh ibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp 
Products....................................................................................................................... ...............206  
100. WT/DS56 – Argentina -Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel 
and Other Items................................................................................................................ .........207  
101. WT/DS54, WT/DS55, WT/DS59, WT/DS64 – Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting 
the Automobile  Industry........................................................................................................ ...207  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page xii  
 
  102. WT/DS50 – India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical 
Products....................................................................................................................... ...............208  
103. WT/DS48 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Livestock and Meat 
(Hormones)..................................................................................................................... ............208  
104. WT/DS46 – Brazil – Export Financ ing Programme fo r Aircraft..........................................209  
105. WT/DS44 – Japan – Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and Paper...........210  
106. WT/DS34 – Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products ...............210  
107. WT/DS33 – United States – Measures Aff ecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and 
Blouses ........................................................................................................................ ................211  
108. WT/DS31 – Canada – Certain Measu res Concerning P eriodicals ........................................211  
109. WT/DS27 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bana nas ........................................................................................................ ....212  
110. WT/DS26 – European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat 
Products (Hormones) ............................................................................................................ ....212  
111. WT/DS24 – United States – Restrictions on  Imports of Cotton and Man-made Fibre 
Underwear...................................................................................................................... ............213  
112. WT/DS22 – Brazil – Measures Affe cting Desiccated Coconut...............................................213  
113. WT/DS18 – Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon .............................214  
114. WT/DS8, WT/DS10, WT/DS11 – Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages ............................214  
115. WT/DS2, WT/DS4 – United States – Stan dards for Reformulate d and Conventional 
Gasoline ....................................................................................................................... ...............215  
B. APPELLATE BODY AND PANEL COMPLIANCE REPORTS (ARTICLE  21.5)  ADOPTED ..............................215  
1. WT/DS312 – Korea – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from 
Indonesia ...................................................................................................................... ..............215  
2. WT/DS285 – United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of 
Gambling and Betting Services ................................................................................................21 6 
3. WT/DS277 – United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission in 
Softwood Lumber from Canada...............................................................................................216  
4. WT/DS268 – United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina ................................................................................217
 
5. WT/DS267 – United States – S ubsidies on Upland Cotton ....................................................218  
6. WT/DS264 – United States  – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber 
from Canada .................................................................................................................... ..........221  
7. WT/DS257 – United States – Final Countervailing Duty De termination with respect 
to certain Softwood Lumb er from Canada .............................................................................222  
8. WT/DS245 – Japan – Measures Affect ing the Importatio n of Apples..................................224  
9. WT/DS212 – United States – Countervailing Measures Co ncerning Certain Products 
from the European Communities.............................................................................................224  
10. WT/DS207 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products.......................................................................................................... ......225
 
11. WT/DS141 – European Communi ties – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-
type Bed Linen from India...................................................................................................... ..226 
12. WT/DS132 – Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup 
(HFCS) from the United States ................................................................................................22 7 
13. WT/DS126 – Australia – Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of 
Automotive Leather............................................................................................................. ......228  
14. WT/DS108 – United States – Tax Treatmen t for "Foreign Sales Corporations"................229  
15. WT/DS103, WT/DS113 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and 
the Exportation of Dairy Products...........................................................................................230  
16. WT/DS99 – United States – Anti-Dumpi ng Duty on Dynamic Random Access 
Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of On e Megabit or Above from Korea .......................231  
17. WT/DS70 – Canada – Measu res Affecting the Export of Civilian Ai rcraft .........................232  
18. WT/DS58 – United States – Import Proh ibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp 
Products....................................................................................................................... ...............232  
19. WT/DS46 – Brazil – Export Financ ing Programme fo r Aircraft..........................................233  
20. WT/DS27 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bana nas ........................................................................................................ ....234   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page xiii 
 
 
  21. WT/DS18 – Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon .............................239  
VI. IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF ADOPTED REPORTS ..............................................................239  
1. WT/DS345 – United States – Customs Bo nd Directive for Mercha ndise subject to 
Anti-Dumping/Counter vailing Duties......................................................................................239  
2. WT/DS344 – United States – Final Anti-Dum ping Measures on Stainless Steel from 
Mexico......................................................................................................................... ................239  
3. WT/DS343 – United States – Measures Relating to Shrimp from Thailand ........................240  
4. WT/DS341 – Mexico – Definitive Counter vailing Measures on Olive Oil from the 
European Co mmunities ........................................................................................................... .240 
5. WT/DS337 – European Communities – An ti-Dumping Measure on Farmed Salmon 
from Norway .................................................................................................................... ..........240  
6. WT/DS336 – Japan – Countervailing Duties  on Dynamic Random Access Memories 
from Korea..................................................................................................................... ............240  
7. WT/DS335 – United States – Anti-Dumping  Measure on Shrimp from Ecuador ...............241  
8. WT/DS334 – Turkey – Measures Aff ecting the Importat ion of Rice....................................241  
9. WT/DS332 – Brazil – Measures Affectin g Imports of Ret readed Tyres...............................241  
10. WT/DS331 – Mexico – Anti-Dumping Du ties on Steel Pipes and Tubes from 
Guatemala ...................................................................................................................... ............241  
11. WT/DS322 – United States – Measures relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews................242  
12. WT/DS312 – Korea – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from 
Indonesia ...................................................................................................................... ..............242  
13. WT/DS308 – Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and other Beverages.........................242  
14. WT/DS302 – Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Import ation and Internal 
Sale of Cigarettes ............................................................................................................. ..........243  
15. WT/DS301 – European Communities – Me asures Affecting Trade in Commercial 
Vessels........................................................................................................................ .................243  
16. WT/DS299 – European Communities – Countervailing Measures on Dynamic 
Random Access Memory Chips from Korea...........................................................................243  
17. WT/DS296 – United St ates – Countervailing Duty Inve stigation on Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMs) from Korea........................................................243  
18. WT/DS295 – Mexico – Defini tive Anti-Dumping Measures  on Beef and Rice.....................244  
19. WT/DS294 – United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating 
Dumping Margins (" Zeroing") ................................................................................................244  
20. WT/DS291, WT/DS292, WT/DS2 93 – European Communities – Measures Affecting 
the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products..................................................................244  
21. WT/DS285 – United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of 
Gambling and Betting Services ................................................................................................24 5 
22. WT/DS282 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular 
Goods (OCTG) from Mexico ....................................................................................................246  
23. WT/DS277 – United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada...............................................................................................247
 
24. WT/DS276 – Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of Imported Grain................................................................................................................. .........248
 
25. WT/DS273 – Korea – Measures Affect ing Trade in Commerci al Vessels............................248  
26. WT/DS269, WT/DS286 – European Communities – Customs Classification of Frozen 
Boneless Chic ken Cuts .......................................................................................................... ....248  
27. WT/DS268 – United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil 
Country Tubular Goods from Argentina ................................................................................249  
28. WT/DS267 – United States -Sub sidies on Upla nd Cotton......................................................250  
29. WT/DS265, WT/DS266, WT/DS283 – European Communities – Export Subsidies on 
Sugar.......................................................................................................................... .................250  
30. WT/DS264 – United States  – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber 
from Canada .................................................................................................................... ..........251  
31. WT/DS257 – United States – Final Countervailing Duty De termination with respect 
to certain Softwood Lumb er from Canada .............................................................................252  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page xiv  
 
  32. WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/D S251, WT/DS252, WT/DS253, WT/DS254, WT/DS258, 
WT/DS259 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain 
Steel Products................................................................................................................. ............253  
33. WT/DS246 – European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff 
Preferences to Developi ng Countries .......................................................................................253  
34. WT/DS245 – Japan – Measures Affect ing the Importatio n of Apples..................................253  
35. WT/DS238 – Argentina – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Preserved 
Peaches ........................................................................................................................ ...............254  
36. WT/DS236 – United States – Preliminary Determinations with Respect to Certain 
Softwood Lumber from Canada...............................................................................................254  
37. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines...............................255  
38. WT/DS222 – Canada – Export Credits and Lo an Guarantees for Regional Aircraft.........255  
39. WT/DS219 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron 
Tube or Pipe Fitti ngs from Brazil ............................................................................................25 6 
40. WT/DS217, WT/DS234 – United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset 
Act of 2000.................................................................................................................... ..............256  
41. WT/DS213 – United St ates – Countervailing Duties on  Certain Corrosion-Resistant 
Carbon Steel Flat Produc ts from Germany ............................................................................258  
42. WT/DS212 – United States – Countervailing Measures Co ncerning Certain Products 
from the European Communities.............................................................................................258  
43. WT/DS211 – Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dum ping Measures on Steel Rebar from 
Turkey ......................................................................................................................... ...............259  
44. WT/DS207 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain 
Agricultural Products.......................................................................................................... ......259  
45. WT/DS206 – United States – Anti-Dumping  and Countervailing Measures on Steel 
Plate from India............................................................................................................... ..........261  
46. WT/DS204 – Mexico – Measures Affect ing Telecommunicatio ns Services..........................261  
47. WT/DS202 – United States – Definitive Sa feguard Measures On Imports Of Circular 
Welded Carbon Quality Line  Pipe From Korea.....................................................................261  
48. WT/DS192 – United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton 
Yarn from Pakistan............................................................................................................. ......262  
49. WT/DS189 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Carton-Board 
Imports from Germany and Definitive An ti-Dumping Measures on Imports of 
Ceramic Tiles from Italy....................................................................................................... ....262  
50. WT/DS184 – United States – Anti-Dumping  Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel 
Products from Japan............................................................................................................ .....262  
51. WT/DS179 – United States – Anti-Dumping measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils 
and Stainless Steel Sheet an d Strip from Korea .....................................................................264  
52. WT/DS177, WT/DS178 – United States – Sa feguard Measure on Imports of Fresh, 
Chilled or Frozen Lamb from New Ze aland ...........................................................................265  
53. WT/DS176 – United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 ................265  
54. WT/DS174, WT/DS290 – European Communities – Protection of Trademarks and 
Geographical Indications for Agricult ural Products and Foodstuffs ...................................266  
55. WT/DS170 – Canada – Term of Patent Protection.................................................................267  
56. WT/DS166 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat 
Gluten from the Euro pean Communities ................................................................................267  
57. WT/DS161, WT/DS169 – Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of  Fresh, Chilled and 
Frozen Beef.................................................................................................................... .............267  
58. WT/DS160 – United States – Section 110(5) of US Copyright Act........................................267  
59. WT/DS156 – Guatemala – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measure on Grey Portland 
Cement from Mexico............................................................................................................. ....269  
60. WT/DS155 – Argentina – Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hides and the 
Import of Fini shed Leather..................................................................................................... ..269 
61. WT/DS146, WT/DS175 – India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector.....................270  
62. WT/DS141 – European Communi ties – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-
type Bed Linen from India...................................................................................................... ..270  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page xv 
 
 
  63. WT/DS139, WT/DS142 – Canada – Certai n Measures Affecting the Automotive 
Industry ....................................................................................................................... ...............271  
64. WT/DS138 – United St ates – Imposition of Counter vailing Duties on Certain Hot-
Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom .....271  
65. WT/DS136, WT/DS162 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 ..................................271  
66. WT/DS132 – Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup 
(HFCS) from the United States ................................................................................................27 3 
67. WT/DS126 – Australia – Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of 
Automotive Leather............................................................................................................. ......274  
68. WT/DS121 – Argentina – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear .............................274  
69. WT/DS114 – Canada – Patent Protectio n of Pharmaceutical Products ...............................274  
70. WT/DS108 – United States – Tax Treatmen t for "Foreign Sales Corporations"................274  
71. WT/DS103, WT/DS113 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and 
the Exportation of Dairy Products...........................................................................................276  
72. WT/DS99 – United States – Anti-Dumpi ng Duty on Dynamic Random Access 
Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of On e Megabit or Above from Korea .......................277  
73. WT/DS98 – Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy 
Products....................................................................................................................... ...............277  
74. WT/DS90 – India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and 
Industrial Products............................................................................................................ ........277  
75. WT/DS87, WT/DS110 – Chile – Taxe s on Alcoholic Beverages ............................................278  
76. WT/DS79 – India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical 
Products....................................................................................................................... ...............278  
77. WT/DS76 – Japan – Measures Affect ing Agricultural  Products...........................................279  
78. WT/DS75, WT/DS84 – Korea – Taxe s on Alcoholic Beverages.............................................279  
79. WT/DS70 – Canada – Measu res Affecting the Export of Civilian Ai rcraft .........................279  
80. WT/DS69 – European Communities – Measu res Affecting Importation of Certain 
Poultry Products............................................................................................................... .........280  
81. WT/DS58 – United States – Import Proh ibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp 
Products....................................................................................................................... ...............280  
82. WT/DS56 – Argentina -Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel 
and Other Items................................................................................................................ .........280  
83. WT/DS54, WT/DS55, WT/DS59, WT/DS64 – Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting 
the Automobile  Industry........................................................................................................ ...280  
84. WT/DS50 – India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical 
Products....................................................................................................................... ...............281  
85. WT/DS46 – Brazil – Export Financ ing Programme fo r Aircraft..........................................281  
86. WT/DS34 – Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products ...............282  
87. WT/DS33 – United States – Measures Aff ecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and 
Blouses ........................................................................................................................ ................283  
88. WT/DS31 – Canada – Certain Measu res Concerning P eriodicals ........................................283  
89. WT/DS27 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bana nas ........................................................................................................ ....283  
90. WT/DS26, WT/DS48 – European Communiti es – Measures Concerning Meat and 
Meat Products (Hormones)....................................................................................................... 288 
91. WT/DS24 – United States – Restrictions on  Imports of Cotton and Man-made Fibre 
Underwear...................................................................................................................... ............289  
92. WT/DS18 – Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon .............................289  
93. WT/DS8, WT/DS10, WT/DS11 – Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages ............................290  
94. WT/DS2, WT/DS4 – United States – Stan dards for Reformulate d and Conventional 
Gasoline ....................................................................................................................... ...............290  
VII. SETTLED OR INAC TIVE CASES ...................................................................................................... .290 
A. MUTUALLY AGREED SOLUTIONS NOTIFIED UNDER ARTICLE  3.6  OF THE DSU ...................................290  
1. WT/DS354 – Canada – Tax Exemptions a nd Reductions for Wine and Beer......................290  
2. WT/DS348 – Colombia – Customs Measures on Importation of Certain Goods from 
Panama......................................................................................................................... ..............291  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page xvi  
 
  3. WT/DS329 – Panama – Tariff Classification of Certain Milk Products...............................292  
4. WT/DS327 – Egypt – Anti-Dumping Duti es on Matches from Pakistan..............................292  
5. WT/DS323 – Japan – Import Quotas on Dried Laver and Seasoned Laver ........................293  
6. WT/DS313 – European Communi ties – Anti-Dumping Duties  on Certain Flat Rolled 
Iron or Non-Alloy Steel Pr oducts from India..........................................................................293  
7. WT/DS311 – United St ates – Reviews of Counterva iling Duty on Softwood Lumber 
from Canada .................................................................................................................... ..........294  
8. WT/DS309 – China – Value-Added Ta x on Integrated Circuits ...........................................294  
9. WT/DS305 – Egypt – Measures Affecting Imports of Textile and Apparel Products .........295  
10. WT/DS287 – Australia – Quaran tine Regime for Imports ....................................................295  
11. WT/DS281 – United States – Anti-Dumping  Measures on Cement from Mexico................296  
12. WT/DS277 – United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission in 
Softwood Lumber from Canada...............................................................................................297  
13. WT/DS264 – United States  – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber 
from Canada .................................................................................................................... ..........298  
14. WT/DS261 – Uruguay – Tax Treatm ent on Certain Products ..............................................298  
15. WT/DS257 – United States – Final Countervailing Determination with respect to 
certain Softwood Lumb er from Ca nada..................................................................................299  
16. WT/DS250 – United States – Equalizing Excise Tax Imposed by Florida on Processed 
Orange and Grapefruit Products.............................................................................................299  
17. WT/DS247 – United States – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Imports of 
Certain Softwood Lumb er from Canada.................................................................................299  
18. WT/DS245 – Japan – Measures Affect ing the Importatio n of Apples..................................300  
19. WT/DS237 – Turkey – Certain Import  Procedures for Fresh Fruit.....................................300  
20. WT/DS236 – United States – Preliminary Determinations with respect to certain 
Softwood Lumber from Canada...............................................................................................301  
21. WT/DS235 – Slovakia – Safeguard Me asure on Imports of Sugar .......................................301  
22. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines...............................301  
23. WT/DS210 – Belgium – Administration of Me asures Establishing Customs Duties for 
Rice ........................................................................................................................... ..................302  
24. WT/DS199 – Brazil – Measures Af fecting Patent Protection ................................................303  
25. WT/DS198 – Romania – Measures on Minimum Impo rt Prices...........................................303  
26. WT/DS196 – Argentina – Certain Measures on the Protection of Patents and Test 
Data........................................................................................................................... ..................303  
27. WT/DS190 – Argentina – Transitional Safeguard Measures on Certain Imports of 
Woven Fabric Products of Cotton and Cott on Mixtures Originating in Brazil...................304  
28. WT/DS171 – Argentina – Patent Protection for Pharmaceuticals and Test Data 
Protection for Agricu ltural Chemi cals ....................................................................................305  
29. WT/DS151 – United States – Measures Affecting Textiles and Apparel Products (ll) ........305  
30. WT/DS125 – Greece – Enforcement of Intell ectual Property Rights for Motion 
Pictures and Televi sion Programs............................................................................................306  
31. WT/DS124 – European Communities – Enfo rcement of Intellectual Property Rights 
for motion pictures and television programs ..........................................................................306  
32. WT/DS119 – Australia – Anti-Dumping Me asures on Imports of Coated Woodfree 
Paper Sheets................................................................................................................... ............306  
33. WT/DS115 – European Communities – Meas ures Affecting the Grant of Copyright 
and Neighbouring Rights ........................................................................................................ ..306 
34. WT/DS103, WT/DS113 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and 
the Exportation of Dairy Products...........................................................................................306  
35. WT/DS102 – Philippines – Measures Affecting Pork and Poultry........................................306  
36. WT/DS99 – United States – Anti-Dumpi ng Duty on Dynamic Random Access 
Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of On e Megabit or Above from Korea .......................307  
37. WT/DS96 – India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and 
Industrial Goods ............................................................................................................... .........307  
38. WT/DS94 – India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and 
Industrial Products............................................................................................................ ........307   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page xvii 
 
 
  39. WT/DS93 – India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and 
Industrial Products............................................................................................................ ........307  
40. WT/DS92 – India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and 
Industrial Products............................................................................................................ ........308  
41. WT/DS91 – India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and 
Industrial Products............................................................................................................ ........308  
42. WT/DS86 – Sweden – Measu res Affecting the Enforcemen t of Intellectual Property 
Rights......................................................................................................................... .................308  
43. WT/DS85 – United States – Measures Aff ecting Textiles and Apparel Products................308  
44. WT/DS83 – Denmark – Measures Affecting the Enforcement of Intellectual Property 
Rights......................................................................................................................... .................308  
45. WT/DS82 – Ireland – Measures Affecting the Grant of Copyright and Neighbouring 
Rights......................................................................................................................... .................308  
46. WT/DS74 – Philippines – Measures A ffecting Pork and Poultry..........................................309  
47. WT/DS73 – Japan – Procurement of  a Navigation Satellite ..................................................309  
48. WT/DS72 – European Communities – Meas ures Affecting Butter Products.......................309  
49. WT/DS43 – Turkey – Taxation of  Foreign Film Revenues....................................................309  
50. WT/DS42 – Japan – Measures Con cerning Sound Recordings.............................................310  
51. WT/DS40 – Korea – Laws, Regulations a nd Practices in the Telecommunications 
Procurement  Sector............................................................................................................. ......310  
52. WT/DS37 – Portugal – Patent Protection under the Industrial Property Act .....................310  
53. WT/DS36 – Pakistan – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural 
Chemical Pr oducts.............................................................................................................. .......310  
54. WT/DS35 – Hungary – Export Subsidies in Respect of Agricultural Products ...................310  
55. WT/DS28 – Japan – Measures Con cerning Sound Recordings.............................................311  
56. WT/DS21 – Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmonids ........................311  
57. WT/DS20 – Korea – Measures Co ncerning Bottle d Water ...................................................311  
58. WT/DS19 – Poland – Import Regime for Automobiles..........................................................311  
59. WT/DS7, WT/DS12, WT/DS14 – European Communities – Trade Description of 
Scallops....................................................................................................................... ................311  
60. WT/DS6 – United States – Imposition of Import Duties on Automobiles from Japan 
under Sections 301 and 304 of the Trade Act of 1974.............................................................312  
61. WT/DS5 – Korea – Measures Concerni ng the Shelf-Life of Products..................................312  
B. OTHERS ............................................................................................................................... ..................312  
1. WT/DS378 – China – Measures Affectin g Financial Information Services and 
Foreign Financial Info rmation Supp liers................................................................................312  
2. WT/DS374 – South Africa – Anti-Dumping Me asures on Uncoated Woodfree Paper .......313  
3. WT/DS373 – China – Measures Affectin g Financial Information Services and 
Foreign Financial Info rmation Supp liers................................................................................313  
4. WT/DS372 – China – Measures Affectin g Financial Information Services and 
Foreign Financial Info rmation Supp liers................................................................................314  
5. WT/DS359 – China – Certain Measures  Granting Refunds, Reductions or 
Exemptions from Taxes and other Payments..........................................................................315  
6. WT/DS358 – China – Certain Measures  Granting Refunds, Reductions or 
Exemptions from Taxes and other Payments..........................................................................315  
7. WT/DS352 – India – Measures Affecting the Importation and Sale of Wines and 
Spirits from the Euro pean Communities.................................................................................316  
8. WT/DS351, WT/DS356 – Chile – Provisional Safeguard Measure on Certain Milk 
Products / Definitive Safeguard Meas ure on Certain Milk Products ...................................317  
9. WT/DS347 – European Communities an d certain member States – Measures 
Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (Second Complaint)................................................317  
10. WT/DS326 – European Communities – Defini tive Safeguard Measure on Salmon ............318  
11. WT/DS306 – India – Anti-Dumping Measu re on Batteries from Bangladesh .....................319  
12. WT/DS298 – Mexico – Certain Pricing for Customs Valuation and Other Purposes.........320  
13. WT/DS284 – Mexico – Certain Measures P reventing the Importation of Black Beans 
from Nicaragua................................................................................................................. .........320  
14. WT/DS255 – Peru – Tax Treatment on  Certain Imported Products....................................321  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page xviii  
 
  15. WT/DS240 – Romania – Import Prohibit ion on Wheat and Wheat Flour...........................322  
16. WT/DS232 – Mexico – Measures Aff ecting the Import of Matches......................................322  
17. WT/DS228 – Chile – Safeguar d Measures on Sugar ..............................................................322  
18. WT/DS227 – Peru – Taxe s on Cigarettes.................................................................................323  
19. WT/DS193 – Chile – Measures affecting the Transit and Importing of Swordfish.............323  
20. WT/DS181 – Colombia – Safeguard Measure of Imports of Plain Polyester Filaments 
from Thailand .................................................................................................................. ..........324  
21. WT/DS106 – Australia – Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of 
Automotive Leather............................................................................................................. ......324  
22. WT/DS101 – Mexico- Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup 
(HFCS) from the United States ................................................................................................32 4 
23. WT/DS95 – United States – Measure Af fecting Government Procurement.........................325  
24. WT/DS89 – United States – Imposition of An ti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Colour 
Television Receivers  from Korea .............................................................................................325  
25. WT/DS88 – United States – Measure Af fecting Government Procurement.........................325  
26. WT/DS77 – Argentina – Measures A ffecting Textiles and Clothing.....................................325  
27. WT/DS57 – Australia – Textile Clothing a nd Footwear Import Credit Scheme .................326  
28. WT/DS49 – United States – Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding Imports of Fresh 
or Chilled Tomatoes from Mexico............................................................................................326  
29. WT/DS39 – United States – Tariff Increases on Products from the European 
Communities .................................................................................................................... ..........326  
30. WT/DS38 – United States – The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act ................326  
31. WT/DS32 – United States – Me asures Affecting Imports of  Women's and Girls' Wool 
Coats .......................................................................................................................... .................327  
32. WT/DS25 – European Communities – Im plementation of th e Uruguay Round 
Commitments Con cerning Rice................................................................................................327  
33. WT/DS23 – Venezuela – Anti-Dumping Inve stigation in Respect of Imports of 
Certain Oil Country Tubu lar Goods (OCTG) ........................................................................327  
34. WT/DS17 – European Communities – Duties on Imports of Rice ........................................327  
35. WT/DS15 – Japan – Measures Affecting the Purchase of Telecommunications 
Equipment...................................................................................................................... ............327  
36. WT/DS13 – European Communities – Du ties on Imports of Grains ....................................327  
37. WT/DS9 – European Communities – Du ties on Imports of Cereals.....................................328  
38. WT/DS1 – Malaysia – Prohibition of Import s of Polyethylene and Polypropylene.............328 
  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 1 
 
 
  I. CONSULTATIONS REQUESTED – NO PANEL ESTABLISHED NOR 
SETTLEMENT NOTIFIED 
A. YEAR  2009 
1. WT/DS390 – China – Grants, Loans and other Incentives 
On 19 January 2009, Guatemala requested consulta tions with China regard to certain measures 
offering grants, loans and other incentives to enterp rises in China.  Guatemala indicated that these 
grants, loans and other incentives are reflected in a number of measures, as well as in any 
amendments or any related or implementing meas ures, including measures relating to the China 
World Top Brand Programme and the Ch inese Famous Export Brand Programme. 
Guatemala considers that these measures appear to provide grants, loans, and other incentives i that 
are contingent upon export performance.  Accordingly,  the measures appear to be inconsistent with 
Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.  Additionally, to  the extent that these measures provide subsidies 
for agricultural products, they appear to be inconsiste nt with Articles 3, 8, 9, and 10 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  The measures also appear to be in consistent with China's obligations under paragraph 
12.1 of Part I of its Accession Protocol, as well as paragraph 1.2 of Part I of its Accession Protocol (to 
the extent that it incorporates paragraph 234 of the Report of the Working Party on the Accession of 
China), which forms part of the terms of accessi on agreed between China and the WTO and is an 
integral part of the WTO Agreement.  Finally, th e grants, loans, and other incentives appear to be 
inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 to the extent that the measures benefit products of 
Chinese origin but not imported products. 
2. WT/DS389  European Communities – Certai n Measures Affecting Poultry Meat and 
Poultry Meat Products from the United States 
On 16 January 2009, the United States requested consultations with the European Communities 
("EC") regarding certain measures of the EC affecting poultry meat and poultry meat products 
("poultry") from the United States. 
The United States notes that the EC prohibits the im port of poultry treated with any substance other 
than water unless that substance has been approved by the EC.  Consequently, the EC prohibits the 
import of poultry that has been processed with chemical treatments ("pathogen reduction treatments" 
or "PRTs") designed to reduce the amount of mi crobes on the meat, effectively prohibiting the 
shipment of virtually all US poultry to the EC.  Th e EC has not published or otherwise made available 
the process for approving a substance.  The EC al so maintains a measure regarding the marketing 
standards for poultry meat, which defines "poultry meat" as only "poultry meat suitable for human 
consumption, which has not undergone any treatment other than cold treatment." 
According to the United States, in 2002, the Un ited States requested th e European Commission 
("Commission") to approve the use of four PRTs in the production of poultry intended for export to the EC:  chlorine dioxide, acidified sodium chlor ite, trisodium phosphate, and peroxyacids.  However, 
after more than six years, including unexplained delays, the EC has not approved any of these four 
PRTs and instead has rejected the appr oval of the use of these four PRTs. 
According to the United States, the EC's failure to ap prove is despite the fact that various EC agencies 
have issued scientific reports regarding a number of different aspects related to the processing of 
poultry with these four PRTs, the cumulative conc lusion of which is that the importation and 
consumption of poultry processed with these four PRTs  does not pose a risk to human health.  The US 
notes that in particular, in May 2008, the Commission submitted a proposal to the EC Standing WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 2  
 
  Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health ("SC oFCAH") that purported to approve the import 
into the EC of poultry treated with these four PRTs.  On 2 June 2008, SCoFCAH rejected the Commission's proposal unanimously, with the Unite d Kingdom abstaining.  On 18 December 2008, 
the EC Agricultural and Fisheries Council rejected the same Commission proposal by the same tally 
as SCoFCAH had.  
The United States understands that these EC measures  are reflected in, among others, Regulation (EC) 
No 853/2004, including Articles 3 and 6;
 Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, including Annex 
XIV(B)(II)(2);  SCoFCAH's rejection of the Commission's proposal regarding the removal of surface 
contamination from poultry carcasses on 2 June 2008;  the EU Agricultural and Fisheries Council's 
rejection of the Commission's proposal regarding the removal of surface contamination from poultry 
carcasses on 18 December 2008; and any amendments, related measures, or implementing measures.   
In the view of the United States. the EC measures appear to be inconsistent with the EC's WTO 
obligations, including, but not limited to, the following:   
(i) SPS Agreement Articles 2.2, 5, and 8, and Annex C(1);  
(ii) GATT 1994 Articles X:1 and XI:1;  
(iii) Agriculture Agreement Article 4.2; and 
(iv) TBT Agreement Article 2.   
According to the United States, the EC measures also appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing 
to the United States directly or indi rectly under the cited agreements.  
B. YEAR  2008 
1. WT/DS388 – China – Grants, Loans and other Incentives 
Complaint by Mexico.  On 19 December 2008, Mexi co requested consultations with China with 
regard to certain measures offering grants, loan s and other incentives to enterprises in China.  
Mexico indicated that these grants, loans and othe r incentives are reflected in a number of measures, 
as well as in any amendments or any related or implementing measures including measures relating to the China World Top Brand Programme and th e Chinese Famous Export Brand Programme.   
Mexico considers that these measures appear to pr ovide enterprises in Chin a with grants, loans and 
other incentives contingent upon export performan ce.  Accordingly, the measures appear to be 
inconsistent with Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.   Additionally, to the extent that these measures 
provide subsidies for agricultural products, they appear  to be inconsistent with  Articles 3, 9, and 10 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture.  The measures also  appear to be inconsistent with the PRC's 
obligations under paragraph 12.1 of Part I of its Ac cession Protocol, as well as paragraph 1.2 of Part I 
of its Accession Protocol (to the extent that it  incorporates paragraph 234 of the Report of the 
Working Party on the Accession of China), which forms part of the terms of accession agreed 
between the PRC and the WTO and is an integral pa rt of the WTO Agreement.  Finally, the grants, 
loans and other incentives appear to be inconsistent  with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 to the extent 
that the measures benefit Chinese-origin  products and not imported products.  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 3 
 
 
  On 15 January 2009, Canada, the European Co mmunities and Turkey requested to join the 
consultations.  On 16 January 2009, Australia and the United States requested to join the 
consultations. 
2. WT/DS387 – China – Grants, Loans and other Incentives 
Complaint by the United States.  On 19 December 2008, Mexico requested consultations with China 
regard to certain measures offering grants, loans and other incentives to enterprises in China.  The 
United States indicated that these grants, loans an d other incentives are reflected in a number of 
measures, as well as in any amendments or any related or implementing measures, including measures relating to the China World Top Brand Programme and the Chinese Famous Export Brand Programme.   
The United States considers that these measures appear  to provide grants, loans, and other incentives 
to enterprises in China on the condition that t hose enterprises meet ce rtain export performance 
criteria.  Accordingly, the measures appear to be in consistent with Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.  
Additionally, to the extent that these measures provi de subsidies for agricultural products, they appear 
to be inconsistent with Articles 3, 9, and 10 of  the Agreement on Agriculture.  The measures also 
appear to be inconsistent with China's obligatio ns under paragraph 12.1 of Part I of its Accession 
Protocol, as well as paragraph 1.2 of Part I of its Accession Protocol (to the extent that it incorporates 
paragraph 234 of the Report of the Working Party on  the Accession of China), which forms part of the 
terms of accession agreed between China and th e WTO and is an integral part of the WTO 
Agreement.  Finally, the grants, loans, and other in centives appear to be inconsistent with Article III:4 
of the GATT 1994 to the extent that the measures be nefit Chinese-origin products but not imported 
products. 
On 15 January 2009, Canada, the European Communiti es, Mexico and Turkey requested to join the 
consultations.  On 16 January 2009, Austra lia requested to join the consultations. 
3. WT/DS386 – United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling Requirements 
Complaint by Mexico.  On 17 December 2008, Mexico  requested consultations with the United States 
concerning the mandatory country of origin labelling (COOL) provisions in the Agricultural 
Marketing Act  of 1946 , as amended by the Farm, Security and Rura l Investment Act of 2002 and the 
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008,  and as implemented through th e regulations published as 
7 CFR Parts 60 and 65. 
According to Mexico, in the case of certain products , the determination of their nationality deviates 
considerably form international country of origin labelling standards, a situation which has not been 
justified as necessary to fulf il a legitimate objective.  
Mexico considers that the mandatory COOL provisi ons appear to be inconsistent with the United 
States' obligations under the WTO Agreement, including: 
(i) Articles III, IX and X of the GATT 1994; 
(ii) Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, or, in the alternative, Articles 2, 5 and 7 of the 
SPS Agreement;  and 
(iii) Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin. WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 4  
 
  These violations appear to nullify or  impair the benefits accruing to Mexico under those Agreements.  
Moreover, these measures appear to nullify or impair the benefits accr uing to Mexico in the sense of 
Article XXIII:l(b) of the GATT 1994. 
On 30 December 2008, Canada requested to join th e consultations.  Subsequently, the United States 
informed the DSB that it had accepted the requ est of Canada to join the consultations. 
4. WT/DS385 – European Communities – Expiry Reviews of Anti-Dumping and 
Countervailing Duties imposed on Imports of PET from India 
Complaint by India.  On 4 December 2008, India requested consultations with the European 
Communities. 
India considers that (a) Article 11(2) of the EC's  Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation read together with 
Regulation 1182/71 and (b) Article 18(1) of the EC's Basic CVD Regulation read together with 
Regulation 1182/71, are inconsistent as such w ith the European Communities' obligations under 
Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Ar ticle 21.3 of the SCM Agreement, respectively, 
to the extent that these provisions of the EC's re gulations do not require the termination of definitive 
anti-dumping or countervailing duties, as the case may be, on a date not later than five years from the 
imposition of such duties and permit the initiation of an expiry review on or after that date.  India also 
considers that these provisions of the EC's regulations  are also inconsistent as such with the European 
Communities' obligations under Article 18.4 of th e Anti-Dumping Agreement, Article 32.5 of the 
SCM Agreement and Article XVI: 4 of the WTO Agreement.
 
Further, the Government of India considers th at certain measures imposing definitive anti-dumping 
and countervailing duties on PET from India following expiry reviews are inconsistent with the 
European Communities' obligations  under Article VI of the GATT 1994, Articles 11.1, 11.3, 11.4, 
11.5, 6.1, 6.2, 6.5, 6.6, 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and with the European 
Communities' obligations under Articles 21.3, 21.4, 12.1, 12.4, 12.5 and 12.7 of the SCM Agreement, 
respectively.   
5. WT/DS384 – United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) 
Requirements 
Complaint by Canada.  On 1 December 2008, Canada requested consultations with the United States 
concerning certain mandatory country of origin labelling (COOL) provisions in the Agricultural 
Marketing Act of 1946 as amended by the 2008  Farm Bill and as implemented through an Interim 
Final Rule of 28 July 2008.  These include the obligat ion to inform consumers at the retail level of the 
country of origin in respect of covered commoditie s, including beef and pork.  The eligibility for a 
designation of a covered commodity as exclusively ha ving a US origin can only be derived from an 
animal that was exclusively born, raised and sla ughtered in the United States.  This would exclude 
such a designation in respect of beef or pork deri ved from livestock that is exported to the United 
States for feed or immediate slaughter. 
Canada alleges that the mandatory COOL provisions a ppear to be inconsistent with the United States' 
obligations under the WTO Agreement, including: 
• Articles III:4, IX:4 and X:3 of the GATT 1994; 
• Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, or, in the alternative, Articles 2, 5 and 7 of the SPS 
Agreement;  and  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 5 
 
 
  • Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin. 
On 12 December 2008, Mexico and Nicaragua requested to join the consultations.  Subsequently, the 
United States informed the DSB that it had accepted th e request of Mexico to join the consultations. 
6. WT/DS383 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measurs on Polyethylene Retail Carrier 
Bags from Thailand 
Complaint by Thailand.  On 26 November 2008, Th ailand requested consultations with the United 
States with respect to the application by the United States of the practice known as "zeroing" of 
negative dumping margins in the United States' dete rmination of the margins of dumping in its anti-
dumping investigation of Polyethylene  Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand. 
Specifically, Thailand requests consultations concer ning the USDOC's use in the Final Determination 
and Amended Final Determination of the practice of "zeroing" negative anti-dumping margins in 
calculating overall weighted-average margins of dumpi ng in this investigation.  Thailand alleges that 
the effect of this practice was to create artific ially margins of dumping where none would otherwise 
have been found or, at a minimum, to inflate ma rgins of dumping.  Thailand considers the USDOC's 
use of this practice of "zeroing" in the Final De termination, the Amended Final Determination, and 
the Order to be inconsistent with the obligations  of the United States under Article VI of the GATT 
1994, and, in particular, under Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
7. WT/DS382 – United States – Anti-Dumping Administrative Reviews and other 
Measures Related to Imports of Certain Orange Juice from Brazil 
Complaint by Brazil.  On 27 November 2008, Brazil requested consultations with with regard to: 
1. certain determinations of the United States Department of Commerce (USDOC) concerning 
the imports of certain orange juice from Brazil;  
2. any actions taken by United States Customs and Border Protection (USCBP) to collect 
definitive anti-dumping duties at duty assessmen t rates established in periodic reviews 
covered by the preceding paragraph, includi ng through the issuance of USCBP liquidations 
instructions and notices; and 
3. certain US laws, regulations, administrativ e procedures, practices and methodologies. 
Brazil is concerned that these laws, regulations, administrative procedures, practices and 
methodologies are as such, and as applied in the determinations and ac tions identified above, 
inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the WTO Agreement and the Agreements 
annexed thereto.  Brazil alleges that the provi sions with which these measures appear to be 
inconsistent include, but are not limited to Article s II, VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, Articles 1, 
2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 9.1, 9.3, 11.2 and 18.4 of th e Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Article XVI:4 of the 
WTO Agreement. 
On 10 December 2008, Japan request ed to join the consultations. 
8. WT/DS381 – United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and 
Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products 
Complaint by Mexico.  On 24 October 2008, Mexico requested consultations with the United States in 
relation to certain measures taken by the latter conc erning the importation, marketing and sale of tuna WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 6  
 
  and tuna products.  Mexico  alleges that the US measures have th e effect of prohibiting the labelling of 
Mexican tuna and tuna products as "dolphin-safe", ev en when the tuna has been harvested by means 
that comply with the multilaterally agreed "dolphi n-safe" standard established by the Inter-American 
Tropical Tuna Commission, while tuna products from most other countries, including the United States, are allowed to be labelled as "dolphin-safe". 
Mexico argues that these measures appear to be  inconsistent in particular, but not necessarily 
exclusively, with Articles 2, 5, 6 and 8 of th  TBT Agreement and Articles I and III of the GATT 
1994.  Mexico alleges that these violations nullify or impair the benefits accruing to Mexico under 
these Agreements and cannot be justifie d under any of the covered agreements. 
On 6 November 2008, the European Communities requested to join the consultations.  On 
7 November 2008, Australia requested to join the consultations. 
9. WT/DS380 – India – Certain Taxes and other Measures on Imported Wines and Spirits 
Complaint by the European Co mmunities.  On 22 September 2008, the European Communities 
requested consultations with India regarding discriminatory taxation applied on imported bottled 
wines and spirits by the Indian states of Maharashtr a and Goa as well as restrictions on retail sale 
applied by the Indian State of Tamil Nadu.  The European Communities considers that these measures 
adversely affect exports of wines and spir its from the European Communities to India. 
The European Communities claims th at that various measures applied by the State of Maharashtra to 
wines and spirits are inconsistent with Ar ticle III:2 and III:4 of the GATT 1994 as well with 
Article 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement.  The European Communities consider that these 
measures also nullify or impair the benefits ac cruing to the European Communities under the GATT 
1994. 
The European Communities also clai ms that certain measures applied by the State of Goa to wines 
and spirits appear to be inconsistent with Ar ticle III:2 of the GATT 1994 and nullify or impair the 
benefits accruing to the European Communities under the GATT 1994.
 
The European Communities further claims that various aspects of Tamil Nadu's legislation the 
importation into, transportation within and sale within  the State of Tamil Nadu of wines and spirits are 
inconsistent with India's obligations under Artic le III:4 of the GATT 1994 and nullify or impair the 
benefits accruing to the European Communities under the GATT 1994. 
On 2 October 2008, Australia requested to join the consultations.  On 3 October 2008, the United 
States requested to join the consultations. 
On 15 December 2008, the European Communities requ ested supplementary consultations with India 
regarding discriminatory taxation applied on imported bottled wines by the Indian state of Karnataka.  
The European Communities considers that these m easures adversely affect exports of wines and 
spirits (codes 22.04, 22.05, 22.06 and 22.08 of the Harmonised System) from the European Communities to India. 
The European Communities understands that the Stat e of Karnataka appears to apply the "additional 
special fee" and the "special fee" in a way that subjects imported wines to internal taxes in excess of 
domestic like products. .The European Communities c onsiders that various measures are inconsistent 
with Article III, paragraph 2 of the GATT 1994.  The European Communities considers that these 
measures also nullify or impair the benefits ac cruing to the European Communities under the GATT 
1994.  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 7 
 
 
  For each of the measures referred to in its requ est, the European Commun ities indicates that the 
request for consultations also covers any ame ndments, replacements, ex tensions, implementing 
measures and the related measures.  The Europe an Communities reserves the right to address 
additional measures and claims under other provisi ons of the WTO Agreement regarding the above 
matters during the course of the consultations. 
On 23 December 2008, the United States requested  to join the supplementary consultations. 
10. WT/DS370 – Thailand – Customs Valuation of  Certain Products from the European 
Communities 
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 25 January 2008, the European Communities requested 
consultations with Thailand with respect to th e way Thai customs authorities value alcoholic 
beverages and other products from the European Communities. 
The European Communities disputes the application by the Thai customs authorities of an "assessed 
value", which it considers to be arbitrary, to replace the declared transaction value of alcoholic 
beverages and other producs from the European Comm unities.  This assessed value is calculated by 
deducting (i) a standard margin of profit and general expenses and ( ii) the customs duty and internal 
taxes paid from (iii) the wholesale price of tho se goods in the Thai market, regardless of the 
transaction price provided by the importer.  Accord ing to the European Communities, broad standard 
margins of profit and general expenses have been fi xed by the Thai customs authorities on the basis of 
sources that have never been explained or disclosed. 
In particular, the request for consultations con cerns 14 different legislative and administrative 
measures (and their potential amendments, replace ments and implementing measures).  The European 
Communities claims that the above measures are inconsistent with Article XVI:4 of the WTO 
Agreement;  Articles I, II, III, VII, X and XI of the GATT 1994;  and Articles 1.1, 1.2, 5, 11, 12, 16 and 22 of the Agreement on Customs Valuation and their respective Interpretative Notes as contained 
in Annex I to that Agreement, and read in the context of the Ministerial Decision regarding Cases 
where Customs Authorities have reasons to doubt th e Truth or Accuracy of the Declared Value. 
On 7 February 2008, the Philippines requested to jo in the consultations.  On 11 February 2008, the 
United States requested to join the consultations. 
C. YEAR
 2007 
1. WT/DS369 – European Communities – Certai n Measures Prohibiting the Importation 
and Marketing of Seal Products 
Complaint by Canada.  On 25 September 2007, Cana da requested consultations with the European 
Communities concerning certain measures taken by Belgium and the Netherlands regarding the 
importation, transportation, manufacturing,  marketing and sale of seal products. 
Canada considered that the measures appear to be inconsistent with the European Communities' 
obligations under GATT 1994 and the TB T Agreement.  In particular: 
• Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TBT Agreement; and 
• Articles I:1, III:4, V:2, V:3, V:4 and XI:1 of the GATT 1994. WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 8  
 
  2. WT/DS368 – United States – Preliminary Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty 
Determinations on Coated Free Sheet Paper from China 
Complaint by China.  On 14 September 2007, China requested consultations with the United States on 
the preliminary anti-dumping and countervailing duty de terminations made by the US Department of 
Commerce in respect of coated free sheet paper from China. 
China considers that the measures are inconsiste nt with the United States' obligations under, 
inter alia ,  
• Article VI of the GATT 1994; 
• Articles 1, 2, 10, 14, 17 and 32 of the SCM Agreement; and 
• Articles 1, 2, 7, 9 and 18 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
3. WT/DS364 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation of Bananas 
Complaint by Panama.  On 27 June 2007, Panama  requested consultations with the European 
Communities concerning its regime for the importati on of bananas that has applied since 1 January 
2006.   
The request for consultations concerns EC Counc il Regulation 1964 and its associated implementing 
regulations, which Panama considers to accord si gnificantly differentiatad access treatment to ACP 
and MFN bananas, and creates new restrictions on MFN access.  Panama claims that the measures are inconsistent with: 
• Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 in view of the di fferent tariff treatment applicable to ACP and 
MFN banana-supplying countries; 
• Articles II and XXVIII of the GATT 1994 in view of the "autonomous" 176€/mt tariff now 
applicable to MFN bananas and certain othe r bananas not benefitting from the tariff rate 
quota;  and 
• Article XIII:1 and XIII:2 of the GATT 1994 in  view of the tariff rate quota reserved 
exclusively for bananas of ACP origin. 
4. WT/DS361 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation of Bananas 
Complaint by Colombia.  On 21 March 2007, Colombia  requested consultations with the European 
Communities concerning its regime for the importati on of bananas that has applied since 1 January 
2006.  Under this regime, the tariff levied on ba nanas of MFN origin was set at €176/tonne while 
ACP bananas may be imported at zero duty up to an annual quantity of 775,000 tonnes (the "ACP 
TRQ"). 
Colombia considers that the EC's new banana im port regime is inconsistent with the GATT 1994 for 
the following reasons: 
• the MFN tariff rate of €176/tonne is inconsistent with  Aricle II:1 because it exceeds the duties 
set forth in the EC's Schedule of Concessions:  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 9 
 
 
  • only ACP bananas benefit from the application of  a zero tariff, which is inconsistent with 
Article I:1. This inconsistency cannot be jus tified under the Article I "Doha Waiver" as that 
waiver ceased to apply to bananas as of 1 January 2006 because the EC no longer observes 
the terms and conditions of that waiver, in pa rticular because the EC has failed to rebind its 
import tariff on bananas and at a level that results  in at least maintaining total market access 
for MFN banana suppliers, taking into account all EC WTO market-access commitments; 
• the application of the ACP TRQ entails di scrimination between ACP bananas and MFN 
bananas, which is inconsistent with various provisions of Article XIII.  Moreover, this 
inconsistency cannot be justified under the Ar ticle XIII "Doha Wavier" since that waiver 
expired on 31 December 2005 and has not been extended. 
Colombia has also requested th e consultations be conducted with in the timeframe set out in 
Article 4.8 of the DSU for cases of urgency for perishable products. 
D. YEAR  2006 
1. WT/DS349 – European Communities – Measures Affecting the Tariff Quota for Fresh 
or Chilled Garlic 
Complaint by Argentina.  On 6 September 2006, Ar gentina requested consultations with the European 
Communities concerning measures that it has adopted that allegedly increase by 20,500 metre tons the 
tariff quota for fresh and chilled garlic in favour of  the People's Republic of China.  According to 
Argentina, the increase of the tariff quota for garlic is the result of bilateral negotiations between the 
European Communities and China, pursuant to Article XXIV:6 of GATT 1994, as a result of the 
European Communities' enlargement. 
More specifically, Argentina argues that the measur es "include, but are not limited to, the following": 
• EC's Council Decision 2006/398/EC, published on 8 June 2006, approving the bilateral 
agreement regarding the EC tariff quota for gar lic, fresh or chilled, tariff item No. 07032000, 
resulting from the negotiations between the Euro pean Communities and the People's Republic 
of China pursuant to Articles XXIV:6 and XXVIII of GATT 1994;  and 
• Commission Regulation (EC) 991/2006 - amending Regulation (EC) 1870/2005 of 
16 November 2005, published on 1 July 2006, im plementing the increase by 20,500 tons of 
the tariff quota of garlic in favour of the People's Republic of China. 
Argentina argues that the measures identified negative ly affect its "initial negotiation rights", pursuant 
to the tariff quota for garlic negotiated with th e European Communities under Article XXVIII, as 
reflected in the exchange of letters containe d in document G/SECRET/11/Add.1, approved the the 
EC's Council Decision 2001/4047EC of 28 May 2001. 
Argentina considers that the challe nged measures are inconsistent with: 
• Articles XXIV:6 and XXVIII of GATT 1994, and th e Understanding on the Interpretation of 
Articles XXIV:6 and XXVIII;  and 
• Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 10  
 
  2. WT/DS346 –United States – Anti-Dumping Administrative Review on Oil Country 
Tubular Goods from Argentina 
Complaint by Argentina.  On 20 June 2006, Argentin a requested consultations with the United States 
on its anti-dumping duty administrative review on oil country tubular goods other than drill pipe with 
respect to Acindar Industria Argentina de Aceros S.A. (Acindar) which it c onsiders is inconsistent 
with Articles 2.2 and note 2, 2.2.2, 2. 2.2(iii), 2.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.6, 6.8, 6.9, 9.2, 9. 3, 12.2 and 12.2.2 and 
Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Article VI of the GATT 1994 . 
The request for consultations also addresses Sec tion 773(e)(2)(b)(iii) of the US Tariff Act of 1930, 
and any amendments thereto or extensions thereof.  Argentina claims that this provision allows the 
United States to establish an amount for profit that  exceeds the profit normally realized by other 
exporters or producers on sales of products of the same  general category in the domestic market of the 
country of origin, in violation of Article 2.2.2(iii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Article VI of 
the GATT 1994 .  
Finally, Argentina also considers that the United States failed to comply with its obligations under 
Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement . 
3. WT/DS338 – Provisional Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Grain Corn from 
the United States 
Complaint by the United States.  On 17 March 2006,  the United States requested consultations with 
Canada concerning Canada 's imposition of provisional anti-dumping and countervailing duties on 
unprocessed grain corn from the United States publ ished in the Canada Gazette on 31 December 
2005, and also with respect to certain provisi ons of Canada's Special Import Measures Act. 
The United States believes that these provisional duti es are inconsistent with Canada's obligations 
under provisions of the GATT 1994 , the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and the SCM Agreement .  These 
include Article 3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 15 of the SCM Agreement  with respect 
to a number of factors relating to the preliminary in jury determination in this case and Articles 1, 7, 
and 12.2.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , Articles 10, 17, and 22.4 of the SCM Agreement , and 
Article VI of GATT 1994  by virtue of Canada having imposed  the said provisional duties based, in 
part, on a WTO-inconsistent pre liminary injury determination. 
E. YEAR
 2005 
1. WT/DS333 – Dominican Republic – Foreign Exchange Fee Affecting Imports from 
Costa Rica 
Complaint by Costa Rica. On 12 September 2005, Costa Rica requested consultations with the 
Dominican Republic concerning the collection by the Dominican Republic of an exchange rate fee of 
13% calculated upon the exchange rate for foreign currency sale which applies to imports from Costa 
Rica. The request refers to some decisions of th e Currency Board of the Central Bank of Dominican 
Republic (24 January 1991, 20 August 2002, 22 October 2003 and 23 December 2004) as well as to 
any further amendments or related decisions. 
Costa Rica considers that the said exchange rate fe e is a "charge ... imposed on or in connection with 
the importation" as provided for in Article II.1(b) of the GATT 1994, and, thus claims that it is inconsistent with this provision, among others.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 11 
 
 
  On 28 September 2005, Guatemala requested to join the consultations. On 29 September 2005, El 
Salvador requested to join the consultations. On 7 October 2005, the Dominican Republic accepted 
both requests to join the consultations. 
2. WT/DS330 – Argentina – Countervailing Duties on Olive Oil, Wheat Gluten and 
Peaches 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 29 April 2005, the European Communities requested 
consultations with Argentina rega rding countervailing duties imposed on imports of olive oil, wheat 
gluten and canned peaches originating in the Eu ropean Communities by "Resolución 827/2004" of 31 
December 2004, "Resolución 546/2004" of 20 August 2004 and "Resolución 803/2004" of 17 December 2004 of the Ministerio de Economía y Producción of Argentina.  
According to the European Commun ities, the inconsistencies include: 
• the failure of the Argentine authorities to proper ly determine the existence of subsidisation, 
and/or the likelihood of continuatio n or recurrence of such subsidisation, inter alia, by failing 
to properly determine the existence of any "pass-through" of any benefit;  
• the failure of the Argentine authorities to properl y determine the existence of material injury 
caused by any such subsidisation, and/or the lik elihood of continuation or recurrence of such 
material injury caused by any such subsidisation; and  
• the failure of the Argentine authorities to prov ide an adequate and reasoned explanation that 
the amount of any alleged subsidy is calculated in an appropriate manner and to carry out an 
assessment of the facts on the record in an objective and unbiased manner. 
The European Communities consider s that the countervailing duties concerned are inconsistent with 
Argentina’s obligations under, inter alia , Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994, Articles 1, 10, 11 (in 
particular paragraphs 2, 3, 4, a nd 9), 12, 14, 19 (in particular para graphs 1, 3 and 4) and Article 21 
(paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4) of the SCM Agreement.  
3. WT/DS328 – European Communities – Defi nitive Safeguard Measure on Salmon 
Complaint by Norway. On 1 March 2005, Norway  requested consultations with the European 
Communities regarding the latter's definitive safegua rd measure against imports of farmed salmon 
imposed through Commission Regulation (EC) No. 206/20 05, published in the Official Journal of the 
European Union on 5 February 2005. The measure consists of:  
• A system of tariff quotas beyond which an additio nal duty will be applied to imports of the 
products in question;  
• A minimum price applied to all imports both within and beyond the tariff quota; and,  
• A security to be provided on impor tation payable by all importers. 
Norway stated in its request for consultations th at the definitive safeguard measure concerned is 
inconsistent with the EC's ob ligations under the WTO, because inter alia :  
• There were no "unforeseen developments" that resulted in an increase in imports as required 
by GATT 1994;  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 12  
 
  • There has not been an increase in imports re cent enough, sudden enough, sharp enough, nor 
significant enough, so as to cause or threaten to  cause serious injury to the domestic industry 
as required by GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards;  
• The competent authorities' determination of the scope of the domestic industry is not 
consistent with the Safeguards Agreement;  
• In determining on serious injury, the competen t authorities failed adequately to evaluate all 
relevant factors of an objective and quantifiable nature having a bearing on the situation of the 
domestic industry, as required by Safeguards Agreement. Furthermore, there was no "significant overall impairment" in the position of the domestic industry that justified the 
determination of serious injury as re quired by the Safeguards Agreement;  
• The determination fails to establish the necess ary causal link between the increased imports 
and the finding of serious injury, as required by the Safeguards Agreement. The determination 
also fails to adequately distinguish between the injurious effects of the increase in imports and 
those of other factors causing injury to the domes tic industry, and fails to ensure that injury 
caused by other factors has not been  attributed to increased imports;  
• The competent authorities' determination in February 2005 was not based on sufficiently 
recent data and thus is inconsistent with  GATT 1994 and the Safeguards Agreement, given 
that the period of investigation was terminated in December 2003;  
• The competent authorities did not set forth ade quately the findings and reasoned conclusions 
on all pertinent issues of fact and law, and did not provide a detailed analysis of the case, as required by the Agreement;  
• The competent authorities have failed to comply  with the obligations under the Safeguards 
Agreement to provide all interested parties w ith an adequate opportunity to present their 
views and to respond to the presentations of other parties;  
• The definitive safeguard measure imposed is inconsistent with the Safeguards Agreement 
because it exceeds the extent n ecessary to prevent or remedy serious injury caused by 
increased imports and to facilitate adjustment; 
• The EC Regulation is inconsistent with the Safeguards Agreement in so far as it imposes a 
minimum price control mechanism which monitors import prices. 
• The EC Regulation is inconsistent with the Safeguards Agreement because it does not include 
any basis for a progressive liberalization of the minimum price and the security to be  
provided on importation. 
In light of the above considerations, Norway consid ers the definitive safeguard measure concerned to 
be inconsistent with various WTO provisions in cluding Articles 2,3,4,5,7 and of the Safeguards 
Agreement and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 
On 8 March 2005. Chile requested to join consultations. On 17 March 2005, the European 
Communities accepted the request of Ch ile to join the consultations.  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 13 
 
 
  4. WT/DS325 – United States – Anti-Dumping Determinations regarding Stainless Steel 
from Mexico 
Complaint by Mexico. On 5 January 2005, Mexico re quested consultations with the United States 
concerning (i) certain final anti-dumping determina tions made by the United States Department of 
Commerce ("USDOC") in respect of stainless steel sh eet and strip coils from Mexico and (ii) certain 
generally applicable United States anti-dumping la ws, regulations and administrative practices.  
In respect of (i), according to Mexico, in each of the four determinations at issue the USDOC applied 
a methodology involving "zeroing" of negative dumpi ng margins. In Mexico's view, this may have 
resulted in the DOC making incorrect determinati ons of dumping margins and unfair comparisons. In 
respect of (ii), the generally applicable US anti-dumping laws, regulations and administrative 
practices which are of concern to Mexico are: Sections 736, 751, 771(35)(A) and (B), and 777A(c) 
and (d) of the US Tariff Act of 1930; and the USDOC  rules codified in Title 19 of United States Code 
of Federal Regulations, sections 351. 212(b), 351.414 c), d) and e). Mexico considers that both (i) and 
(ii) may be inconsistent with the US' obligations un der: Articles 1, 2 (in particular Articles 2.1, 2.4 
and 2.4.2), 5 (in particular Article 5.8), 9 (in particular Article 9.3), 11 (in particular Article 11.2) and 
18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ; Articles VI:1 and VI:2 , as well as X:3(a) of the GATT 1994; 
and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement .  
On 13 January 2005, Japan requested  to join the consultations. On 19 January 2005, the European 
Communities requested to join the consultations. 
F. YEAR  2004 
1. WT/DS324 – United States – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measures on Shrimp from 
Thailand 
Complaint by Thailand. On 9 December 2004, Th ailand requested consultations with the United 
States concerning provisional anti-dumping measur es imposed by the US on certain frozen and 
canned warmwater shrimp from Thailand. 
According to the request for consultations from Thai land, the US preliminary determination at issue 
and the consequent imposition of provisional an ti-dumping measures on imports of the foregoing 
products are inconsistent with the WTO obligations of  the United States in respect of the following:  
• US application in the preliminary determina tion of the practice known as "zeroing" negative 
dumping margins;  
• US resort in the preliminary determination to th e use of so-called "adverse facts available" to 
determine normal values for one Thai exporter; and  
• US failure to make due allowances in the pr eliminary determination for differences that 
affected price comparability between export prices and normal values for the Thai exporters, including differences relating to levels of trade and duty drawback payments. 
Thailand considers that these US measures are inconsistent with, inter alia , Articles 1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 6.8, 
6.13, 7.1, paragraphs 3, 5, 6, and 7 of Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Article VI of 
GATT 1994.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 14  
 
  On 20 December 2004, Japan and Brazil requested to  join the consultations. On 22 December 2004, 
the European Communities requested  to join the consultations. On December 23 2004, China, India 
and Ecuador requested to join the consultations. 
2. WT/DS319 – United States – Section 776 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
Complaint by the European Communities. On  5 November 2004, the European Communities 
requested consultations with the United States c oncerning Section 776 of the US Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended, and the determinations  of dumping by the DOC and the DOC notice for the imposition of 
the anti-dumping duty of 125.77% with respect to Firth Rixson Special Steels Limited (FRSS) in Stainless Steel Bar from the United Kingdom .  
According to the request for consultations from th e EC, the US violates its WTO obligations with 
respect to the following measures:  
• the Tariff Act of 1930, in particular section 776, together with any relevant statements in the 
Statement of Administrative Action that accompanied the adoption of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (the "URAA"); 
• the refusal by DOC to verify the data submitte d by FRSS and the rejection of such data for 
the determination of the margin of dumping of FRSS; 
• the decision by the DOC to employ an "adverse inference" in the selection of facts available 
with respect to FRSS; and  
• the reliance by the DOC on information containe d in the complaint for the establishment of 
the margin of dumping and anti-dumping duty of FRSS. 
The EC considers that these US measures are inconsistent with, inter alia , Articles 1, 6 (including 
paragraphs 6, 8 and 13), 18.4 and Annex II of th e ADA; Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT; and 
Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
3. WT/DS318 – India – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Products from the Separate 
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu 
Complaint by Chinese Taipei. On 28 October 2004, Chinese Taipei requested consultations with India 
concerning the provisional and definitive anti-dum ping measures imposed by India on the following 
seven products: Acrylic fibres; Analgin; Potassi um permanganate; Paracet amol; Sodium nitrite; 
Caustic soda; and Gr een veneer tape.  
According to the request for consultations from Chin ese Taipei, India violates its WTO obligations in 
a number of ways, including:  
• the rejection of the information provided by e xporters without providing reasons; and the lack 
of satisfaction as to the accuracy and reliabilit y of the information provided by the domestic 
industry;  
• the initiation of the investigations and impos ition of the anti-dumping duties, despite no 
imports of the product concerned from Chinese Taipei into India during the Period of Investigation, and despite the insufficiently substantiated petitions for the initiation on the 
existence of dumping and injury;   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 15 
 
 
  • the lack of correct determination of  the normal value and export price;  
• the determination of injury not based on pos itive evidence or an objective examination and 
without examining all injury factors mentioned by the Anti Dumping Agreement (ADA); and the determination of the threat of material in jury not on facts but on allegation, conjecture or 
remote possibility;  
• the lack of demonstration that the dumped impor ts were causing the a lleged injury; and the 
failure to ensure that alleged injury caused by other factors was not attributed to dumping;  
• the lack of providing interested parties with  the full opportunity for the defence of their 
interests; and the lack of informing th e interested parties the essential facts under 
consideration which form the basis for the decision;  
• provisional measures imposed for more than the period of time allowed under the ADA;  
• the notice of initiation of investigations lacking in all the grounds that support dumping and 
injury; and the notice of definitive findings lacki ng in all relevant information of facts and law 
and reasons which led to the imposition of the anti dumping measures. 
Chinese Taipei considers that these Indi an measures are inconsistent with, inter alia : Article VI:1 and 
VI:2 of GATT 1994, and Articles 1, 2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 4, 5, 6 (including Annex II), 7.4, 
12.1 and 12.2 of the ADA.  
4. WT/DS314 – Mexico – Provisional Counter vailing Measures on Olive Oil from the 
European Communities 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 18 August 2004, the European Communities requested 
consultations with Mexico concerning the im position by Mexico of provisional countervailing 
measures on imports of olive oil origin ating in the European Communities.  
According to the request for consultations from th e European Communities, Mexico's initiation of the 
foregoing countervailing duty inves tigation and its subsequent impos ition of provisional measures are 
inconsistent with Mexi co’s obligations under inter alia  Articles 10, 11 (in particular paragraphs 2, 3, 
4, and 9) 15, 16 and 17 (in particul ar Article 17.1(a) and (b)) of th e SCM Agreement, and Article 13 
and/or Article 21.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
According to the request from the European Comm unities, the foregoing inconsistencies are claimed 
in such aspects as:  
• the initiation of an investigation in the absence of  sufficient evidence that a domestic industry 
is suffering injury as a result of subsidised imports; 
• the failure to review the accuracy and adequa cy of the evidence in the application to 
determine whether there was sufficient ev idence to initiate an investigation; 
• the failure to establish whether the applicati on was made by or on behalf of the domestic 
industry of the like product; 
• the failure to reject the application and to te rminate promptly the investigation as soon as the 
Mexican authorities should have been satisfied th at there was insufficie nt evidence to initiate 
and/or proceed with the investigation; WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 16  
 
  • the imposition of provisional count ervailing measures: despite the failure to correctly define 
the domestic industry; despite the failure to in itiate the investigation in accordance with the 
provisions of the SCM Agreement  and the Agreement on Agriculture ; despite the non-
existence of material injury or material reta rdation; and despite the failure to establish a 
causal link between the allegedly subsidi sed imports and the alleged injury.  
5. WT/DS310 – United States – Determination of the International Trade Commission in 
Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada 
Complaint by Canada. On 8 April 2004, Canada requested consultations with the United States 
concerning: (i) the investigation of the USITC in Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada , (ii) the 
USITC's final determination that an industry in the US  is materially injured by reason of imports from 
Canada of that product that have been found by th e Department of Commerce to be subsidized by the 
Government of Canada and sold in the US at less than fair value and (iii) the final definitive anti 
dumping and countervailing duties applied as a result of the final determination above. 
Canada claims that, through these measures, the Un ited States has violated its obligations under 
Article VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994, Articles 1, 3.1,  3.2, 3.4, 3.5 and 18.1 of the Anti Dumping 
Agreement and Articles 10, 15.1, 15.2, 15.4, 15.5, 19.1 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement. 
On 10 June 2004, Canada requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 22 June 2004, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  
6. WT/DS307 – European Communities  – Aid for Commercial Vessels 
Complaint by Korea. On 13 February 2004, Ko rea requested consultations with the European 
Communities concerning certain measures by the EC and its member States in favour of their 
shipbuilding industry which, according to Korea, are inconsistent with their WTO obligations.  
Korea had already submitted its request for consultations on the same issue, and in view of some of 
the claims contained therein Korea put forth its  request for the establishment of a panel (see 
WT/DS301).  
Korea, through this new request for consultations, in tends to proceed with consultations with the EC 
regarding some measures which were already the subj ect of its previous request along with additional 
measures recently adopted by the EC. The measures listed are, inter alia:  
• EC Regulation 1177/2002 ("TDM Re gulations") (currently proposed to be extended until 31 
March 2005), EC Regulation 1540/98 and the EC  member States' implementing provisions; 
• The provision by the EC and the member States of subsidies in support of commercial vessels 
built in the EC, in various forms including ope rational aid granted on a contractual basis in 
forms such as grants, export credits, guarantees or tax breaks; 
• The provisions of the Framework on State Aid to Shipbuilding (Document No 2003/C 
317/06) as well as the EC member States' implementing provisions and any individual 
granting of aid, including the decision by Spain in application of the Framework to some of its own financing schemes; 
• The extension of financing and guarantees for th e building of commercial vessels subject to a 
minimum domestic content in Finland, Fran ce, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands;  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 17 
 
 
  • The guarantee by Germany of all obligations of the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau ("Kfw"); 
• The provision in Germany of public fallback gua rantees with respect to credits granted for the 
financing of ships build in German yards in the five coastal Länder.  
Korea considers that these EC and its member States' measures are in breach of their WTO 
obligations, inter alia, Articles 1, 2, 3.1(a) and (b), 5(a), (b) and (c), 6.3(a), (b) and (c), 6.4 and 6.5 of 
the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measu res ("SCM Agreement"). Korea also considers 
that the above-described measures nullify or impair benefits accruing to Korea under the WTO Agreements, within the meaning of Articles XXIII:1(a) and (b) of GATT 1994.  
G. YEAR
 2003 
1. WT/DS304 – India – Anti-Dumping Measures on  Imports of Certain Products from the 
European Communities 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 8 Decem ber 2003, the EC requested consultations with 
India concerning certain antidumping measures on imports  of 27 products originating in the EC or EC 
member States. 
According to the request for consultations fro m the EC, India violates its WTO obligations, inter alia , 
in that:  
• the determination of the effect of the dumped imports on prices does not seem to be based on 
positive evidence and on an objective examination;  
• the Indian investigating authority did not dem onstrate that dumped im ports were causing the 
alleged injury, and failed to examine other know n factors and ensure that injury caused by 
those other factors was not attributed to dumping;  
• the Indian investigating authority did not proper ly inform interested parties of the relevant 
essential facts under consideration which formed the basis for the decision to apply the anti-
dumping measures and in sufficient time for those parties to defend their interests;  
• the Indian investigating authority did not prope rly inform interested parties of the reasons 
why it did not accept evidence or information th ey had submitted within the investigation 
procedure;  
• the Indian investigating authority did not satisfy  itself during the course of the investigation as 
to the accuracy of the information supplied by interested parties in particular by their 
domestic industry;  
• the public notice of information concluding th e investigation did not contain all relevant 
information on the matters of fact and law and reasons which led to th e imposition of the anti-
dumping measures.  
The EC considers that these I ndian measures are inconsistent with: Article VI:1 of GATT 1994; 
Articles 1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 6.6, 6.8 (including Annex II), 6.9 and 12.2 of the Anti Dumping Agreement. 
On 19 December 2003, Turkey and Chinese Taip ei requested to join the consultations. 
On 22 January 2004, India accepted both requests.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 18  
 
  2. WT/DS303 – Ecuador – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Medium Density 
Fibreboard 
Complaint by Chile. On 24 November 2003, Chile requ ested consultations with Ecuador in respect of 
a definitive safeguard measure applied by Ecuador  on imports of medium density fibreboard. 
Chile alleges that there were no "unforeseen developm ents", no increase in imports and no threat of 
serious injury. Chile alleges that the Ecuadorian au thorities' investigation was flawed because it did 
not analyze all product sub-categories covered by th e measure, and that their report was inadequate 
because it did not contain an adequate and reasone d explanation of all relevant factors having a 
bearing on the situation of the domestic industry, di d not demonstrate a causal  relationship between a 
supposed increase in imports and a supposed threat of  serious injury, did not respect the principle of 
non-attribution of injury caused by other factors, di d not determine the extent of application of the 
measure necessary to prevent serious injury and to facilitate adjustment and did not explain whether 
imports from countries excluded from the applicati on of the measure were also excluded from the 
investigation.  
Chile also alleges that Ecuador did not explain th e method by which it will administer and allot quota 
shares among supplying countries, did not specify the critical circumstances which justified 
imposition of the prior provisional measure and w as late in notifying the measure to the WTO.  
Chile considers that the measure is inconsistent with substantive and procedural obligations in inter 
alia Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 12 of the Agreement on 
Safeguards.  
3. WT/DS300 – Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation of Cigarettes 
Complaint by Honduras. On 28 August 2003, Hondur as requested consultations  with the Dominican 
Republic concerning its measures which affect the importation of cigarettes. 
Honduras' request concerns three types of measures:  
• The manner in which the tax base is assessed fo r purposes of collection of the Selective Tax 
on Consumption regarding cigarettes, which in Honduras' view creates a less favourable 
treatment for Honduran cigarettes than that r eceived by like domestic products and by like 
products imported from third countries. This is  inconsistent with the Dominican Republic's 
obligations under Articles III:2 and I:1 of GATT 1994;  
• The requirement that stamps must be affixed on the product inside the territory of the 
Dominican Republic and under supe rvision of its tax authorities, which in Honduras' view 
creates a less favourable treatment for Honduran cigarettes than that received by like domestic 
products. This is also inconsistent with  the Dominican Republic's obligations under 
Article III:4 of GATT 1994; and,  
• The requirement that importers, including im porters of cigarettes, post a bond as a pre-
requisite for importation, which in Honduras' vi ew creates a "charge" other than a custom 
duty, and is therefore inconsistent with  the Dominican Republic's obligations under 
Article I:1(b) of GATT 1994. In another sense, it is also a "restriction" on the importation of 
cigarettes and therefore inconsistent with the Dominican Republic's obligations under 
Article XI:1 of GATT 1994.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 19 
 
 
  Honduras claimed that such measures unduly restrict its exports to Dominican Republic and nullify or 
impair benefits accruing to Hondur as under the WTO Agreement.  
4. WT/DS297 – Croatia – Measures Affecting Impo rts of Live Animals and Meat Products 
Complaint by Hungary. On 9 July 2003, Hungary requested consultations with Croatia regarding 
certain measures taken by Croatia affecting imports of live animals and meat products.  
According to Hungary, the import measure was introduced by Croatia on 5 June 2003 without 
notification to the SPS Committee. The measure is a lleged to aim at the prevention of the spread of 
the BSE disease. Apart from ruminants, it applies to all other animals of any economic significance such as live pigs, poultry and fish and products ther eof. The measure prohibits imports unless there is 
a prohibition in the exporting country on feeding an imals with feed containing animal protein (fish 
meal is also not allowed to be used under all circumstances).  
Hungary asserts that the measure in troduced by Croatia is not base d on any scientific principle linked 
to the prevention of the spread of BSE. Hungary c onsiders that there is no scientific basis for applying 
such feeding requirements to anim als other than ruminants. The H ungarian authorities are unaware of 
any case where BSE was proved to be spread through pigs, poultry or fish and meat thereof. Hungary 
notes that it is a BSE-free country. Hungary is also  not aware of any international standard which 
would justify such feeding requirements. The Hungar ian authorities were not informed of any risk 
assessment either conducted by the competent Croatian authorities.  
In Hungary's view, the measure at issue appears to be  inconsistent with Croatia 's obligations under the 
following WTO provisions:  
•  Articles XI and XX of the GATT 1994;  
• Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6, 6.1, 6.2, 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement.  
5. WT/DS289 – Czech Republic – Additional Du ty on Imports of Pig-Meat from Poland 
Complaint by Poland. On 14 April 2003, Poland re quested consultations with the Czech Republic 
concerning the additional duty levied by the Czech  Republic on imports of pig meat from Poland. 
According to Poland, the Czech Republic publishe d on 25 March 2003 a Decr ee dated 12 March 2003 
which provides that customs duties levied under tariff heading 0203 11 10 on pig meat imported from 
Poland shall be 50% above the Czec h Republic's tariff binding for that tariff heading, or 23 CZK/kg, 
whichever is higher. Poland also claims that this  measure appears to be subject to a minimum import 
price as the aforementioned duty rate does not a pply to imports with declared customs value 
exceeding 36 CZK/kg. No other sources of imports ha ve been mentioned in the Decree, which, in 
Poland's view, seems to imply that the restrictions  introduced by this action apply exclusively to 
Poland and, as such, are discriminatory in  their purpose, nature and effect.  
Poland claims that this measure appears to be inc onsistent with the obligations of the Czech Republic 
under Article 4 of the WTO Agreement on Agricultur e and constitutes a nullification and impairment 
of the rights and benefits, within the meaning of  Article XXIII of GATT 1994, that Poland is entitled 
to enjoy, inter alia , under GATT Articles I and II.  
Poland also claims that the institution and implem entation of the said measure had not been preceded 
by any bilateral notice or consultations, with the D ecree taking effect on the date of its publication.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 20  
 
  6. WT/DS288 – South Africa – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Blanketing from 
Turkey 
Complaint by Turkey. On 10 April 2003, Turkey requested consultations with South Africa 
concerning its definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of blanketing in roll form from Turkey. These measures were imposed further to an investig ation by the South African Board on Tariffs and 
Trade (BTT) into the alleged circumvention of an ti-dumping duties on blankets originating in or 
imported from Turkey. 
Turkey claims that: (i) the BTT failed to ensure proper notifications; (ii) the establishment of facts 
was not proper; and (iii) the BTT's evaluation of these facts was not unbiased and objective, 
particularly in relation to the initiation and the conduct of the investigation as well as the imposition 
of the anti-dumping duty.  
Turkey claims that South Africa's measures are in violation of Articles 5.5, 6.1, 6.1.3, 6.2, 6.9, 6.10, 
9.2, 9.3 and Article 12.1 of the Anti-Dumping Ag reement; and Articles III and X of the GATT 1994.  
H. YEAR
 2002 
1. WT/DS279 – India – Import Restrictions Maintained Under the Export and Import 
Policy 2002-2007 
Complaint by the European Communities. On  23 December 2002, the European Communities 
requested consultations with Indi a concerning import restrictions ma intained by India under its Export 
and Import Policy 2002-2007 with respect to partic ular products of concern to the European 
Communities. The European Communities considered that these import restrictions may constitute an 
infringement of, in particular but not necessarily exclusively, the following WTO provisions:  
• Articles III, X and XI of GATT 1994;  
• Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture;  
• Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures;  
• Articles 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 of the Agreemen t on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures;  
• Article 2 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.  
According to the EC, the import restrictions at i ssue cannot be justified under Articles XX or XXI of 
GATT 1994.  
On 17 January 2003, the US requested to join th e consultations. On 31 January 2003, India accepted 
the request of the US.  
2. WT/DS278 – Chile – Definitive Safegu ard Measure on Imports of Fructose 
Complaint by Argentina. On 20 December 2002, Argentina requested consultations with Chile 
concerning a definitive safeguard measure on imports of certain kinds of fructose. Chile imposed the 
measure on 19 November 2002 for a period of one year b ackdated to 30 July 2002, at a rate of 14% ad 
valorem.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 21 
 
 
  Argentina alleges that Chile's safeguard measu re violates Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and 
Articles 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1(b), 4.1(c), 4.2(a,) 4.2(b) , 5.1, 7.1 and 7.5 of the Safeguards Agreement, for 
the following reasons:  
• there were no unforeseen developments which justified the measure;  
• the investigation was not based on a like or directly competitive product;  
• there was no determination of an increase in imports;  
• the injury factors did not justify the determination of a threat of serious injury;  
• there was no objective determination of a causal  link between the increase in imports and the 
threat of serious injury;  
• the investigating authorities' report was not published and did not contain findings and 
reasoned conclusions on all pertinent issues of fact and law;  
• the measure is applied beyond the permissible extent; and  
• Chile reapplied the measure before the end of the minimum permitted non-application period.  
3. WT/DS275 – Venezuela – Import Licensing Me asures on Certain Agricultural Products 
Complaint by the United States. On 7 November 2002 the United States requested consultations with 
Venezuela concerning Venezuelan import licensing sy stems and practices that restrict agricultural 
imports from the United States. According to th e United States, Venezuela has established import 
licensing requirements for numerous agricultural pr oducts, including corn, sorghum, dairy products 
(for example, cheese, whey, whole milk powder, and non-fat dry milk), grapes, yellow grease, 
poultry, beef, pork, and soybean meal.  
The United States claimed that Venezuela appears to  have established a discretionary import licensing 
regime for the above products. It further clai med that, through its import licensing practices, 
Venezuela has failed to establish a transparent and predictable system for issuing import licenses and 
has severely restricted and distorted trade in these goods.  
The United States alleges that Venezuela's import licensing systems and practices appear to be 
inconsistent with Article 4.2 of  the Agreement on Agriculture; Articles III, X, XI, and XIII of GATT 
1994; Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement, and Articles 1.4, 3.2, 3.5, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 of the Import 
Licensing Agreement. Venezuela's me asures also appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to 
the United States directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.  
On 20 November 2002, the EC and Canada requested  to join the consultations. On 21 November 
2002, New Zealand and Chile requested to join th e consultations. On 22 November 2002, Argentina 
and Colombia requested to join the consultati ons. On 25 November 2002, Venezuela informed the 
DSB that it had accepted the requests of Argentina, Canada, Chile, the EC and New Zealand to join 
the consultations.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 22  
 
  4. WT/DS274 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel 
Products 
Complaint by Chinese Taipei. On 1 November 2002, Ch inese Taipei requested consultations with the 
United States with regard to safeguard measures on steel imposed by the United States on imports of 
certain steel products. These measures are currently been reviewed by a Panel in the joint cases 
WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/DS251, WT/DS252, WT/DS253, WT/DS254, WT/DS258, WT/DS259. 
Chinese Taipei is a third party in these proceedings. 
This dispute concerns the definitive safeguard meas ures imposed by the United States in the form of 
an increase in duties on imports of certain flat steel , hot-rolled bar, cold-finished bar, rebar, certain 
tubular products, carbon and alloy f ittings and flanges, stainless steel bar, stainless steel rod, tin mill 
products and stainless steel wire, and in the form of a tariff rate quota on imports of slabs. These 
measures were published in the Pr oclamation 7529, dated 5 March 2002 (Federal Register Vol. 67, 
No 45 of 7 March 2002). Chinese Taipei considers th at these measures are in violation of the United 
States obligations under Articles I:1 and XIX:1(a) of  the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1(c), 
4.2(a), 4.2(b) and 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards. 
On 21 November 2002, Japan requested to join the consultations. The United States informed that 
DSB that it accepted the request of Jap an to join the consultations.  
5. WT/DS272 – Peru – Provisional Anti-Dumping Duties on Vegetable Oils from Argentina 
Complaint by Argentina. On 21 October 2002, Arge ntina requested consulta tions with Peru on its 
anti-dumping investigation on imports of sunflower and soja vegetable oils and their mixtures 
originating in Argentina (Resolution No. 016- 2002-CDS-INDECOPI); and its imposition of 
provisional anti-dumping duties on those imports as a result of the said investigation (Resolution No. 
040-2002-CDS-INDECOPI). Argentina considered that both the on-going investigation and the 
provisional determination of the existence of dum ping, injury and causal link which led to the 
imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties, are inc onsistent with Peru's obligations under Articles 
5.2, 5.3, 5.8, 4.1(ii), 6.8 and Annex II, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 7, 12.2.1 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994.  
As regards the measure imposing provisional anti-dump ing duties, Argentina considered that it is also 
inconsistent with Peru's obligations under Articles 5.2,  5.3, 5.8, 6.8 and Annex II, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 
3.4, 3.5, 7, 12.2.1 of the Anti Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994.  
6. WT/DS271 – Australia – Certain Measures Affecting the Importation of Fresh 
Pineapple 
Complaint by the Philippines. On 18 October 200 2, the Philippines requested consultations with 
Australia on certain measures affecting the import ation into Australia of fresh pineapple, which 
include, but are not limited to:  
• Section 64 of the Quarantine Proclamation 1998  promulgated under the Quarantine Act 
1908 ; 
• regulations, requirements and procedures issued pursuant thereto, including Plant Biosecurity 
Policy Memorandum 2002/45 (requiring that fresh  pineapple fruit from the Philippines, the 
Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, and Thailand shall, among other re quirements, be de-crowned 
and subjected to pre-shipment methyl bromid e fumigation as conditions for importation into 
Australia);   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 23 
 
 
  • amendments to any of the foregoing; and  
• their application.  
The Philippines considered that these measures are in consistent with the obligations of Australia 
under the GATT 1994 and the SPS Agreement. The rele vant provisions of these agreements include, 
but are not limited to Articles XI and XIII of the GA TT 1994, and Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the 
SPS Agreement.  
In 1 November 2002, the EC and Thailand requested to join the consultations. On 7 November 2002, 
Australia informed the DSB that it had accepted th e requests of the EC and Thailand to join the 
consultations.  
7. WT/DS263 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Imports of Wine 
Complaint by Argentina. On 4 September 2002, Ar gentina requested consultations with the EC 
regarding several EC regulations and other manda tory provisions on oenological practices and on 
trade in wine.  
Argentina's complaint is in respect of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1493/1999 and Commission 
Regulation (EC) No. 883/2001, which relate to the administration and the common organisation of the 
market in wine, the establishment of authorized oenological practices and the regulation of trade 
between the countries of the EU and third countries. 
Argentina considered that these measures are inconsistent with Articles 2 and 12 of the TBT 
Agreement, Articles I:1 and III:4 of GATT 1994 an d Article XVI.4 of the WTO Agreement.  
8. WT/DS262 – United States – Sunset Review s of Anti-Dumping and Countervailing 
Duties on Certain Steel Products from France and Germany 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 25 July 2002 the EC requested consultations with the 
US regarding anti-dumping and countervailing duties imposed by the US, further to sunset review 
proceedings, on imports of (1) corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products ("corrosion resistant steel") from France (A-427-808 and C-427-810) a nd Germany (A 428 815 and C-428-817) and (2) 
cut-to-length carbon steel plate ("cut-to-length steel") from Germany (A-428-816 and C-428-817). 
The EC refers in particular to:  
• the final results of the sunset reviews by the US Department of Commerce (the "DOC") of the 
anti-dumping duty orders on corrosion-resistant st eel from France and from Germany and of 
the countervailing duty order on corro sion-resistant steel from France; 
• the determinations of the US International Trade Commission (the "ITC") on the sunset 
reviews of the anti-dumping and countervailing duties on cut-to-length steel from Germany 
and on corrosion resistant steel from France and Germany; and  
• certain provisions and procedures contained in Sections 751 (c) and 752 of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (the "Act"), in the implementing regulations  and in the Policy Bulletin issued by the 
DOC.  
In its request for consultations, the EC considered that these determinations resulting in the 
continuation of the duties are erroneous and based  on deficient rulings, procedures and provisions 
pertaining to the Act and related re gulations. The EC considered that the above determinations are not WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 24  
 
  in conformity with the obligations of the US under Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 (including annex II), 11.1, 
11.3, 11.4,18.3 and 18.4 of the Anti Dumping Agreement; Articles 10, 11, 12, 15, 21.1, 21.3, 21.4, 32.3 and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement; Articles VI and X of the GATT 1994; and Article XVI:4 of the 
WTO Agreement. On 7 and 8 August 2002 respectivel y Canada and Japan requested to join the 
consultations.  
9. WT/DS256 – Turkey – Import Ban on Pet Food from Hungary 
Complaint by Hungary. On 3 May 2002, Hungary requ ested consultations with Turkey. This request 
was in respect of Turkey's import ban on pet food from Hungary. Hungary claimed that this import 
ban, which applies to any European country from th e beginning of 2001, is imposed with the declared 
intention to be protected against the spread of  BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopety). Hungary 
submitted that, since Hungary is a BSE-free country, the danger of alleged cross-infection does not 
seem to have any scientific basis. Hungary also noted that its pet food is used exclusively for the 
feeding of cats and dogs. In addition, Hungary submi tted that there was neither official publication of 
the Turkish regulation imposing the ban, nor notif ication of it to the relevant WTO Committee. 
Hungary considered that the import ban appears to be inconsistent with Turkey's obligations under 
Article XI of the GATT 1994; Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1,  5.2, 5.6, 6.1, 6.2 and 7 and Annex B of the SPS 
Agreement; Article 14 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
Hungary also claimed that Turkey's measure appe ars to nullify and impair the benfits accruing to 
Hungary directly or indirectly under the said agreements 
I. YEAR
 2001 
1. WT/DS242 – European Communities – Ge neralized System of Preferences 
Complaint by Thailand. On 7 December 2001, Tha iland requested consultati ons with the EC under 
Article XXIII of GATT 1994 in respect of meas ures under the EC's Generalized System of 
Preferences ("GSP") scheme. The GSP scheme w as at the time implemented through Council 
Regulation (EC) No. 2820/98 of 21 December 1998 applying a multiannual scheme of generalized 
tariff preferences for the period of 1 July 1999 to 31  December 2001, and was e xpected to continue to 
be implemented through the Ame nded Proposal for a Council Regulation applying a scheme of 
generalized tariff preferences for the period 1 Janua ry 2002 to 31 December 2004 dated 14 November 
2001.  
Thailand considered that certain measures under the EC 's GSP adversely affect imports into the EC of 
goods originating in Thailand. In particular, Th ailand claimed that, through its GSP scheme as 
implemented, the EC failed to carry out its  obligations under Article  I of GATT 1994 and the 
Enabling Clause, as incorporated into GATT 1994.  
According to Thailand, the benefits accruing to it di rectly or indirectly under the WTO Agreement are 
being nullified or impaired as a result of this allege d failure by the EC to carry out its obligations 
under the WTO Agreement. Thailand also made a non-violation claim to the effect that the 
application by the EC of the above-mentioned meas ures nullifies or impairs the benefits accruing to 
Thailand directly or indirectly under the WTO Agreement pursuant to Article XXIII:1(b) of GATT 
1994.  
Costa Rica (on 17 December 2001), Guatemala ( on 19 December 2001), Honduras and Nicaragua (on 
20 December 2001), and Colombia (on 24 December 2001) requested to be joined in the consultations 
as third parties but not admitted because these are cons ultations under Article XXIII. Colombia raised 
the matter under "other business" in the DSB of  18 January 2002. It admitted that it was not de jure   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 25 
 
 
  entitled to be joined in consultations  under Article XXIII, but stated that this raised the issue of "co-
defendants" under the DSU again.  
2. WT/DS239 – United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Silicon Metal from Brazil 
Complaint by Brazil. On 17 September 2001, Brazil requested consultations with the US. On 1 
November 2001, Brazil requested that their origin al request for consultations be cancelled and 
replaced with a new request. In this new request, Brazi l requested consultations with the US in respect 
of the following:  
• Antidumping duties imposed by the US on imports of silicon metal from Brazil: Antidumping 
Duty Order:  Silicon Metal From Brazil , 56 Fed. Reg. 36135 (July 31, 1991) (US case number 
A-351-806). 
• Section 351.106(c) of the US Department of Commerce's ("Department") regulations, which 
establishes that a de minimis  margin of 0.5 percent applies for administrative reviews. 
• US "zeroing" methodology when establishing margins of dumping, as reflected in Chapter 6 
of the Antidumping Manual of the Department a nd in Section 771(35) of the Tariff Act of 
1930. 
According to Brazil, the above methodologies are inconsis tent with Articles 2.4.2, 5.8, 9.3, 11.1, 11.2 
and 18.3 of the AD Agreement.  
On 28 September 2001, Thailand requested to join the consultations. On 19 November 2001, the EC 
requested to join the consultations.  
3. WT/DS233 – Argentina – Measures affecting the Import of Pharmaceutical Products 
Complaint by India. On 25 May 2001, India request ed consultations with Argentina concerning 
Argentina's Law No. 24.766 and Decree No. 150/92 . According to India, these measures constitute 
unnecessary obstacles to international trade and prevent Indian medicines, drugs and other pharmaceuticals from entering into the Argentinean ma rket, thus discriminating against Indian drugs 
vis-à-vis  like products of other countries and of Argentina.  
According to India, the above measures require that  before entering the Argentinean market, all drugs 
and other pharmaceuticals must be registered with  the National Administration of Drugs, Foodstuffs 
and Medical Technology, Ministry of Health of Ar gentina. The above Decree  contains two annexes 
listing countries.  
• In respect of Annex I countries, pharmaceutical products are required to be manufactured in 
facilities approved by the relevant governme ntal bodies of these countries or by the 
Argentinean Ministry of Health and meet th e National Health Authority's manufacturing and 
quality control requirements. 
• In respect of Annex II countries, manufacturing facilities are required to be inspected and 
approved by the Ministry of Health of Arge ntina before export of these pharmaceutical 
products into Argentina.  
According to India, it does not figure in either of  those two annexes. This alleged discrimination 
would have led to total lack of market acce ss for Indian drugs and pharmaceutical products in 
Argentina. India considered that infringement of th e following provisions have taken place: Articles 2 WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 26  
 
  (especially 2.2), 5 (especially 5.1 and 5.2) and 12 of the TBT Agreement; Articles I and III of the 
GATT 1994; and Article XVI:4 of the Agreement establishing the WTO.  
4. WT/DS230 – Chile – Safeguard Measures an d Modification of Schedules Regarding 
Sugar 
Complaint by Colombia. On 17 April 2001, Colombia  requested consultations with Chile concerning 
the definitive safeguard measures imposed by Chile  on 20 January 2000 in respect of a number of 
agricultural products, including sugar, and extended in November 2000 for the duration of one year; 
and Chile's decision of 14 March 2001 not to recognize Colombia's substantial in terest to be consulted 
with respect to the modification of concessions regarding, inter alia , refined sugar (HS sub-heading 
17.01.99.00).  
In November of 2000, Chile had notified its in tention to modify these concessions pursuant to 
Article XXVIII of GATT 1994. According to Colombia , the above measures are inconsistent with 
Chile's obligations under the following provisions Artic les 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 12 of the Safeguards 
Agreement; Articles II, XIX and XXVIII of GATT 1994; and the Understanding on the Interpretation 
of Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994 and the Guide lines of 10 November 1980 regarding Procedures 
for Negotiations under Article XXVIII.  
According to Colombia, the Chilean  measures, taken together or i ndividually, appear to nullify and 
impair benefits accruing to Colombia under the cite d agreements. As indicated by Colombia in its 
request, this new request replaces in its totality the re quest for consultations by Colombia circulated as 
WT/DS228/1.  
5. WT/DS229 – Brazil – Anti-Dumping Duties on Jute Bags from India 
Complaint by India. On 9 April 2001, India re quested consultations with Brazil concerning:  
• the determination by the Brazilian government to continue to impose anti-dumping duties on 
jute bags and bags made of jute yarn from India, based on an allegedly forged document 
regarding dumping margin attributed to a non-existing Indian company;  
• its refusal to reconsider the decision to conti nue anti-dumping duties on Indian jute products 
despite the fact that the non-existence of th at company was brought to the notice of the 
authorities;  
• non-consideration of the fresh evidence regardi ng cost of production, domestic sales prices, 
export prices, etc., of Indian jute manufacturers,  and refusal to initiate review of the decision 
to impose anti-dumping duties;  
• the general practice of Brazil regarding revi ew and imposition of anti-dumping duties; and  
• Brazilian anti-dumping laws and regulations, in cluding, but not limited to, Article 58 of 
Decree No. 1.602 of 1995.  
According to India, the provisions with which these determinations and legal provisions appear to be 
inconsistent include, but are not limited to Articl es VI and X of GATT 1994; Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 
(especially 6.6, 6.7, 6.8 and Annex II, 6.9, 6.10), 11, 12, 17.6(i), 18.3, 18.4; and Article XVI of the 
WTO Agreement.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 27 
 
 
  In addition, the determination to continue the anti-dumping duties allegedly nullifies and impairs 
benefits accruing to India under, or otherwise im pedes the attainment of objectives of, the cited 
agreements.  
6. WT/DS226 – Chile – Provisional Safeguard Measure on Mixtures of Edible Oils 
Complaint by Argentina. On 19 February 2001, Argentina requested consultations with Chile 
concerning a provisional safeguard measure on imports of mixed edible oils (tariff heading 1517.9000 
of the Chilean Harmonised System), adopted by the Chilean authorities on 11 January 2001, and 
consisting of an ad valorem duty of 48% on impo rts of those products. On 10 January 2001 the 
notification by Chile of the initiation of th e investigation was circulated as document 
G/SG/N/6/CHL/5, and on 19 January 2001 the notification of the recommendation by the Chilean 
investigating authority to impose a provisional safeguard measure was circulated as document 
G/SG/N/7/5/Suppl.1.  
Argentina claimed that the provisional safeguard me asure is inconsistent w ith Chile's obligations 
under Article XIX of GATT 1994 and the SA, including, but not limited to, Articles 2, 4, 6 and 12.  
7. WT/DS225 – United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Seamless Pipe from Italy 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 5 Februa ry 2001, the EC requested consultations with 
the US concerning anti-dumping duties imposed by the US on imports of seamless line and pressure pipe ("seamless pipe") from Italy. The request relates in particular to the final results of a sunset review of the measure, carried out by the US Department of Commerce (DOC) and published in the 
federal register on 7 November 2000. It also covers  certain aspects of the procedures followed by the 
DOC for initiating sunset reviews which are contained in Section 751 c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and 
in the implementing regulations issued by the DOC.  
The EC considered that the final results of the s unset review are in breach of Articles 5.8, 11.1 and 
11.3 of the AD Agreement. The EC also considered  that the initiation of the sunset review is 
inconsistent with Articles 11.1, 11.3, and 18. 4 of the Anti Dumping Agreement and with 
Article XVI.4 of the WTO Agreement.  
8. WT/DS224 – United States – US Patents Code 
Complaint by Brazil. On 31 January 2001, Brazil re quested consultations with the US concerning the 
provisions of the US Patents Code, in particular those of Chapter 18 [38] – "Patent Rights in 
Inventions Made with Federal Assistance" . Brazil detected several discriminatory elements in the US 
Patents Code, including, but not limited to, the following examples:  
• the stipulation that no small business firm or  non-profit organization which receives title to 
any subject invention shall grant to any person the exclusive right to use or sell any subject 
invention in the US unless such person agr ees that any products embodying the subject 
invention or produced through the use of the in vention will be manufactured substantially in 
the US. 
• Brazil also referred to a requirement that ea ch funding agreement with a small business firm 
or non-profit organization shall contain appr opriate provisions to effectuate the above-
mentioned requirement; and  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 28  
 
  • the statutory restrictions limiting the right to use or sell any federally owned invention in the 
US only to a licensee that ag rees that any products embodying the invention or produced 
through the use of the invention will be manufactured substantially in the US.  
Brazil requested consultations with the US on these a nd other provisions of the US Patents Code, to 
"understand how the US justifies the consistency of  such requirements with its obligations under the 
TRIPS Agreement, especially Articles 27 and 28, the TRIMs Agreement, Article 2 in particular, and 
Articles III and XI of GATT 1994".  
9. WT/DS223 – European Communities – Tariff-R ate Quota on Corn Gluten Feed from 
the United States 
Complaint by the United States. On 25 January 2001,  the US requested consultations with the EC 
concerning the application by the EC of a tariff-ra te quota (TRQ) on corn gluten feed imported from 
the US. The TRQ was made applicable 5 days afte r the date of adoption by the DSB of the panel 
report on US – Wheat Gluten (WT/DS166) stating that the US safeguard measure on wheat gluten was incompatible with the WTO Agreements.  
According to the US the TRQ does not satisfy th e requirements of the Safeguards Agreement for a 
Member to suspend concessions or other obligations  and, therefore, the imposition of the TRQ on 
corn gluten feed imported from the US appears to be  inconsistent with Articles I, II and XIX of the 
GATT 1994, and Articles 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 of the Safeguards Agreement.  
10. WT/DS220 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain 
Agricultural Products 
Complaint by Guatemala. On 5 January 2001, Guatemala requested consultations with Chile 
concerning:  
1. the Chilean legislation regarding safeguards and price band systems, including Law 18.525, 
as subsequently amended by Law 18.591 and Law 19.546, as well as implementing 
regulations and complementary and/or amending provisions;  
2. the initiation of an investigation regarding products subject to the price band system contained 
in notification G/SG/N/6/CHL/2, the conduct of the investigation, the preliminary 
determination contained in notification G/ SG/N/7/CHL/2/Suppl.1, and the definitive 
determination contained in notificati ons G/SG/N/8/CHL/1, G/SG/N/10/CHL/1, 
G/SG/N/8/CHL/1/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/10/CHL/1/Suppl.1; these notifications indicate that wheat, wheat flour, sugar and edible vegetable o ils are subject to said safeguard measures;  
3. the request for an extension of these measures contained in notifications 
G/SG/N/10/CHL/1/Suppl.2 and G/SG/N/10/CHL/1/Suppl.2/Corr.1.  
Guatemala considered that the measures referred to:  
• under (1) are inconsistent with, inter alia , Article II of GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the 
Safeguards Agreement,  
• under (2) are inconsistent with, inter alia , Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the Safeguards 
Agreement, and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994, and   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 29 
 
 
  • under (3) appears to be inconsistent with, inter alia , Chile's obligations under GATT 1994 
and Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement.  
J. YEAR  2000 
1. WT/DS218 – United States – Countervailing Du ties on Certain Carbon Steel Products 
from Brazil 
Complaint by Brazil. On 21 December 2000, Brazil requested consultations with the US concerning 
an aspect of US countervailing duty practice a nd the imposition of countervailing duties on certain 
carbon steel products originating in Br azil. Brazil is concerned with th e practice of the US of applying 
its countervailing duty laws so as to consistently  find that privatized companies benefit from pre-
privatization subsidy benefits, and the unwillingness of the United States to bring its practice into 
conformity with the SCM Agreement. In addition, Br azil is concerned with the results of a continued 
imposition of an order and a fina l countervailing duty decision by the US based on a finding that the 
benefits from equity infusions provided to companie s prior to their privatization are passed through to 
the companies following a change in ownership and control.  
Brazil considered that findings that three compan ies were benefitting from subsidies provided prior to 
their privatization are in breach of Articles 1.1(b), 10, 14, 19 and 21 of the SCM Agreement, in so far 
as they are based on supposed benefits from equity infusions granted to the companies prior to their 
privatization. In addition, Brazil considers that th e decision not to terminate the investigation is in 
breach of Article 11.9 of the SCM Agreement. Brazil notes that the Commerce Department relied on the same analysis of subsidization following a privat ization, which was found to be inconsistent with 
WTO obligations by the Appellate Body in US –Lead and Bismuth II .  
2. WT/DS216 – Mexico – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Electric Transformers 
Complaint by Brazil. On 20 December 2000, Brazil requested consultations with Mexico concerning 
the 17 July 2000 provisional anti-dumping measur e on electronic transformers having a power of 
more than 10.000 KVA, classified under tariff lin e 8504.23.01 of the General Import Law, from 
Brazil. Brazil considered that the above determination and the resulting provisional measures are 
inconsistent with Mexico's ob ligations under the AD Agreement a nd the GATT 1994, in particular, 
with Articles 5.2, 5.3, 5.8, 6.8, 7.1(i), 7.1(ii) and Annex II of the AD Agreement.  
3. WT/DS215 – Philippines – Anti-Dumping Measures Regarding Polypropylene Resins 
from Korea 
Complaint by Korea. On 15 December 2000, Kor ea requested consultations with the Philippines 
concerning the Preliminary and Final Determinations  of the Tariff Commission of the Philippines on 
Polypropylene Resins from Korea, dated 15 N ovember 1999 and 11 September 2000 respectively. 
Korea considered that errors were made by the Ph ilippines in those determinations which resulted in 
erroneous findings and defective conclusions with regard to, am ong others, like product, dumping, 
injury, and causality, as well as the imposition, calc ulation and collection of anti-dumping margins 
which are incompatible with the obligations of the Philippines under the provisions of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement, in particular, but not necessarily limited to, Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 (including Annex 
II), 7, 9, and 12, and Article VI of GATT 1994. 
4. WT/DS209 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Soluble Coffee 
Complaint by Brazil. On 12 October 2000, Brazil re quested consultations with the EC concerning 
measures applied under the EC's Generalized System of Preferences scheme (GSP) that affect imports WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 30  
 
  of soluble coffee originating in Brazil. The measur es in question include the so called "graduation" 
mechanism, which progressively and selectively re duces or eliminates preferences granted to specific 
products and/or beneficiary countries under the GSP scheme; and the "drugs regime", which confers a 
special preferential treatment for products origin ating in the Andean and Central American Common 
Market countries that are conducting a campaign to combat drugs.  
According to Brazil, the EC legislation that estab lishes the special treatment for products – among 
which soluble coffee – is Council Regulation (E C) No. 1256/96, dated 20 June 1996, and current 
Council Regulation (EC) No. 2820/98, dated 21 Dece mber 1998. Brazil considered that the above 
measures, both separately and jointly, adversely aff ect the importation into the EC of soluble coffee 
originating in Brazil. Brazil alleged that these measur es are inconsistent with the obligations of the EC 
under the Enabling Clause and under Article I of GATT 1994.  
5. WT/DS208 – Turkey – Anti-Dumping Duty on Steel and Iron Pipe Fittings 
Complaint by Brazil. On 9 October 2000, Brazil re quested consultations with Turkey concerning the 
anti-dumping duty on steel and iron pipe fittings from Brazil, imposed by Communication No. 2000/3 
(published in the Turkish official gazette on 26 Ap ril 2000). Brazil considered that Turkey failed to 
ensure proper notifications in this case, that its est ablishment of the facts was not proper, and that its 
evaluation of these facts was not unbiased nor objective, particularly in relation to:  
• the initiation of the investigation;  
• the conduct of the investigation, including the evaluation, findings and determinations of 
dumping and injury;  
• the evaluation, findings and determinations of  the causal link between dumping and injury;  
• the imposition of the anti-dumping duty.  
Brazil considered that Turkey has acted inconsiste ntly with Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Articles 
2, 3, 5, 6, 12 and 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
6. WT/DS205 – Egypt – Import Prohibition on Canned Tuna with Soybean Oil 
Complaint by Thailand. On 22 September 2000, Thailand requested consultations with Egypt 
concerning the prohibition imposed by Egypt on importation of canned tuna with soybean oil from 
Thailand, pursuant to Letter dated 2 January 2000 of  the Ministry of Economy and Foreign Trade of 
Egypt and Circular Note no. 5 of the Year 2000 issued on 13 January 2000 by the Customs Authority of Egypt. Thailand considered th at, through the above-mentioned measures, the Arab Republic of 
Egypt failed to carry out its obligations under th e following provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement 
Establishing the World Trade Organization: Articles I, XI, and XIII of the GATT, and Articles 2, 3 
and 5, and Annex B, paragraph 2 and paragraph 5, of the SPS Agreement. 
7. WT/DS203 – Mexico – Measures Affecting Trade in Live Swine 
Complaint by the United States. On  10 July 2000, the US requested consultations with Mexico in 
respect of Mexico's 20 October 1999 definitive anti-dumping measure on live swine for slaughter 
(merchandise classified under tariff classificati on 0103.92.99 of the General Import Law) exported 
from the United States, independent ly from the country or origin, and actions by Mexico in the 
conduct of the anti-dumping investigation resulting in that measure.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 31 
 
 
  In the view of the US the measures are inconsistent  with Mexico's obligations under Articles 2.2, 2.3, 
3, 5.1, 5.6, 7 and 8 of the SPS Agreement; Article 4.2 of the Agriculture Agreement; Articles 2 and 5 
of the TBT Agreement; and Articles III:4 and XI:1 of the GATT 1994.  
8. WT/DS201 – Nicaragua – Measures Affectin g Imports from Honduras and Colombia 
Complaint by Honduras. On 26 June 2000, Honduras requested consultations with Nicaragua in 
respect of Law 325 of 1999 whereby a tax is established on goods and services coming from or 
originating in Honduras and Colombia as well as implementing Decree 129-99 and Ministerial Order 
041-99. Honduras considered that Law 325 of  1999 and implementing Decree 129-99 are 
incompatible with Nicaragua's obligations under the GATT 1994, and in particular Articles I and II 
thereof, and that the aforementioned measures as well as Ministerial Order 041-99 are incompatible 
with Nicaragua's obligations under Articles II and XVI of the GATS. 
9. WT/DS200 – United States – Section 306 of the Trade Act 1974 and Amendments 
thereto 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 5 June  2000, the EC requested consultations with the 
US concerning Section 306 of the Trade Act of 1974, as last amended by Section 407 of the Trade 
and Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-200) . The EC considered that Section 306, as 
amended, provides for a mandatory a nd unilateral revision of the list of products subject to suspension 
of GATT 1994 concessions or other Section 301(a) acti on 120 days after the application of the first 
suspension and then every 180 days thereafter, in order to affect imports from Members which have 
been determined by the United States not to have  implemented recommendations made pursuant to a 
WTO dispute settlement proceeding. In particular, the EC alleged that:  
• Section 306, as amended, is in breach of the DSU since it mandates unilateral action without 
any prior multilateral control;  
• The measure mandates suspension of or threats to suspend concessions or other obligations 
other than those on which authorisation was grante d by the DSB. As a practical result, all US 
concessions bound in its Schedule of commit ments under the GATT 1994 can, according to 
the EC, be unilaterally modified at will;  
• The measure is in breach of the obligation of equivalence, in that it creates a structural 
imbalance between the cumulative level of the suspension of concessions and the level of nullification and impairment as determined  under relevant DSU procedures; and  
• The measure creates a chilling effect on the mark et-place, thus affecting the security and 
predictability of the multilateral trading system.  
Hence, the EC considered that Section 306 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by Section 407 of 
the Trade and Development Act of 2000, is incons istent with, in particular, the following WTO 
provisions: Articles 3.2, 21.5, 22 and 23 of the DSU; Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement; and 
Articles I, II and XI of the GATT 1994.  
10. WT/DS197 – Brazil – Measures on Minimum Import Prices 
Complaint by the United States. On 30 May 2000, the US requested consultations with Brazil 
concerning the use of the latter's minimum import prices for customs valuation purposes. The measures at issue are D ecree No. 2.498/98 and other related stat utes and regulations, which establish a 
system to verify the declared values of impor ted goods. The US asserted that Brazil utilises this WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 32  
 
  verification system – in conjunction with non-auto matic import licensing procedures – to prohibit or 
restrict the import of products with declared values below what the US considers arbitrarily 
determined minimum prices. The US considered th at Brazil's measures are inconsistent with its 
obligations under Articles 1 through 7, and 12 of  the Customs Valuation Agreement; general notes 1, 
2 and 4 of Annex 1 of the Customs Valuation Agreement; Articles II and XI of the GATT 1994; 
Articles 1 and 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensi ng Procedures; Articles 2 and 7 of the Agreement 
on Textiles and Clothing; and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
11. WT/DS191 – Ecuador – Definitive Anti-Dum ping Measure on Cement from Mexico 
Complaint by Mexico. On 15 March 2000, Mexico re quested consultations with Ecuador concerning a 
definitive anti-dumping measure imposed by Ecuador, through publication in the Official Register 
No. 361 of 14 January 2000, on imports of cement from Mexico falling under tariff subheading 
2523.29.00, as well as Ecuador's actions preceding th at measure. Mexico alleged that the definitive 
anti-dumping measure and the actions that preceded it, including the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping measure and the initiation of the investigation, violate, inter alia , Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 
6, 7, 9, 12, 18 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as well as Article VI of the GATT 1994.  
12. WT/DS187 – Trinidad and Tobago – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Macaroni 
and Spaghetti from Costa Rica 
Complaint by Costa Rica. On 17 January 2000, Costa Rica requested consultations with Trinidad and 
Tobago in respect of Legal Notice No. 237 of the Ministry of Trade and Industry of Trinidad and Tobago, pursuant to which provisional anti-dumping duties are imposed on the importation of macaroni and spaghetti from Costa Rica, the actions  preceding that decision (see WT/DS185) as well 
as the 1992 Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties Act of 1992, as amended by the Anti-Dumping 
and Countervailing Duties (Amendment) Act of 1995 and the Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties Regulations of 1996. Costa Rica claimed that  these measures are inconsistent particularly with 
certain paragraphs of Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 18 as well as Annex I and II of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement. 
13. WT/DS186 – United States – Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and Amendments 
thereto 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 12 Janua ry 2000, the EC requested consultations with 
the US in respect of Section 337 of the US Tariff Act (19 USC. § 1337) and the related Rules of Practice and Procedure of the International Trade Commission contained in Chapter II of Title 19 of 
the US Code of Federal Regulations. The EC alle ged that those measures violate Article III of GATT 
1994 and TRIPS Agreement Articles 2 (in conjuncti on with Article 2 Paris Convention), 3, 9 (in 
conjunction with Article 5 Berne Conve ntion), 27, 41, 42, 49, 50 and 51.  
K. YEAR
 1999 
1. WT/DS185 – Trinidad and Tobago – Anti-Dumping Measures on Pasta from Costa Rica 
Complaint by Costa Rica. On 18 November 1999, Co sta Rica requested consultations with Trinidad 
and Tobago in respect of  
• the anti-dumping investigation being carried out by  Trinidad and Tobago at the request of the 
company "Cereal Products Limited" against imports of pasta from the Costa Rican company "Roma Prince Sociedad Anónima",   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 33 
 
 
  • proceedings undertaken as part of a preliminary hearing prior to the initiation of the anti-
dumping investigation, and  
• Articles 3 and 5 of the 1996 Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Regulation of Tobago 
and Trinidad. 
Costa Rica claimed that these measures are inconsiste nt with Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 12 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement. 
2. WT/DS183 – Brazil – Measures on Import Licensing and Minimum Import Prices 
Complaint by the European Communities. This requ est, dated 14 October 1999, is in respect of a 
number of Brazilian measures, particularly Brazil' s non-automatic licensing system and the minimum 
pricing practice, which allegedly restrict EC e xports – notably of textile products, Sorbitol and 
Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC). The EC claimed that those Brazilian measures violate, in particular, 
Articles II, VIII, X and XI of the GATT 1994; Artic le 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture; Articles 
1, 3, 5 and 8 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures; and Articles 1 through 7 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994. 
3. WT/DS182 – Ecuador – Provisional Anti-Dum ping Measure on Cement from Mexico 
Complaint by Mexico. On 5 October 1999, Mexico requested consultations with Ecuador concerning 
a provisional anti-dumping measure imposed by Ecuador , through publication in the Official Register 
of 14 July 1999, on imports of cement from Mexico  falling under tariff heading 2523.29.00, as well as 
Ecuador's actions preceding that measure. Mexico  considered that the provisional anti-dumping 
measure and the actions preceding it violate, inter alia , Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 18 and Annex 
II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as well as Article VI of the GATT 1994.  
4. WT/DS180 – United States – Reclassification of Certain Sugar Syrups 
Complaint by Canada. On 6 September 1999 Canada requested consultations with the US in respect 
of the proposed reclassification of certain sugar sy rups by the US Customs Service. Canada claimed 
that these US measures are in violation of Article II of the GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. In addition, Canada allege d that these measures nullify or impair benefits 
accruing to it under the same provisions of the GATT and the Agreement on Agriculture.  
5. WT/DS173 – France – Measures Relating to the Development of a Flight Management 
System 
Complaint by the United States. On 21 May 1999, the US requested consultations with France. This 
complaint is identical to the one a ddressed to the EC below (WT/DS172).  
6. WT/DS172 – European Communities – Measures relating to the Development of a 
Flight Management System 
Complaint from the United States. On 21 May 1999, th e US requested consultations with the EC in 
respect of alleged actionable subsidies granted or ma intained to a French company, Sextant Avionique 
("Sextant"), to develop a new flight management sy stem ("FMS") adapted to Airbus aircraft. The US 
alleged that the French government has agreed to  grant, and the European Commission has approved, 
a loan, on preferential and non-commercial terms, in  the amount of 140 million French francs, to be 
disbursed over three years, for a project in whic h Sextant will develop a FMS adapted to Airbus 
aircraft. The US considered that this aid:  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 34  
 
  • is a specific subsidy within the meaning of Articles 1 and 3 of the SCM Agreement, which 
subsidy has caused and continues to cause adverse effects within the meaning of Article 5 of 
the SCM Agreement;  
• has caused and continues to cause serious prejudi ce within the meaning of Articles 5(c) and 6 
of the SCM Agreement because the subsidy may involve the direct forgiveness of debt;  
• may displace or impede imports of FMS from the United States into France;  
• may displace or impede exports of FMS from th e United States to third country markets;  
• may cause significant price undercutting by the s ubsidised product as compared with the price 
of a like product of another Member in the same market or may cause significant price suppression, price depression or lost sales in the same market; and  
• has caused and continues to cause a nullification or  impairment of benefits accruing directly 
or indirectly to it under GATT 1994 within the meaning of Article XXIII:1(b) of GATT 1994, 
and Article 5(b) of the SCM Agreement.  
7. WT/DS168 – South Africa – Anti-Dumping Duties on Certain Pharmaceutical Products 
from India 
Complaint by India. On 1 April 1999, India requested  consultations with South Africa in respect of a 
recommendation for the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties by the South African Board on Tariffs and Trade (BTT), contained in its Report No. 3799, dated 3 October 1997, on the import of 
certain pharmaceutical products from India. Indi a alleged that South Africa initiated anti-dumping 
proceedings against the importation of ampicillin and amoxycillin of 250mg capsules from India. The BTT allegedly made a preliminary determinati on on 26 March 1997 that am picillin and amoxycillin 
of 250mg and 500mg capsules, exported by M/S Randa xy Laboratories Ltd of India, were being 
dumped into the South African Customs Union (SACU). This was allegedly followed by a 
recommendation to impose final duties on these produc ts by the BTT, which was reported on 10 
September 1997. India contended that:  
• the definition and calculation by the BTT of norma l value is inconsistent with South Africa's 
WTO obligations, because erroneous methodology was used for determining the normal value 
and the resulting margin of dumping;  
• the determination of injury was not based on positive evidence and did not include an 
evaluation of all relevant economic factors a nd indices having a bearing on the state of the 
industry, which led to an e rroneous determination of mate rial injury suffered by the 
petitioner;  
• the South African authorities' establishment of  the facts was not proper and that their 
evaluation was not unbiased or objective; and  
• the South African authorities have not taken into account India's special situation as a 
developing country.  
India alleged violations of Articles 2, 3, 6(a) to (c) individually and in conjunction with 12, 12 and 15 
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and Articles I and VI of GATT 1994.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 35 
 
 
  8. WT/DS167 – United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation with respect to Live 
Cattle from Canada 
Complaint by Canada. On 19 March 1999, Canada requested consultations with the US concerning 
the initiation of a countervailing duty investigation by the US, on 22 December 1998, with respect to 
live cattle from Canada. Ca nada alleged that:  
• the initiation of this investigation is inconsis tent with US obligations under the Subsidies 
Agreement, including the fact that the written a pplication filed with the US Department of 
Commerce was not made by or on behalf of the domestic industry, and that there was not, sufficient information provided with respect to the measures or actions alleged to be subsidies, for purpose of initiating an i nvestigation under the SCM Agreement;  
• the measures or actions alleged to be subsidies e ither are not, in law or fact, subsidies within 
the meaning of the Subsidies Agreement, or do not confer more than a de minimis level of 
countervailing subsidy; and  
• this initiation of investigation is inconsistent  with US obligations under the Agreement on 
Agriculture relating to "due restraint".  
Canada alleged violations of Artic les 1, 2, 10, 11.1 – 11.5, and 13.1 of the Subsidies Agreement; and 
Article 13 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
9. WT/DS159 – Hungary – Safeguard Measure on  Imports of Steel Products from the 
Czech Republic 
Complaint by the Czech Republic. On 21 January 19 99, the Czech Republic requested consultations 
with Hungary in respect of the imposition of quan titative restrictions by Hungary on imports of a 
broad range of steel products from the Czech Re public. The Czech Republic alleged that Hungary 
imposed a safeguard measure in the form of an im port quota on imports of a broad range of steel 
products from the Czech Republic, and that this measure only applies to the Czech Republic. The 
Czech Republic contended that these quantitative rest rictions are in breach of Hungary's obligations 
under GATT Articles I and XIX, as well as provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards. 
10. WT/DS158 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas 
Complaint by Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama  and the United States. On 20 January 1999, 
these countries (complaining parties) requested c onsultations with the EC in respect of the 
implementation of the recommendations of the DSB in European Communities – Regime for the 
Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas . The complaining parties state that the 15 month 
reasonable period of time for the EC to implemen t the DSB's recommendations and rulings ended on 
1 January 1999 (see WT/DS27). The complaining parties alleged that the EC modified its regime in a manner that will not permit this disp ute to conclude at this time on the basis of a solution that is 
acceptable to their governments, and as a result, join tly and severally, request consultations with the 
EC concerning the EC banana regime establis hed by EC Regulation 404/93, as amended and 
implemented by Council Regulation 1637/98 of  20 July 1998 and EC Commission Regulation 
2362/98 of 28 October 1998. The complaining parties c ontended that their objective is to clarify and 
discuss in detail with the EC the various aspects of the EC's modified banana regime, including their 
effect on the market, their concerns about their WTO-inconsistency, and ways that the EC might 
modify its regime in order to produce a satisfactory settlement of this dispute.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 36  
 
  11. WT/DS157 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dum ping Measures on Imports of Drill Bits 
from Italy 
Complaint from the European Communities. On 14 January 1998, the EC requested consultations 
with Argentina in respect of definitive anti-dum ping measures allegedly imposed by Argentina on 
imports of drill bits from Italy. The EC stated that on 12 September 1998, Argentina imposed 
definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of drill b its from Italy. The investigation which led to 
the imposition of these measures had allegedly been  initiated on 21 February  1997. The EC alleged 
that due to the fact that Argentina's investigati on exceeded 18 months, it was in violation of Article 1 
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
L. YEAR
 1998 
1. WT/DS154 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Differential and Favourable 
Treatment of Coffee 
Complaint by Brazil. On 7 December 1998, Brazil request ed consultations with the EC in respect of 
the special preferential treatment under the EC's Generalised System of Preferences (GSP). Brazil asserted that the EC GSP scheme is applicable to  products originating in the Andean Group of 
countries and the Central American Common Market  countries, that are conducting programs to 
combat drug production and trafficking. In the case of soluble coffee, this special preferential 
treatment, contained in Council Regulation (EC) No. 1256/96, amounts to duty free access into the 
EC market. Brazil stated that it is aware that there is a proposed Council Regulation which would 
unify all EC laws and regulations concerning the operation of the GSP scheme for both agricultural 
and industrial products. Brazil conte nded that this special treatment adversely affects the importation 
into the EC of soluble coffee originating in Brazi l. Brazil alleged that this special treatment is 
inconsistent with the Enabling Clause, as well as  with Article I of GATT 1994. Brazil further alleges 
that this special treatment nullifies or impairs bene fits accruing to Brazil directly or indirectly under 
the cited provisions. 
2. WT/DS153 – European Communities – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and 
Agricultural Chemical Products 
Complaint by Canada. On 2 December 1998, Canada requested consultations with the EC in respect 
of the protection of inventions in the area of pharmaceutical and agricultu ral chemical products under 
the relevant provisions of EC legislation, pa rticularly Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1768/92 and 
European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No . 1610/96, in relation to EC obligations under 
the TRIPS Agreement. Canada considered that unde r the above Regulations, a patent term extension 
scheme, which is limited to pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products, has been 
implemented. Canada alleged th at Regulations (EEC) No. 1768/92 and (EC) No. 1610/96 are 
inconsistent with the EC's obligations not to di scriminate on the basis of field of technology, as 
provided by Article 27.1 of the TRIPS Agreem ent, because these Regulations only apply to 
pharmaceutical and agricultural products. 
3. WT/DS150 – India – Measures Affecting Customs Duties 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 30 Oct ober 1998, the EC requested consultations with 
India concerning a series of increases in customs duties allegedly implemented by India. The EC 
stated that the measures in question relate to Sc hedule 1 of the 1975 Customs Tariff Act, the Special 
Customs Duty, and the Special Additional Duty. Th e EC contended that under these measures, the 
aggregate value of tariffs resulting from the additi on of the different duties applied by India exceed  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 37 
 
 
  India's WTO bound rates under a series of tariff head ings. The EC alleged violations of Articles 
II:1(b) and III:2 of GATT 1994. 
4. WT/DS149 – India – Import Restrictions 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 29 Oct ober 1998, the EC requested consultations with 
India concerning import restrictions allegedly mainta ined by India under its Export and Import Policy, 
1997-2002, for reasons other than Article XVIII:B of  GATT 1994. The EC stated that India notified 
these restrictions to the WTO in Part A of Annex I to its notification of 20  May 1997 under paragraph 
9 of the Understanding on the Balance-of-Payme nts Provisions of GATT 1994 (WT/BOP/N/24). India 
claimed that these restrictions are justified under Article XX and/or Article XXI of GATT 1994. The 
EC contended that these import restrictions constitute  an infringement of Articles III, X, XI, XIII and 
XVII of GATT 1994, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, and Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, and ca nnot be justified under Articles XX or XXI of 
GATT 1994. 
5. WT/DS148 – Czech Republic – Measure Affe cting Import Duty on Wheat from 
Hungary 
Complaint from Hungary. On 12 October 1998, Hunga ry requested consultations with the Czech 
Republic in respect of a regulation adopted by the Czech Republic which entered into force on 9 
October 1998, and which allegedly increased th e import duty of wheat originating in Hungary. 
Hungary asserted that the increased import duty on wheat (HS1001.1000, 1001.9099) exceeds several 
times the respective bound rates in the Czech Schedule for 1998. Hungary also alleged that it is the 
only country subject to this measure. Hungary cont ended that this measure is inconsistent with 
Articles I and II of GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Ag riculture. Hungary invoked the 
urgency provision of the DSU (4.8), due to the sev ere economic and trade losses that are being caused 
by this measure, which was expected to  remain in force until 26 April 1999. 
6. WT/DS147 – Japan – Tariff Quotas and Subsidies Affecting Leather 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 8 Oct ober 1998, the EC requested consultations with 
Japan concerning the management of the tariff quotas for leather and the subsidies allegedly 
benefiting the leather industry and "Dowa" regions in  Japan. The EC stated that the management of 
the three tariff quotas is specified in a notice publishe d every year by the Ministry of International 
Trade & Industry (MITI), which is based on Article 6 of the Ministerial Order on the tariff quota system for heavy oil, crude oil, etc. The EC contended that:  
• the complexity of the management of the tariff quota system, as well as the fact that 
applications for licenses may only be submitted on a single day, appears open to criticism;  
• many licenses are granted for quantities without r eal economic interest, and some have a very 
short validity period;  
• the system leads to a situation that deters foreign companies from establishing in Japan for 
purposes of importing leather directly;  
• subsidies were granted on the basis of the "L aw concerning Special Fiscal Measures", which 
extended the duration of 15 subsidy programmes; and  
• these subsidies are specific and that the total va lue of these different subsidy programmes is 
liable to cause serious prejudice to its interests.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 38  
 
  The EC alleged violations of Articles 1(6), 3(5)(g),  (h), (i) and (j) of the Import Licensing Agreement, 
and Article 6 of the Subsidies Agreement.  
7. WT/DS145 – Argentina – Countervailing Duties on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the 
European Communities 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 23 September 1998, the EC requested consultations 
with the EC in respect of definitive countervaili ng duties allegedly imposed by Argentina on imports 
of wheat gluten from the EC. The EC stated th at Argentina imposed a countervailing duty on wheat 
gluten imports from the EC with effect from 23 July 1998. The investigation which led to the imposition of these duties had been initiated on 23 Oc tober 1996 and, consequently, the EC contended 
that the investigation exceeded 18 months, contrary to Article 11.11 of the Subsidies Agreement. The 
EC also claimed a violation of Article 10 of the same Agreement. 
8. WT/DS144 – United States – Certain Measures Affecting the Import of Cattle, Swine 
and Grain from Canada 
Complaint by Canada. On 25 Septem ber 1998, Canada requested consulta tions with the US in respect 
of certain measures, imposed by the US state of South Dakota and other states, prohibiting entry or 
transit to Canadian trucks carrying cattle, swine,  and grain. Canada alle ged that these measures 
adversely affect the importation into the United States of cattle, swine, and grain originating in 
Canada. Canada alleges violations of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13 and Annexes B and C of the SPS 
Agreement; Articles 2, 3, 5 and 7 of the TBT Agre ement; Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture; 
and Articles I, III, V, XI and XXIV:12 of GATT 1994. Canada also made a claim of nullification or 
impairment of benefits accruing to it under the c ited Agreements. Canada i nvoked Article 4.8 of the 
DSU for expedited consultations in view of th e perishable nature of the goods in question. 
9. WT/DS143 – Slovak Republic- Measure Affectin g Import Duty on Wheat from Hungary 
Complaint from Hungary. On 18 September 1998, Hunga ry requested consultations with the Slovak 
Republic in respect of a regulation adopted by the Slovak Republic which entered into force on 10 
September 1998, which allegedly increased the import duty of wheat originating in Hungary. Hungary 
asserted that the increased import duty on wheat (HS1001.1000, 1001.90) amounts to 2540 SKK/t 
which equals to approximately 70% ad valorem . Hungary alleged that:  
• the bound rates for these tariff lines in the Slovak Schedule for 1998 are set at 4.4% 
(HS1001.1000), 27% (HS1001.9010) and 22.5% (HS1001.9091, 1001.9099);  
• it is the only country subject to this measure; and  
• this measure is inconsistent with Articl es I and II of GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. Hungary invoked the urgency provision of the DSU due to the 
severe economic and trade losses that are being cau sed by this measure, which was expected 
to remain in force until 10 March 1999.  
10. WT/DS140 – European Communities – Anti-dumping Investigations Regarding 
Unbleached Cotton Fabrics from India 
Complaint by India. On 3 August 1998, India requ ested consultations with the EC in respect of 
alleged repeated recourse by the EC to anti-dum ping investigations on u nbleached cotton fabrics 
(UCF), from India. India considered, in the light  of the information which had become available 
before and after the adoption of Regulation 773/98, that:   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 39 
 
 
  • the determination of standing, the initiation, th e selection of the sample, the determination of 
dumping and the injury are inconsistent with the EC's WTO obligations;  
• the establishment by the EC of the facts was not proper and that the EC's evaluation of facts 
was not unbiased and objective; and  
• the EC has not taken into account the special situation of India as a developing country.  
India alleged violations of Articles 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.6, 3.3, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1(I), 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 
5.8, 6.10, 7.1(I), 7.4, 9.1, 9.2,  12.1, 12.2 and 15 of the Anti-Dump ing Agreement, and Articles I and 
VI of GATT 1994. India also alleged nullification a nd impairment of benefits accruing to it under the 
cited agreements.  
11. WT/DS137 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Imports of Wood of 
Conifers from Canada 
Complaint by Canada. On 17 June 1998, Canada requested consultati ons with the EC in respect of 
certain measures concerning the importation into th e EC market of wood of conifers from Canada. 
The measures include, but are not limited to, Coun cil Directive 77/93, of 21 December 1976, as 
amended by Commission Directive 92/103/EEC, of 1 December 1992, and any relevant measures 
adopted by EC Member states affecting imports of wood of conifers from Canada into the EC. Canada 
alleged that these adversely affect the importation into the EC market of wood of conifers from 
Canada. Canada allege d violations of Articles I, III and XI of GATT 1994, Articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of 
the SPS Agreement, and Article 2 of the TBT Agreem ent. Canada also made a claim for nullification 
and impairment of benefits accruing to it indirectly under the cited agreements. 
12. WT/DS134 – European Communities – Restrictions on Certain Import Duties on Rice 
Complaint by India. On 28 May 1998, India requested  consultations with the EC in respect of the 
restrictions allegedly introduced by an EC Re gulation establishing a so-called cumulative recovery 
system (CRS), for determining certain import duti es on rice, with effect from 1 July 1997. India 
contended that the measures introduced through th is new regulation will restrict the number of 
importers of rice from India, and will have a limiting effect on the export of rice from India to the EC. 
India alleged violations of Articles I, II, III, V II and XI of GATT 1994, Articles 1-7, 11 and Annex I 
of the Customs Valuation Agreement, Articles 1 a nd 3 of the Import Licensing Agreement, Article 2 
of the TBT Agreement, Article 2 of the SPS Ag reement, and Article 4 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. India also claimed nullification and impairment of benefits accruing to it under the 
various agreements cited. 
13. WT/DS133 – Slovak Republic – Measures Concerning the Importation of Dairy 
Products and the Transit of Cattle 
Complaint by Switzerland. On 11 May 1998, Swit zerland requested consultations with the Slovak 
Republic concerning measures imposed by the Slovak  Republic (in particular, a decree of 6 July 
1996) with respect to the importation of dairy produc ts and the transit of ca ttle. Switzerland contended 
that these measures had a negative impact on Swiss exports of cheese and cattle. Switzerland alleged 
that some of these measures are inconsistent with Articles I, III, V, X and XI of GATT 1994, Article 5 
of the SPS Agreement, and Article 5 of the Import Licensing Agreement. WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 40  
 
  14. WT/DS131 – France – Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies 
Complaint by the United States. On 5 May 1998, the US requested consultations with France in 
respect of prohibited subsidies provided by France. The United States alleges that, based on unofficial 
English translations of the relevant legislati on and descriptions in secondary sources, it is its 
understanding that under French income tax law, a French company may deduct temporarily, certain 
start-up expenses of its foreign operations thr ough a tax-deductible reserve account. The US also 
believed that a French company may establish a special  reserve equal to ten percent of its receivable 
position at year end for medium-term credit risks in  connection with export sales. The US contended 
that each of these measures constitute an export subs idy, and that the deduction for start-up expenses 
constitute an import substitution subsidy, and as such both measures violate Article 3 of the SCM 
Agreement. 
15. WT/DS130 – Ireland – Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies 
Complaint by the United States. On 5 May 1998, th e US requested consultations with Ireland in 
respect of prohibited subsidies provided by Ireland. The US alleged that, based on unofficial copies of 
the relevant legislation and descriptions in seconda ry sources, it is its understanding that under Irish 
income tax law, "special trading houses" qualify for a special tax rate in respect of trading income 
from the export sale of goods manufactured in Ire land. The US contended that this measure 
constitutes an export subsidy and as such vi olates Article 3 of the SCM Agreement. 
16. WT/DS129 – Greece – Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies 
Complaint by the United States. On 5 May 1998, the US requested consultations with Greece in 
respect of prohibited subsidies provided by Greece. The US alleged that, based on unofficial English 
translations of relevant legislation and descripti ons in secondary sources, it is its understanding that 
under Greek income tax law, Greek exporters are entitled to a special annual tax deduction calculated 
as a percentage of export income. The US contende d that this measure constitutes an export subsidy 
and as such violates Article 3 of the SCM Agreement. 
17. WT/DS128 – Netherlands – Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies 
Complaint by the United States. On 5 May 1998, the US requested consultations with the Netherlands 
in respect of prohibited subsidies provided by the Netherlands. The US alleged that, based on 
unofficial English translations of the relevant legi slation and descriptions in secondary sources, it is its 
understanding that under Dutch income tax law, expor ters may establish a special "export reserve" for 
income derived from export sales. The US contended that this measure constitutes an export subsidy 
and as such violates Article 3 of the SCM Agreement. 
18. WT/DS127 – Belgium – Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies 
Complaint by the United States. On 5 May 1998, th e US requested consultations with Belgium in 
respect of prohibited subsidies provided by Belgium.  The US alleged that, based on unofficial English 
translations of relevant legislation and descripti ons in secondary sources, it is its understanding that 
under Belgium income tax law, Belgian corporat e taxpayers receive a special BEF 400,000 (index 
linked) tax exemption for recruiting a departmental  head for exports (known as an "export manager"). 
The US contended that this measure constitutes an export subsidy and as such violates Article 3 of the 
SCM Agreement.  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 41 
 
 
  19. WT/DS123 – Argentina – Safeguard Me asures on Imports of Footwear 
Complaint by Indonesia. On 23 April 1998, Ind onesia requested consultations with Argentina in 
respect of the same provisional and definitive saf eguard measures imposed by Argentina in the 
dispute WT/DS121. On 15 April 1999, Indonesia requested the establishment of a panel. In a communication dated 10 May 1999, Indonesia informed  the DSB that it was not pursuing its request 
for a panel at the next DSB meeting, but that this was without prejudice to its rights under the DSU to 
resurrect the panel request. 
20. WT/DS120 – India – Measures Affecting Export of Certain Commodities 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 16 Ma rch 1998, the EC requested consultations with 
India in respect of India's EXIM Policy (1997-20 02), which allegedly sets up a negative list for the 
export of several commodities. The EC alleged that under this policy, raw hides and skins are listed as 
products the export of which requires an export lic ence, and that these licen ces are systematically 
refused. The EC contended that this is in effect an export embargo and violates Article XI of GATT 
1994. On 12 October 2000, the EC requested the est ablishment of a panel. At its meeting of 23 
October 2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. 
21. WT/DS118 – United States – Harbour Maintenance Tax 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 6 Februa ry 1998, the EC requested consultations with 
the US concerning the US Harbour Maintenance Tax (HMT), allegedly introduced by legislation in 
the US. The EC contended that the HMT violates Ar ticles I, II, III, VIII and X of GATT 1994, as well 
as the Understanding on the Interpretati on of Article II:1(B) of GATT 1994. 
22. WT/DS117 – Canada – Measures Affe cting Film Distribution Services 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 20 Janua ry 1998, the EC requested consultations with 
Canada in respect of Canada's alleged measures affecting film distribution services, including the 
1987 Policy Decision on film distribution and its a pplication to European companies. The EC 
contended that these measures violate Articles II and III of GATS. 
23. WT/DS116 – Brazil – Measures Affecting Payment Terms for Imports 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 9 Janua ry 1998, the EC requested consultations with 
Brazil in respect of measures affecting payment term s for imports allegedly introduced by the Central 
Bank of Brazil. The EC contended that these measures violate Articles 3 and 5 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. 
M. YEAR
 1997 
1. WT/DS112 – Peru – Countervailing Duty Invest igation against Imports of Buses from 
Brazil 
Complaint by Brazil. On 23 December 1997, Brazil requ ested consultations with Peru in respect of a 
countervailing duty investigation being carried out by Peru against imports of buses from Brazil. 
Brazil contended that the procedures followed by the Peruvian authorities to initiate this investigation 
are inconsistent with Articles 11 and 13.1 of the Subsidies Agreement. WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 42  
 
  2. WT/DS111 – United States – Tariff Rate Quota for Imports of Groundnuts 
Complaint by Argentina. On 19 December 1997, Arge ntina requested consultations with the US in 
respect of the alleged commercial detriment to Arge ntina resulting from a restrictive interpretation by 
the US of the tariff rate quota negotiated by th e two countries during the Uruguay Round, regarding 
the importation of groundnuts. Argentina alleged vi olations of Articles II, X and XII of GATT 1994, 
Articles 1, 4 and 15 of the Agreement on Agriculture , Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin, 
and Article 1 of the Import Licensing Agreement. Nu llification and impairment of benefits is also 
alleged. 
3. WT/DS109 – Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages 
Complaint by the United States. On 11 December 1997,  the US requested consultations with Chile in 
respect of Chile's internal taxes on alcoholic beverages, which allegedly impose a higher tax on 
imported spirits than on pisco , a locally brewed spirit. The US contended that this differential 
treatment of imported spirits violates Article III: 2 of GATT 1994. Taxes on these beverages were at 
the time the subject of a complaint by the EC (WT/DS87), in respect of which a panel had already been established.  
4. WT/DS107 – Pakistan – Export Measures Affecting Hides and Skins 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 7 Nove mber 1997, the EC requested consultations with 
Pakistan in respect of a Notification enacted by th e Ministry of Commerce of Pakistan prohibiting the 
export of, inter alia , hides and skins and wet blue leather ma de from cow hides and cow calf hides. 
The EC contended that this measure limits access of  EC industries to competitive sourcing of raw and 
semi-finished materials.  
5. WT/DS105 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas 
Complaint by Panama. On 24 October 1997, Panama re quested consultations with the EC in respect 
of the EC's regime for the importation, sale an d distribution of bananas as established through 
Regulation 404/93, as well as any subsequent legisl ation, regulations or administrative measures 
adopted by the EC, including those reflecting the Framework Agreement on Bananas. Panama did not 
specify the WTO provisions which the EC regime vi olates. This is the same regime that was the 
subject of a successful challenge by the US, Ecua dor, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico (WT/DS27).  
6. WT/DS104 – European Communities – Measures Affecting the Exportation of 
Processed Cheese 
Complaint by the United States. On 8 October 1997, th e US requested consultations with the EC in 
respect of export subsidies allegedly granted by the EC on processed cheese without regard to the 
export subsidy reduction commitments of the EC. The US contended that these measures by the EC 
distort markets for dairy products and adversely a ffect US sales of dairy products. The US alleged 
violations of Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Agreem ent on Agriculture, and Article 3 of the Subsidies 
Agreement. 
7. WT/DS100 – United States – Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry Products 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 18 Au gust 1997, the EC requested consultations with 
the US in respect of a ban on imports of poultry and poultry products from the EC by the US Department of Agriculture's Food Safety Inspec tion Service, and any related measures. The EC  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 43 
 
 
  contended that although the ban is allegedly on grounds of product safety, the ban does not indicate 
the grounds upon which EC poultry produc ts have suddenly become inelig ible for entry into the US 
market. The EC considered that the ban is inconsis tent with Articles I, III, X and XI of GATT 1994, 
Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agre ement, or Article 2 and 5 of the TBT Agreement. 
8. WT/DS97 – United States – Countervailing Du ty Investigation of Imports of Salmon 
from Chile 
Complaint by Chile. On 5 August 1997, Chile request ed consultations with the US in respect of a 
countervailing duty investigation initiated by the US  Department of Commerce against imports of 
salmon from Chile. Chile contended that the decision to initiate an investigation was taken in the 
absence of sufficient evidence of inju ry, in violation of Article 11.2 and 11.3. Chile also contended a 
violation of Article 11.4, in relation to the re presentative status of producers of salmon fillets. 
9. WT/DS81 – Brazil – Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the 
Automotive Sector 
Complaint by the European Communi ties.  On 7 May 1997, the EC requ ested consultations with Brazil 
in respect of certain measures in the trade and i nvestment sector implemented by Brazil, including in 
particular, Law No. 9440 of 14 March 1997, Law No. 9449 of 14 March 1997, and Decree No. 1987 of 
20 August 1996.  The EC contended that these measures violate Ar ticles I:1 and III:4 of GATT 1994, 
Articles 3, 5 and 27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement, a nd Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement.  The EC also 
claimed for nullification and impairment of bene fits under both GATT 1994 and the Subsidies 
Agreement.  See also WT/D S51, WT/DS52 and WT/DS65. 
10. WT/DS80 – Belgium – Measures Affecting Commercial Telephone Directory Services 
Complaint by the United States.  On 2 May 1997, the US requested consulta tions with Belgium in 
respect of certain measures of the Kingdom of Belgium governing the provision of commercial 
telephone directory services.  Thes e measures include the impositi on of conditions for obtaining a 
license to publish commercial dire ctories, and the regulation of the acts, policies, and practices of 
BELGACOM N.V. with respect to te lephone directory services.  The US  alleged violations of Articles 
II, VI, VIII and XVII of GATS, as well as nullifica tion and impairment of bene fits accruing to it under 
the specific GATS commitments made by the EC on behalf of Belgium. 
11. WT/DS78 – United States – Safeguard Me asure Against Imports of Broom Corn 
Brooms 
Complaint by Colombia. On 28 April 1997, Colombia  requested consultations with the US in respect 
of US Presidential Proclamation 6961 of 28 Novemb er 1996, adopting a safeguard measure against 
imports of broom and corn brooms. Colombia conte nded that the adoption of this safeguard measure 
is inconsistent with the obligations of the US unde r Articles 2, 4, 5, 9 and 12 of the Agreement on 
Safeguards, Articles II, XIII and XIX of GATT 1994.  Colombia also claimed for nullification and 
impairment of benefits under GATT 1994. 
12. WT/DS71 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft 
Complaint by Brazil. On 10 March 1997, Brazil requested  consultations with Canada in respect of the 
same measures complained of in WT/DS70. However,  the request was made pursuant to Article 7 of 
the Subsidies Agreement. In this request, Brazil c ontended that the measures are actionable subsidies 
within the meaning of Part III of the Subsidies Agreement, and cause adverse effects within the 
meaning of Article 5 of the Agreement. WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 44  
 
  13. WT/DS66 – Japan – Measures Affecting Imports of Pork 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 15 Janua ry 1997, the EC requested consultations with 
Japan in respect of certain measures affecting impor ts of pork and its processed products imposed by 
Japan. The EC contended that these measures are in violation of Japan's obligations under Articles I, 
X:3 and XIII of the GATT 1994. The EC also contende d that these measures nullify or impair benefits 
accruing to it under the GATT 1994.  
14. WT/DS65 – Brazil – Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the 
Automotive Sector 
Complaint by the United States. On 10 January 1997, the US requested consultations with Brazil 
concerning more or less the same measures as in WT/DS52 above. However, this request also 
included measures adopted by Brazil subsequent to consultations held with the US pursuant to the 
request under WT/DS52, which include measures confe rring benefits to certain companies located in 
Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the EC. The US alleged violations under Articles I:1 and III:4 of 
GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement, and Articles 3 and 27.4 of the SCM Agreement. The 
United States also made a nullification and impairme nt of benefits claim under Article XXIII:1(b) of 
GATT 1994. 
N. YEAR
 1996 
1. WT/DS63 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Solid Urea from the 
Former German Democratic Republic 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 28 November 1996, the EC requested consultations 
with the US in respect of Anti-Dumping duties imposed on exports of solid urea from the former 
German Democratic Republic by the United States.  The EC contended that theses measures violate 
Articles 9 and 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
2. WT/DS61 – United States – Import Prohibit ion of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products 
Complaint by the Philippines. On 25 October 1996, the Philippines requested consultations with the 
US in respect of a complaint by the Philippines re garding a ban on the importation of certain shrimp 
and shrimp products from the Philippines imposed by  the US under Section 609 of US Public Law 
101-62. Violations of Articles I, II, III, VIII, XI and XIII of GATT 1994 and Article 2 of the TBT 
Agreement are alleged. A nullification and impairme nt of benefits under GA TT 1994 is also alleged. 
(See WT/DS58). 
3. WT/DS53 – Mexico – Customs Valuation of Imports 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 27 Au gust 1996, the EC requested consultations with 
Mexico concerning the Mexican Customs Law. The EC  claimed that Mexico applies CIF value as the 
basis of customs valuation of imports originat ing in non-NAFTA countries, while it applies FOB 
value for imports originating in NAFTA countries. Vi olation of GATT Article XXIV:5(b) is alleged.  
4. WT/DS52 – Brazil – Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the 
Automotive Sector 
Complaint by the United States. On 9 August 1996, the US requested consultations with Brazil 
concerning the same measures as identified in Japan's  request in WT/DS51. Violations of the TRIMs 
Agreement Article 2, GATT Articles I:1 and III:4 as well as the Subsidies Agreement Articles 3 and  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 45 
 
 
  27.4 are alleged. In addition, the United St ates also made a non-violation claim under GATT 
Article XXIII:1(b).  
5. WT/DS51 – Brazil – Certain Automotive Investment Measures 
Complaint by Japan. On 30 July 1996, Japan requested consultations with Brazil concerning certain 
automotive investment measures taken by the Brazilian government. Violations of the TRIMs 
Agreement Article 2, GATT Articles I:1, III:4 and XI :1 as well as the Subsidies Agreement Articles 3, 
27.2 and 27.4 are alleged. In addition, Japan made a non-violation claim under GATT Article XXIII:1(b).  
6. WT/DS47 – Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products 
Complaint by Thailand. On 20 June 1996, Thailand requested consultations with Turkey concerning 
Turkey's imposition of quantitative restrictions on  imports of textile and clothing products from 
Thailand. Violations of GATT Articles I, II, XI  and XIII as well as Article 2 of the Textiles 
Agreement are alleged. Earlier, Hong Kong (WT/DS29) and India (WT/DS34) separately requested consultations with Turkey on the same measure. 
7. WT/DS45 – Japan – Measures Affecting Distribution Services 
Complaint by the United States. On 13 June 1996 , the US requested consultations with Japan 
concerning Japan's measures affecting distribution services (not limited to the photographic film and paper sector) through the operation of the Large-Scale Retail Store Law, which regulates the floor space, business hours and holidays of supermarkets a nd department stores. Violations of the GATS 
Article III (Transparency) and Article XVI (Market Access) are alleged. The US also alleged that 
these measures nullify or impair benefits accruing to the US (a non-violation claim). The US 
requested further consultations with Japan on 20 September 1996, expanding the factual and legal 
basis of its claim. 
8. WT/DS41 – Korea – Measures Concerning Inspection of Agricultural Products 
Complaint by the United States. On 24 May 1996, the US requested consultations with Korea 
concerning testing, inspection and other measures re quired for the importation of agricultural products 
into Korea. The US claimed that th ese measures restrict imports and appear to be inconsistent with the 
WTO Agreement. Violations of GATT Articles III and XI, SPS Articles 2, 5 and 8, TBT Articles 2, 5 and 6, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agricultu re are alleged. The US requested consultations 
with Korea on similar issues on 4 April 1995 (WT/DS3).  
9. WT/DS30 – Brazil – Countervailing Duties on Imports of Desiccated Coconut and 
Coconut Milk Powder from Sri Lanka 
Complaint by Sri Lanka. On 23 February 1996, Sri Lanka requested consultations with Brazil 
concerning Brazil's imposition of countervailing dut ies on Sri Lanka's export of desiccated coconut 
and coconut milk powder. Sri Lanka  alleged that those measures are inconsistent with GATT Articles 
I, II and VI and Article 13(a) of the Agriculture Agreement (the so-called peace clause). See WT/DS22.  
10. WT/DS29 – Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products 
Complaint by Hong Kong. On 12 February 1996, H ong Kong requested consultations with Turkey 
concerning Turkey's quantitative restrictions on impo rts of textile and clothing products. Hong Kong WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 46  
 
  claimed that those measur es are in violation of GATT Articles XI  and XIII. The background to this 
dispute is a recently concluded customs union agreement between Turkey and the European 
Communities. Hong Kong claimed that GATT Arti cle XXIV does not entitle Turkey to impose new 
quantitative restrictions in the present case.  
O. YEAR
 1995 
1. WT/DS16 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas 
Complaint by Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States. On 28 September 1995, 
Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United Stat es requested consultations with the European 
Communities concerning the EC regime for the importa tion, sale and distribution of bananas. The EC 
measures are alleged to be inconsistent with Ar ticles I, II, III, X and XIII of GATT 1994, Articles 1 
and 3 of the Import Licensing Agreement, and Articles II, XVI and XVII of GATS.  
On 3 October 1995, St. Lucia requested to join the consultations. On 11 October 1995, Costa Rica 
requested to join the consultations. On 12 Oc tober 1995, Colombia and the Dominican Republic 
requested to join the consultations. On 13 Octobe r 1995, Venezuela and Nicaragua requested to join 
the consultations.  
2. WT/DS3 – Korea – Measures Concerning the Testing and Inspection of Agricultural 
Products 
Complaint by the United States. On 6 April 1995, the US requested consultations with Korea 
involving testing and inspection requirements with r espect to imports of agricultural products into 
Korea. The measures are alleged to be in violatio n of GATT Articles III or XI, Articles 2 and 5 of the 
Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measure s (SPS), TBT Articles 5 and 6 and Agriculture 
Article 4. (See WT/DS41). 
II. PANELS ESTABLISHED BY DSB/REPORTS NOT YET CIRCULATED 
A. ORIGINAL PANELS  
1. WT/DS379 – United States – Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on 
Certain Products from China 
Complaint by China.  On 19 September 2008, China requested consultations concerning the definitive 
anti-dumping and countervailing duties imposed by th e United States pursuan t to the final anti-
dumping and countervailing duty dete rminations and orders issued by the US Department of 
Commerce in several investigations. 
China considers that these measures, which in clude the conduct of the underlying anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty investigations, are inconsistent with the obligatins of the United States under, 
inter alia , Articles I and VI of the GATT 1994, Articles 1, 2, 10, 12, 13, 14, 19 and 32 of the SCM 
Agreement, Articles 1, 2, 6, 9 and 18 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Article 15 of the Protocol 
on the Accession of the People's Republic of China  (the Protocol of Accession). 
On 9 December 2008, China requested the establishmen t of a panel.  At its meeting on 22 December 
2008, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 20 January 2009, the DSB 
established a panel.  Argentina, Australia, Bahr ain, Canada, the European Communities, Kuwait, 
Saudi Arabia and Turkey reser ved their third-party rights.  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 47 
 
 
  2. WT/DS375, WT/DS376, WT/DS377 – European Communities and its member States – 
Tariff Treatment of Certain Information Technology Products 
Complaints by the United States (WT/DS375), Japan (WT/DS376) and Chinese Taipei (WT/DS377).  
The United States and Japan on 28 May 2008, a nd Chinese Taipei on 12 June 2008, requested 
consultations with the European Communities and its member States with respect to their tariff 
treatment of certain information technology products. 
The United States, Japan and Chinese Taipei all claim that the tariff treatment the European 
Communities and its member States accord to certain information technology products does not respect their commitments to provide duty-free tr eatment for these products under the Information 
Technology Agreement (ITA).  According to th e United States, Japan and Chinese Taipei, the 
European Communities and its member States now impose duties on these products contrary to their 
scheduled duty-free tariff concessions arising from the ITA. 
The United States, Japan and Chinese Taipei assert th at a number of EC customs classification legal 
instruments, alone or in combination with C ouncil Regulation (EEC) No. 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on 
the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on th e Common Customs Tariff, including all annexes 
thereto, as amended, appear to be inconsistent w ith the EC's and its member States' obligations under 
Article II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 and their Schedules, and therefore nullify or impair 
benefits accruing to the United States, Ja pan and Chinese Taipei under the GATT 1994. 
The United States and Chinese Taipei also claim that the publication of certain amended explanatory 
notes in the EC Official Journal after their applicati on by its member States is inconsistent with the 
EC's obligations under Article  X:1 and X:2 of the GATT 1994. 
With respect to disputes WT/DS375 and WT/D S376, Thailand, Japan, the Philippines, 
Singapore, Chinese Taipei and China re quested to join the consultations. 
With respect to dispute WT/DS377, the United St ates, China and Japan requested to join the 
consultations.  Subsequently, the European Comm unities informed the DSB that it had accepted the 
request of China to join the consultations. 
On 18 August 2008, the United States, Japan and Chin ese Taipei, jointly and severally, requested the 
establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 29 August 2008, the DSB deferred the establishment of a 
panel.  At its meeting on 23 Sept ember 2008, the DSB established a panel and Brazil;  China;  Hong 
Kong, China;  India;  Korea; the Philippines;  Tha iland and Viet Nam reserved their third-party rights.  
Subsequently, Australia, Costa Rica, Singapore a nd Turkey reserved their third-party rights. 
3. WT/DS371 – Thailand – Customs and Fi scal Measures on Cigarettes from the 
Philippines 
Complaint by the Philippines.  On 7 February 2 008, the Philippines requested consultations with 
Thailand concerning a number of Thai fiscal and customs measures affecting cigarettes from the Philippines.  Such measures include Thailand's custom s valuation practices, excise tax, health tax, TV 
tax, VAT regime, retail licensing requirement s and import guarantees imposed upon cigarette 
importers.  The Philippines claims that Thailand administers these measures in a partial and 
unreasonable manner and thereby violates Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994. 
In addition, the Philippines makes separate claims in  respect of various customs valuation measures 
affecting imports of cigarettes.  The Philippines cl aims that as a result of these measues, Thailand acts 
inconsistently with various provisions of the Cu stoms Valuation Agreement and the interpretative WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 48  
 
  notes to these provisions, as well as paragraphs 1 a nd 2 of the General Introductory Commentary;  and 
various provisions of Articles II and VII of the GA TT 1994.  According to the Philippines, Thailand 
does not use transaction value as the primary basis for customs valuation as required and fails to 
conform to the sequence of valuation methods manda ted by the Customs Valuation Agreement, rather 
it uses a valuation method with no basis in the Agreement. 
The Philippines also claims that Thailand's ad valorem  excise tax, health tax and TV tax, on both 
imported and domestic cigarettes, ar e inconsistent with Article I II:2, first and second sentence and 
Article X:1 of the GATT 1994 which requires the publi cation of trade laws and regulations of general 
application. 
The Philippines also claims that Thailand's VAT regi me is inconsistent with Articles III:2, first and 
second sentence, III:4 and X:1 of the GATT 1994. 
In addition, the Philippines claims that Thailand's dual license requirement that requires that tobacco 
and/or cigarette retailers hold separate licenses to sell domestic and imported ci garettes is inconsistent 
with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, because it pr ovides less favourable treatment for imported 
products than for like domestic products. 
On 20 February 2008, the European Commun ities requested to join the consultations. 
On 29 September 2008, the Philippines requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 
21 October 2008, the DSB deferred the establishment of  a panel.  At its meeting on 17 November 
2008, the DSB established a panel and Australia, th e European Communities, Chinese Taipei and the 
United States reserved their third-party rights.  Subsequently, China and India reserved their third-
party rights. 
4. WT/DS367 – Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples from New 
Zealand 
Complaint by New Zealand.  On 31 August 200 7, New Zealand requested consultations with 
Australia concerning measures imposed by Australia on the importation of apples from New Zealand. 
On 27 March 2007, Australia's Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine determined a policy for the 
importation of apples from New Zealand:  "Importation of apples can be permitted subject to the 
Quarantine Act 1908 , and the application of phytosanitary measures as specified in the Final import 
risk analysis report for apples from New Zealand , November 2006". 
New Zealand considers that these restrictions are in consistent with Australia 's obligations under the 
SPS Agreement, and in particular Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 8 and Annex C. 
On 13 September 2007, the European Communities requested to join the consultations.  On 
14 September 2007, the United States requested to jo in the consultations.  Subsequently, Australia 
informed the DSB that it had accepted the re quests of the European Communities and the 
United States to join the consultations.  On  6 December 2007, New Zealand requested the 
establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 17 December 2007, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 21 January 2008, a panel was established.  Chile, the European 
Communities, Japan, Chinese Taipei and the United States reserved their third-party rights.  
Subsequently, Pakistan reserved its third-party ri ghts.  On 3 March 2008, New Zealand requested the 
Director-General to compose th e Panel.  On 12 March 2008, the Director-General composed the 
Panel.  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 49 
 
 
  On 19 September 2008, the Chairman of the Panel info rmed the DSB that due to the nature and scope 
of the dispute, including the Panel's decision to seek scientific and technical expert advice pursuant to 
Article 11 of the SPS Agreement and Article 13 of the DSU, the Panel would not be able to issue its 
report within six months.  The Panel expects to i ssue its final report to the parties by July 2009. 
5. WT/DS366 – Colombia – Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry 
Complaint by Panama.  On 12 July 2007, Panama requested consultations with Colombia on (i) 
indicative prices applicable to specific goods and (ii) restrictions on ports of entry for certain goods.   
Panama's request concerning indicative prices relate s to a series of resolutions promulgated in June 
2007 which establish a mechanism of indicative prices.   More specifically, Colombia is alleged by 
Panama to require that importers of specific goods pay customs duties and other duties or charges and 
taxes based on the indicative prices, rather than on th e valuation methods set out in Article VII of the 
GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Customs Valuation. 
Moreover, Panama alleges that the tax base for Co lombia's sales tax on imported products is based on 
the indicative price whereas the tax base for the sales tax on the like domestic products is based on the 
transaction value.  According to Panama, the differe nce in tax bases therefore results in the imposition 
of a sales tax burden on imported products higher than that borne by the domestic like products. 
Panama claims that imposition of indicative pri ces in the above-mentioned circumstances results in 
possible inconsistencies with Articles 1-7 and 13 of the Agreement on Customs Valuation as well as 
Article VII, Article II:1(a) and (b). an d Article III:2 (or III:4) of the GATT 1994. 
Panama further alleges that Colombia has not pub lished the methodology for the establishment of the 
indicative prices.  Panama considers that this is  inconsistent with Colo mbia's obligations under 
Article X:1 of the GATT 1994. 
Finally, Colombia's administration of its customs laws and the indicative prices is alleged to be 
conducted in a manner that is inconsistent with Co lombia's obligations under Article X:3(a) of the 
GATT 1994. 
In relation to restrictions on ports of entry, Pana ma's request for consultations is directed at a 
resolution of June 2007 which provides that all goods classifiable in Chapters 50-64 of the Customs 
Tariff coming from the Free Zone of Colon in Pa nama shall be entered and imported exclusively 
through the jurisdictions of the Special Custom s Administration of Bogota and the Barranquilla 
Customs Office.  This requirement does not apply to  goods arriving directly from third countries.  the 
regulation provides that with respect to these goods, th e authorization of the customs transit procedure 
will not be appropriate.  Furthermore, the import declaration applicable to these imports shall be 
presented prior to their arrival in the national customs territory but not more than 15 days in advance.  
If an importer does not comply with these requireme nts, it is subject to special procedures under 
Colombia's Customs Code, including the detention of goods. 
Panama considers that these restrictions are incons istent with Colombia's obligations pursuant to 
Articles XI:1, XIII:1, V:2, V:6 and I:1 of the GATT 1994. 
On 24 July 2007, Honduras requested to join the consultations.  On 25 July 2007, Guatemala 
requested to join the consultations.  On 27 Ju ly 2007, Chinese Taipei requested to join the 
consultations.  Subsequently, Colombia informed  the DSB that it had accepted the requests of 
Guatemala, Honduras and Chinese Taip ei to join the consultations. WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 50  
 
  On 14 September 2007, Panama requested the est ablishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 
28 September 2007, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel.  At its meeting on 22 October 
2007, the DSB established a panel.  Ecuador, th e European Communities, Guatemala, Honduras, 
India, Chinese Taipei and the United States reserved th eir third-party rights.  Subsequently, China and 
Turkey reserved their third-party rights.  On  8 February 2008, the Panel was composed. 
On 9 September 2008, the Chairman of the Panel in formed the DSB that the Panel would not be able 
to complete its work within six months and that the Panel expects to issue its final report to the parties 
early in 2009. 
6. WT/DS363 – China – Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for 
Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products 
Complaint by the United States.  On 10 April 2007 , the United States requested consultations with 
China concerning:  (1) certain measures that restrict  trading rights with respect to imported films for 
theatrical release, audiovisual home entertainmen t products (e.g. video cassettes and DVDs), sound 
recordings and publications (e.g. books, magazines, ne wspapers and electronic publications);  and (2) 
certain measures that restrict market access for, or discriminate against, foreign suppliers of 
distribution services for publications and foreign suppliers of audiovisual services (including 
distribution services) for audiovisual home entertainment products.  
• Regarding trading rights, the United States se eks consultations on various Chinese measures 
that reserve, to certain Chinese state-designa ted and wholly or partially state-owned 
enterprises, the right to import films for theat rical release, audiovisual home entertainment 
products, sound recordings and publications;  
• Regarding distribution services, the United St ates seeks consultations on various Chinese 
measures that impose market access restrictions or discriminatory limitations on foreign 
service providers seeking to engage in the distri bution of publications a nd certain audiovisual 
home entertainment products. 
The United States claims that in relation to the two above-mentioned categories of measures possible 
inconsistencies with the Protocol of Accession, the GATT 1994 or the GATS arise as follows: 
• Regarding trading rights, the measures at issue appear not to allow all Chinese enterprises and 
all foreign enterprises and individuals the right to import the products into the customs 
territory of China.  It also a ppears that foreign individuals a nd enterprises, including those not 
invested or registered in Chin a, are accorded treatment less fa vourable than that accorded to 
enterprises in China with respect to the right to trade. Accordingly, the measures at issue 
appear to be inconsistent with China's obliga tions under the provisions of paragraphs 5.1 and 
5.2 of Part I of the Protocol of Accession, as well as China's obligations under the provisions 
of paragraph 1.2 of Part I of the Protocol of  Accession (to the extent that it incorporates 
commitments in paragraphs 83 and 84 of the Re port of the Working Party on the Accession of 
China).  Furthermore, to the extent that the measures at issue impose prohibitions or 
restrictions other than duties, taxes or other charges, on the importation into China of the 
Products, these measures appear to be inc onsistent with China's obligations under 
Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.  
• Regarding the measures affecting distribution services for publications, these appear to accord 
less favourable treatment to foreign suppliers of distribution services for publications than 
that accorded to Chinese supplie rs.  Accordingly, the measures at issue appear to be 
inconsistent with China's obligations under Ar ticles XVI and XVII of the GATS.  Similarly,  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 51 
 
 
  the measures affecting distribution services for audiovisual home entertainment products 
appear to accord less favourable treatment to  foreign suppliers of audiovisual distribution 
services than that accorded to Ch inese suppliers, and to impose restrictions on market access 
on foreign suppliers of audiovisual distribu tion services for audiovisual home entertainment 
products.  The measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with China's obligations under 
Articles XVI and XVII of the GATS. 
On 25 April 2007, the European Communities request ed to join the consultations.  Subsequently, 
China informed the DSB that it had accepted the re quest of the European Communities to join the 
consultations. 
On 10 July 2007, the United States requested s upplemental consultations.  On 20 July 2007, the 
European Communities requested to  join the supplemental consultations.  On 10 October 2007, the 
United States requested the establishment of a pa nel.  At its meeting on 22 October 2007, the DSB 
deferred the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 27 November 2007, the DSB established a 
panel. The European Communities and Japan reserved their third- party rights.  Subsequently, 
Australia, Korea and Chinese Taipei re served their third-party rights. 
On 17 March 2008, the United States requested the Di rector-General to determine the composition of 
the Panel.  On 27 March 2008, the Director-General composed the Panel. 
On 22 September 2008, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that the Panel would not be able 
to issue its report within six months due to sche duling difficulties.  The Panel estimates that it will 
issue its final report to the parties in February 2009. 
7. WT/DS362 – China – Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual 
Property Rights 
Complaint by the United States.  On 10 April 2007 , the United States requested consultations with 
China concerning certain measures pertaining to the protection and enforcement of intellectual 
property rights in China. 
The four matters on which the United States requests consultations are: 
• the thresholds that must be met in order for certain acts of trademark counterfeiting and 
copyright piracy to be subject to criminal procedures and penalties;  
• goods that infringe intellectual property right s that are confiscated by Chinese customs 
authorities, in particular the disposal of such goods following removal of their infringing features;  
• the scope of coverage of cr iminal procedures and penalties for unauthorized reproduction or 
unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works;  and  
• the denial of copyright and related rights pr otection and enforcement to creative works of 
authorship, sound recordings and performances th at have not been authorized for publication 
or distribution within China. 
The United States claims that in relation to the four above-mentione d matters possible inconsistencies 
with the TRIPS Agreement arise as follows: WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 52  
 
  • The lack of criminal procedures and penalties for commercial scale counterfeiting and piracy 
in China as a result of the thres holds appears to be inconsistent  with China's obligations under 
Articles 41.1 and 61 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
• The requirement that infringing goods be relea sed into the channels of commerce under the 
circumstances set forth in the measures at issu e appears to be inconsistent with China's 
obligations under Articles 46 and 59 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
• Authors of works whose publication or distribution has not been authorized (and whose 
publication or distribution is therefore prohibited) appear not to enjoy the minimum standards of protection specially granted by the Berne Convention in respect of those works (and may 
never enjoy such protection if the work is not au thorized, or is not authorized for distribution 
or publication in the form as submitted for review).   In addition, the rights of authors of works 
whose publication or distribution is required to  undergo pre-publication or pre-distribution 
review appear to be subject to the formality of successful conclusion of such review.  The 
foregoing appears to be inconsistent with Chin a's obligations under Article 9.1 of the TRIPS 
Agreement.  In addition, to the extent that the Copyright Law also denies protection of so-
called related rights to performers and producers of sound recordings during the period of any 
pre-publication or pre-distribution, the Copyright Law appears to be inconsistent with China's 
obligations under Article 14 of the TRIPS Agre ement.  Furthermore, to the extent that 
different pre-distribution and pre-authorizati on review processes for Chinese nationals' works, 
performances (or their fixations) and sound reco rdings than for foreign nationals' works, 
performances (or their fixations) and sound reco rdings result in earlier or otherwise more 
favourable protection or enforcement of copyright or related rights for Chinese authors' works, Chinese performers' pe rformances (or their fixations) and Chinese producers' sound 
recordings, the measures at issue appear to be  inconsistent with China's obligations under 
Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.  Additi onally, to the extent that Article 4 of the 
Copyright Law causes foreign authors of works whose publication or distribution has not been authorized not to enjoy the rights gran ted to Chinese authors, the measures at issue 
appear to be inconsistent with China's obliga tions under Article 9.1 of the TRIPS Agreement 
(with respect at least to China's obligations to comply with Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Berne 
Convention).  In addition, to the extent that Article 4 of China's Copyright Law makes it 
impossible for rightsholders to enforce their copyri ghts or related rights with respect to works, 
performances or sound recordings that have not been authorized for publication or distribution, China appears to act inconsistently  with China's obligations under Article 41.1 of 
the TRIPS Agreement.  
• To the extent that wilful copyright piracy on a commercial scale that consists of unauthorized 
reproduction - but not unauthorized distribution - of copyrighted works, and vice versa, may not be subject to criminal procedures and pena lties under the law of China, this would appear 
to be inconsistent with China's obligati ons under Articles 41.1 and 61 of the TRIPS 
Agreement. 
On 20 April 2007, Japan requested to join the c onsultations.  On 25 April 2007, Canada and the 
European Communities requested to join the consultations.  On 26 April 2007, Mexico requested to 
join the consultations.  Subsequently, China info rmed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of 
Canada, the European Communities, Japan and Mexico to join the consultations. 
On 13 August 2007, the United States requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 
31 August 2007, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 25 September 
2007, the DSB established a panel.  Argentina, the European Communitie s, Japan, Mexico and 
Chinese Taipei reserved their third-party rights.  Subsequently, Australia, Brazil, Canada, India,  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 53 
 
 
  Korea, Thailand and Turkey reserved their third-part y rights.  On 3 December 2007, the United States 
requested the Director-General to  compose the Panel.  On 13 Dece mber 2007, the Director-General 
composed the Panel.  On 16 July 2008, the Chairman  of the Panel informed the DSB that due to the 
complexity of issues presented in this case, the Pane l would not be able to complete its work within 
six months from the date of the Panel's composition.  The Panel expected to issue its final report to the 
parties by November 2008. 
8. WT/DS357, WT/DS365 – United States – Subs idies and other Domestic Support for 
Corn and other Agricultural Products;  Un ited States – Domestic  Support and Export 
Credit Guarantees for Argricultural Products 
Complaints by Canada (WT/DS357) and Brazil (WT/DS365).   On 8 January 2007, Canada requested consultations with the United States concerning three different 
categories of measures. 
First, Canada claims that the Un ited States provides subsidies to the US corn industry that are specific 
to US producers of primary agricultural products an d/or to the US corn industry.  Canada considers 
that the measures at issue are inconsistent with Articles 5(c) and 6.3(c) of the SCM Agreement.  
Second, Canada claims that the Un ited States makes available to its exporters premium rates and other 
terms more favourable than those which the market  would otherwise provide through export credit 
guarantee programmes under the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978  and other measures such as the 
GSM-102 programme and SCGP as well as the programmes, legislation, regulations and statutory instruments providing the support. Canada consid ers that these programmes provide subsidies 
contingent upon export performance contrary to Ar ticle 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement, and 
they also violate Articles 3.3, 8, 9.1 and 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Third, Canada claims 
that, through the improper exclusion of domestic su pport, the United States provides support in favour 
of domestic producers in excess of the commitment leve ls specified in Section I of Part IV of the 
Schedule, contrary to Article 3.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
On 18 January 2007, Australia requested to join the consultations.  On 19 January 2007, Argentina, 
Brazil, the European Communities, Guatemala, Ni caragua and Thailand requested to join the 
consultations.  On 22 January 2007, Uruguay requested  to join the consultations.  Subsequently, the 
United States informed the DSB that they had accep ted the requests of Argentina, Australia, Brazil, 
the European Communities, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Thailand and Uruguay to join the consultations. 
On 7 June 2007, Canada requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 20 June 2007, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.   
On 11 July 2007, Brazil requested consultations w ith the United States concerning two distinct 
categories of US agricultural measures:  (i) domest ic support for agricultural products and (ii) export 
credit guarantees for agricultural products. 
Concerning domestic support, Brazil requests consu ltations on support provided, on the one hand, in 
the years 1999-2001 and, on the other hand, in the years 2002 and 2004-2005. 
• In relation to the period from 1999-2001, Brazil' s request concerns (1) all domestic support 
provided to agricultural producers in accordance wi th US notifications as part of its AMS for 
those years, (2) the instruments under which such support was provided and (3) additional 
non-notified programmes and support, including  Production Flexibility Contract payments, 
Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance payments, etc.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 54  
 
  • In relation to the period from 2002 and 2004-2005, Brazil indicates that the United States has 
not made any notifications on domestic support incl uded in its total AMS. Accordingly, in the 
absence of more and better information, Brazil' s request concerns (1) basically all domestic 
support measures within the meaning of Article 6 of the Agreement on Agriculture as well as 
the instruments under which such support was provided, including direct payments for 
various commodities, cottonseed payments, co ttonuser marketing certifications, energy 
subsidies and feed assistance.  Brazil's request is also directed at any domestic support not 
exempt from US reduction commitments. 
Brazil claims that the above-mentioned measures resu lt in possible inconsistencies with Article 3.2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture, as, in Brazil's view , the United States exceeded its commitment levels 
in each of the years 1999-2001 as well as in 2002 and 2004-2005. 
Concerning export credit guarantees, Brazil seeks cons ultations on various US export credit guarantee 
programmes, such as GSM102 and the Supplier Cred it Guarantee Programme.  Particularly, it is 
challenging guarantees provided under such programm es in respect of agricultural products for which 
the United States has made export subsidy reduction commitments, but also all other, unscheduled, 
products. 
Brazil claims that the above-mentioned measures resu lt in possible inconsistencies with Articles 3.3, 
8, 9.1 and 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture  and also Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM 
Agreement, because, in Brazil's view, the Unite d States makes available export credit guarantees on 
terms more favourable than those which are otherwise available in the market. 
On 20 July 2007, Canada requested to join the c onsultations.  On 23 July 2007, Guatemala requested 
to join the consultations.  On 24 July 2007, Costa Ri ca and Mexico requested to join the consultations.  
On 25 July 2007, the European Communities requested to join the consultations.  On 26 July 2007, 
Argentina, Australia, India and Nicaragua requested  to join the consultations.  On 27 July 2007, 
Thailand requested to join the c onsultations.  Subsequently, the Un ited States informed the DSB that 
it had accepted the requests of Argentina, Australia , Canada, Costa Rica, th e European Communities, 
Guatemala, India, Nicaragua, Mexico a nd Thailand to join the consultations.  
On 8 November 2007, Canada and Brazil each re quested the establishment of a panel.  On 15 
November 2007, Canada withdrew its first request to establish a panel dated 7 June 2007.  At its 
meeting on 27 November 2007, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second 
request to establish a panel from both Canada and Brazil, the DSB established a single panel at its 
meeting on 17 December 2007.  Argentina, Austra lia, Chile, China, the European Communities, 
India, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, S outh Africa, Chinese Taipei and Thailand reserved 
their third-party rights.  Subsequently, Turkey and Uruguay reserved their third-party rights. 
9. WT/DS355 – Brazil – Anti-Dumping Measures  on Imports of Certain Resins from 
Argentina 
Complaint by Argentina.  On 26 December 2006, Argentina requested consultations with Brazil 
concerning anti-dumping measures applied by Brazil to  imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate 
(PET) resins from Argentina.  Argentina consider s that the anti-dumping investigation conducted, the 
determination made and the duties imposed by  Brazil are inconsistent with at least: 
• Article VI of GATT 1994;  and 
• Articles 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2,  3.4, 3.5, 6, 8, 10 and 12 and Annex II of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 55 
 
 
  In addition, the request for consultations con cerns Articles 2 (XV) and 5 §3 of Brazil's Decree 
No. 4732 of 10 June 2003.  Argentina consider s that these provisions are inconsistent with: 
• Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement; 
• Article X of GATT 1994;  and 
• Articles 6.14, 10 and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
Finally, the request for consultations concerns Ar ticle 58 of Brazil's Decree No. 1602 of 23 August 
1995, which provides for a review of the determ ination imposing anti-dumping duties. Argentina 
claims that this provision is inconsistent with: 
• Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement; 
• Article X of GATT 1994;  and 
• Articles 9 and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
On 7 June 2007, Argentina requested the establishmen t of a panel.  At its meeting on 20 June 2007, 
the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. 
At its meeting on 24 July 2007, the DSB established a panel.  The European Communities, Japan, 
Chinese Taipei and the United States reserved their third-party rights.  On 28 September 2007, the 
Panel was composed.  On 14 December 2007, the Chai rman of the Panel informed the DSB that it 
would not be able to complete its work in six m onths in light of scheduling conflicts.  The Panel 
expects to complete its work in August 2008.  On 4 February 2008, the Chairman of the Panel 
informed the DSB that Argentina had indicated that on 29 January 2008, the Foreign Trade Chamber of Brazil had adopted a decision to suspend the application of anti-dumping duties on imports of PET resin from Argentina.  Therefore, Argentina asked  the Panel to suspend its work pursuant to 
Article 12.12 of the DSU.  The Panel agreed to this request and suspended its work until further 
notice. 
10. WT/DS353 – United States – Measures Affect ing Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (Second 
Complaint) 
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 27 June 2005, the European Communities requested 
consultations with the United States concerning pr ohibited and actionable subsidies provided to US 
producers of large civil aircraft.  (See also dispute WT/DS317). 
The European Communities consider s that the measures cited in its request for consulations are 
inconsistent with: 
• Articles 3.1(a), 3.1(b), 3.2, 5(a), 5(c), 6.3(a), 6.3(b) and 6.3(c) of the SCM 
Agreement;  and 
• Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. 
On 20 January 2006, the European Communities requ ested the establishment of a panel.  Having 
deferred the establishment of a panel on 2 February  2006, the DSB established a panel at its meeting 
on 17 February 2006.  Au stralia, Brazil, Canada, China and Japan reserved their third-party rights at 
the meeting.  Subsequently, Korea reserved its third-party rights.  On 17 November 2006, the WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 56  
 
  European Communities requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel.  
On 22 November 2006, Deputy Director-General Alejandro Jara composed the Panel, on behalf of the Director-General. 
On 18 May 2007, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible for the 
Panel to complete its work within six months of th e date of composition in light of the substantive and 
procedural complexities of this dispute.  The Panel expected to complete its work in July 2008.  On 
11 July 2008, the Chairman of the Panel informed th e DSB that it now expected to complete its work 
in 2009. 
11. WT/DS317 – United States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft 
Complaint by the European Communities. (See al so dispute WT/DS353).  On 6 October 2004, the 
European Communities requested consultations w ith the United States concerning prohibited and 
actionable subsidies provided to US producers of la rge civil aircraft (LCA) and in particular the 
BOEING company, as well as legislation, regulations , statutory instruments and amendments thereto 
providing such subsidies, grants, and any other assistance to the US producers (US LCA industry).  
According to the request for consultations from the European Communities, the measures cited in its 
complaint, including certain legislation, regulati ons, statutory instruments and amendments thereto 
provide prohibited and actionable s ubsidies, grants, and other assistance to US producers of large civil 
aircraft, particularly the Boeing company, contrary to  certain provisions of Articles 3.1(a) and (b), 3.2, 
5(a) and (c), and 6.3(a), (b) and (c) of th e SCM Agreement and Article III:4 of GATT 1994.  
The measures cited in the EC complaint include sp ecified state and local subsidies for the production 
of the Boeing 7E7; specified NASA research and de velopment subsidies; specified Department of 
Defense research and development subsidies; specified National Institute of Standards and 
Technology subsidies; FSC/ETI subsidies; res earch and experimentation tax credits; NASA 
procurement contracts, and other subsidies.  
The EC notes that the cited US, state, and local statutes, regulations, and administrative procedures 
are inconsistent with the SCM and GATT 1994 provis ions referred to above, as such and as applied.  
The EC further notes that the use of these measure s causes adverse effects (i.e. serious prejudice or a 
threat of serious prejudice) to the interests of the EC and material injury or threat of material injury to 
the EC large civil aircraft industry in a manner that violates US obligations under provisions of Articles 5 and 6 of the SCM Agreement.  
On 31 May 2005, the European Communities requested  the establishment of a panel. At its meeting 
on 13 June 2005, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  On 27 June 2005, the European 
Communities requested additional consultations.  At its meeting on 20 July 2005, the DSB established 
a panel.  Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Japan  and Korea reserved their third-party rights. 
At its 23 September 2005 meeting, the DSB initiate d the procedures provided in Annex V of the 
SCM Agreement. 
On 7 October 2005, the European Communities request ed the Director-General to compose the panel. 
On 17 October 2005, Deputy Director-General Alejandr o Jara, acting in place of the Director-General 
composed the panel.  
On 13 April 2006, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible for the 
Panel to complete its work in six months in li ght of the substantive and procedural complexities  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 57 
 
 
  involved in this dispute, including the process of developing information concerning serious prejudice 
under Annex V of the SCM Agreement, the establishm ent of a second Panel at the request of the 
European Communities on 17 February 2006, and the Panel's subsequent agreement, at the parties' 
request, to set aside the original timetable for the di spute until an unspecified date in the future.  The 
Panel expects to complete its work in 2007.  
12. WT/DS316 – European Communities and Certain Member States – Measures Affecting 
Trade in Large Civil Aircraft 
Complaint by the United States. (See also dispute WT /DS347).  On 6 October 2004, the United States 
requested consultations with the Governments of  Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Spain 
(the "member States"), and with the European Communities ("EC") concerning measures affecting 
trade in large civil aircraft.  
According to the request for consultations from the United States, measures by the EC and the 
member States provide subsidies that are inc onsistent with their obligations under the SCM 
Agreement and GATT 1994. The measures include: the provision of financing for design and 
development to Airbus companies ("launch aid"); the provision of grants and government-provided 
goods and services to develop, expand, and upgrade Airbus manufacturing sites for the development 
and production of the Airbus A380; the provision of  loans on preferential terms; the assumption and 
forgiveness of debt resulting from launch and other large civil aircraft production and development 
financing; the provision of equity infusions and grants; the provision of research and development 
loans and grants in support of large civil aircraft development, directly for the benefit of Airbus, and 
any other measures involving a financial contributi on to the Airbus companies. The subsidies in 
question include those relating to the entire family of Airbus products (A300 through the A380)  
The United States further notes that certain launch aid provided for the A340 and A380 appear to be 
illegal export subsidies in contravention of certain provisions of Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.  
The United States is further concerned that the measur es appear to be causing adverse effects to US in 
a manner contrary to the provisions of Articles 5 and 6 of the SCM Agreement.  
The United States is also concerned that the measures appear to be inconsistent with Article XVI:1 of 
GATT 1994.  
Finally, the United States is concerned that th e measures have caused and continue to cause 
nullification or impairment of benefits to th e United States under GATT 1994 within the meaning of 
Article XXIII:1.  
On 31 May 2005, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 13 June 
2005, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 20 July 2005, the DSB 
established a panel. Australia, Braz il, Canada, China, Japan and Korea reserved their third-party 
rights. 
At its 23 September 2005 meeting, the DSB initia ted the procedures provided in Annex V of the 
SCM Agreement. 
On 7 October 2005, the United States requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 17 
October 2005, Deputy Director Alejandro Jara, acting in place of the Director-General who recused himself on this matter, composed the panel.   WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 58  
 
  On 13 April 2006, the Chairman of the Panel informed  the DSB that the Panel would not be able to 
complete its work within six months due to the substantive and procedural complexities involved in 
this dispute, including the process of devel oping information concerning serious prejudice under 
Annex V of the SCM Agreement, another request for consultations by the United States, the Panel's 
subsequent agreement, at the parties' request, to set  aside the original timetable for the dispute until an 
unspecified date in the future, and another request for the establishment of a panel by the United 
States.  The Panel expected to complete its work in 2007.  On 14 December 2007, the Chairman of the 
Panel informed the DSB that due to the substan tive and procedural complexities involved in this 
dispute, it now expected to complete its work in 2008.
 
13. WT/DS280 – United States – Countervailing Duties on Steel Plate from Mexico 
Complaint by Mexico. On 21 January 2003, Mexico requested consultations with the US regarding 
the final determination in an administrative re view of countervailing duties imposed by the US 
authorities on imports of carbon steel plates in sheets from Mexico (C-201-810) as well as the basis on which they reached this determination and led to  the imposition of countervailing duties on imports 
of the said products.  
Mexico claims that the administrative review th at led to the imposition of countervailing duties of 
11.6% ad valorem  by using the "same person" methodology is incompatible with Articles 10, 14, 19 
and 21 of the SCM Agreement. In particular, Mexi co claims that the US Department of Commerce 
did not make a determination of the existence of a benefit as required in Article 1.1(b) of the SCM 
Agreement.  
On 4 August 2003, Mexico requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 18 August 2003, 
the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Fu rther to a second request to establish a panel by 
Mexico, the DSB established a panel at its mee ting on 29 August 2003. China, the EC and Chinese 
Taipei reserved their third-party rights. On 5 Sept ember 2003, Canada reserved its third-party rights.  
14. WT/DS270 – Australia – Certain Measures Aff ecting the Importation of Fresh Fruit and 
Vegetables 
Complaint by the Philippines. On 18 October 200 2, the Philippines requested consultations with 
Australia on certain measures affecting the importati on into Australia of fresh fruit and vegetables, 
including bananas, which include, but are not limited to:  
• Section 64 of Quarantine Proclamation 1998  promulgated under the Quarantine Act 1908 ;  
• regulations, requirements and procedures issued pursuant thereto;  
• amendments to any of the foregoing; and  
• their application.  
The Philippines considered that these measures are in consistent with the obligations of Australia 
under the GATT 1994, the SPS Agreement and the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. The 
relevant provisions of these agre ements include, but are not limited to Articles XI and XIII of the 
GATT 1994; Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the SPS Agreement; and Articles 1 and 3 of the 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 59 
 
 
  On 1 November 2002, the EC and Thailand requested to join the consultations. On 7 November 2002, 
Australia informed the DSB that it had accepted th e request of the EC and Thailand to join the 
consultations.  
On 7 July 2003, the Philippines re quested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 21 July 
2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by the Philippines, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 29 August 2003. China, the EC, 
Ecuador, India, Thailand and the US reserved thei r third-party rights. On 4 September 2003, Chile 
reserved its third-party rights.  
15. WT/DS260 – European Communities – Provisional Safeguard Measures on Imports of 
Certain Steel Products 
Complaint by the United States. On 30 May 2002, the US requested consultations with the EC with 
regard to the provisional safeguard  measures imposed by the EC on im ports of certain steel products, 
pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March 2002 (OJ L 85/1, 28 March 
2002) as well as any amendments thereto or exte nsions thereof, and any related measures. 
The US contended that these measures appear to be inconsistent with the EC's obligations under the 
provisions of GATT 1994 and of the Ag reement on Safeguards, in particular, Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4.1, 
4.2, 6 and 12.1 of the Agreement on Safegua rds and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994. 
On 7 June 2002, Japan requested to join the consultations.  On 19 August 2002, the US requested the establishment of  a panel. In particular the US claimed that 
the EC safeguard measures are inconsistent with th e provisions listed in the request for consultations. 
In addition, the US claimed that Article 12.4 of the Safeguards Agreement was also violated. 
At its meeting on 30 August 2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 
16 September 2002, the DSB established a panel. Egypt , Japan and Korea reserved their third party 
rights. On 23 September 2002, Turkey reserved its third party rights.  
16. WT/DS214 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Steel Wire 
Rod and Circular Welded Quality Line Pipe 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 30 November 2000, the EC requested consultations 
with the US on US safeguard legislation and its application in two cases concerning the definitive 
safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of certain steel wire rod ("wire rod") and certain circular welded carbon quality line pipe ("line pipe "). In particular, the EC considered as follows:  
• Sections 201 and 202 of the Trade Act of  1974 contain provisions relating to the 
determination of a causal link between increased  imports and injury or threat thereof which 
prevented the US from respecting Articles 4 and 5 of the Safeguards Agreement.  
• Section 311 of the NAFTA Implementation Ac t contains provisions concerning imports 
originating in NAFTA countries which do not r espect the requirement of parallelism between 
the imported products subject to the investiga tion and the imported products subject to the 
safeguard measure, contrary to Articles 2,  4 and 5 of the Safeguards Agreement.  
• These provisions are in breach of the Most-Favoured-Nation principle under Article I of the 
GATT 1994.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 60  
 
  According to the EC, these violations are confirmed by the application of the aforesaid US provisions 
in two specific cases wher e the US imposed definitive safeguard measures, (1) in the form of a tariff 
rate quota on imports of wire rod effective as of 1 March 2000; and (2) in the form of an increase in 
duty on imports of line pipe effective as of 1 March 2000. In the EC's view, in both the above 
mentioned cases the US measures are in breach of th e US obligations under the provisions of GATT 
1994 and of the Safeguards Agreement, in particular , but not necessarily exclusively, of: Article 2 
Safeguards Agreement; Articles 3.1 and 3.2 Safegua rds Agreement; Articles 4.1 and 4.2 Safeguards 
Agreement; Article 5.1 Safeguards Agreement; Artic le 8.1 Safeguards Agreement; Articles 12.2, 12.3 
and 12.11 Safeguards Agreement; Article I:1 of GATT 1994; Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994. 
Further to the request of the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 10 September 2001. 
Argentina, Canada, Japan, Korea and Mexico reserve d their third-party rights. The Panel has not yet 
been composed.  
17. WT/DS195 – Philippines – Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the Motor 
Vehicle Industry 
Complaint by the United States. On 23 May 2000, th e US requested consultations with the Philippines 
in respect of certain measures in the Philippin es' Motor Vehicle Development Program ("MVDP"), 
including the Car Development Program, the Co mmercial Vehicle Development Program, and the 
Motorcycle Development Program. The United States asserted that:  
• the MVDP provided that motor vehicle manufact urers located in the Philippines who meet 
certain requirements are entitled to import parts, components and finished vehicles at a preferential tariff rate;  
• foreign manufacturers' import licenses for parts, components and finished vehicles are 
conditioned on compliance with these requireme nts. Among the requirements referred to by 
the United States are the requirement that ma nufacturers use parts and components produced 
in the Philippines and that they earn a percenta ge of the foreign exchange needed to import 
those parts and components by exporting finished vehicles; and  
• The United States considered that these measures ar e inconsistent with the obligations of the 
Philippines under Articles III:4, III:5 and XI:1 of the GATT 1994, Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TRIMS Agreement, and Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement.  
On 12 October 2000, the US requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 23 October 
2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by the US, the DSB established a panel at its me eting of 17 November 2000. India and Japan reserved 
their third party rights. This panel has not yet been composed.  
18. WT/DS188 – Nicaragua – Measures Affectin g Imports from Honduras and Colombia 
Complaint by Colombia. On 17 January 2000, Colomb ia requested consultations with Nicaragua in 
respect of Nicaragua's Law 325 of 1999, which pr ovides for the imposition of charges on goods and 
services from Honduras and Colombia, as well as regulatory Decree 129-99. Colombia claimed that 
these measures are inconsistent, inter alia , with Articles I and II of GATT 1994. Further to 
Colombia's request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 18 May 2000. Canada, Costa Rica, 
the EC, Honduras and the US reserved their third-part y rights. This panel has not yet been composed.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 61 
 
 
  19. WT/DS164 – Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear 
Complaint by the United States. On 1 March 1999, th e US requested consultations with Argentina in 
respect of certain measures implemented by Argentina affecting imports of footwear. The US contended that:  
• in November 1998, Argentina adopted Resolution 1506 modifying Resolution 987 of 10 
September 1997, which had established safeguard  duties on imports of footwear from non-
MERCOSUR countries. Resolution 1506 allege dly imposes a tariff-rate quota (TRQ) on such 
footwear imports in addition to the safegua rd duties previously imposed, postpones any 
liberalization of the original safeguard duty  until 30 November 1999, and liberalizes the TRQ 
only once during the life of the measure;  
• Argentina has not notified this measure to the Committee on Safeguards; and  
• the United States alleged violations of Artic les 5.1, 7.4 and 12 of the Agreement on 
Safeguards.  
Further to the request of the United States, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 26 July 1999. 
The panel has not yet been composed. See also complaint by Indonesia (WT/DS123) and complaint 
by the EC (WT/DS121).  
B. ACTIVE COMPLIANCE PANELS  
1. WT/DS336 – Japan – Countervailing Duti es on Dynamic Rando m Access Memories 
from Korea 
Complaint by Korea.  On 9 September 2008, Japan and Korea notified the DSB of Confirmed 
Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU.  Also, on 9 September 2008, Korea requested the 
establishment of compliance panel.  At its meeti ng on 23 September 2008, the DSB agreed to refer to 
the original Panel, if possible, the questi on of whether Japan had complied with the DSB 
recommendations and rulings.  The European Comm unities, Chinese Taipei and the United States 
reserved their third-party rights.  Subsequently, Chin a reserved its third-party rights.  On 8 October 
2008, the compliance panel was composed.  On 19  December 2008, the Chairman of the Panel 
informed the DSB that it would not be possible for th e Panel to complete its work in 90 days in light 
of scheduling conflicts.  The Panel expect s to complete its work in June 2009. 
2. WT/DS322 – United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews 
Complaint by Japan.  On 10 March 2008, the United States and Japan informed the DSB of confirmed 
procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU.  On  7 April 2008, Japan requested the establishment 
of a compliance panel.  At its meeting on 18 April 2008,  the DSB agreed to refer to the original panel, 
if possible, the question whether the United Stat es had complied with the DSB recommendations and 
rulings.  China;  the European Communities;  Hong Kong, China;  Norway and Chinese Taipei 
reserved their third party rights.  Subsequently, Korea, Mexico and Thailand reserved their third party 
rights.  On 23 May 2008, the compliance panel was composed.  On 1 August 2008, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possi ble to complete its work in 90 days in light of 
scheduling conflicts.  The Panel expects to complete its work in April 2009. WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 62  
 
  III. REPORTS CIRCULATED BUT NOT YET ADOPTED BY THE DSB 
A. O
RIGINAL PANEL REPORTS  
B. COMPLIANCE PANEL REPORTS (ARTICLE  21.5) 
1. WT/DS294 – United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating 
Dumping Margins (Zeroing) 
Complaint by the European Communities.  The Eu ropean Communities consid ered that there was a 
disagreement as to the existence or consistency w ith a covered agreement of the measures taken to 
comply with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB.  Therefore, on 9 July 2007, the European 
Communities requested consultations under Article 21. 5.  Brazil and Korea re quested to join the 
consultations.  On 13 September 2007, the Europ ean Communities requested the establishment of a 
compliance panel.  At its meeting on 25 September 2007, the DSB agreed to refer, if possible, the 
matter raised by the European Communities to the or iginal panel.  India, Japan and Mexico reserved 
their third-party rights.  Subsequently, Korea, Norway, Chinese Taipei and Thailand reserved their 
third-party rights.  On 28 November 2007, the Euro pean Communities requested  the Director-General 
to compose the Panel.  On 30 November 2007, the Di rector-General composed the Panel.  On 26 May 
2008, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB th at it would not be able to circulate its report 
within 90 days after the date of referral given the delays in the composition of the Panel and the 
schedule adopted after consultations with the partie s. The Panel expected to complete its work in 
October 2008. 
On 17 December 2008, the compliance panel report was circulated to Members.   The compliance 
Panel first found that it had no authority to make find ings with respect to the EC claim that the Panel 
was improperly constituted under Articles 8.3 and 21.5 of the DSU. 
With respect to the EC general claims of failu re, by the United States, to fully implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in the original dispute, the compliance Panel found that: 
 (i) The United States failed to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB 
in the original dispute and acted inc onsistently with Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement  and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 by determining, after the end of the 
reasonable period of time, the amount of anti-dumping duty to be assessed based on zeroing in the 2004-2005 administrative review in case 1 ( Hot Rolled Steel from the 
Netherlands ) and issuing assessment instructions pursuant to that determination and 
by determining, after the end of the r easonable period of time, the amount of anti-
dumping duty to be assessed based on zer oing in the 2004-2005 administrative 
review in case 6 ( Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden ) and issuing assessment 
instructions pursuant to that determination.  
 (ii) The United States failed to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB 
in the original dispute by continuing to apply to imports of NSK cash deposit rates 
established in the 2000-2001 administrative review in case 31 ( Ball Bearings from the 
United Kingdom ), a measure which was found to be inconsistent with Articles 9.3 of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and VI:2 of the GATT 1994 in the original dispute. 
 (iii) The United States had not failed to comp ly with the recommendations and rulings of 
the DSB in the original dispute by taking actions to liquidate anti-dumping duties calculated with zeroing pursuant to final dut y assessment determinations made before  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 63 
 
 
  the end of the reasonable period of time (including pursuant to subsequent 
administrative reviews listed in the Annex to the EC Article 21.5 panel request).  
 (iv) The United States had not failed to comp ly with the recommendations and rulings of 
the DSB in the original dispute by determining, prior to the end of the reasonable period of time, the amount of anti-dumping duty to be assessed based on zeroing in 
the 2005-2006 administrative review determination in case 1 ( Hot Rolled Steel from 
the Netherlands ).  
 (v) The United States had not failed to comp ly with the recommendations and rulings of 
the DSB in the original dispute and has not  acted inconsistently with Articles 2.4.2 
and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 by 
establishing a new cash deposit rate base d on zeroing in the 2004-2005 administrative 
review determination in case 6 ( Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden ) because due 
to the revocation of the measure in question, no cash deposit requirement was actually imposed. 
 (vi) Having found that none of the sunset reviews with respect to which the European 
Communities made claims and which were with in its terms of reference had, by the 
time of the establishment of the Panel, resu lted in the continuation of the concerned 
anti-dumping orders, the panel made no findi ngs in respect of the claims of the 
European Communities that the United States violated Articles 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2 and 
11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  as a result of having relied on margins of 
dumping calculated with zeroing in the cont ext of sunset reviews involving measures 
challenged in the original dispute.  
 (vii) the Panel made no findings with respect  to the EC claim that the United States 
violated Articles 21.3 and 21.3(b) of the DSU by failing to take any measure to comply between 9 April and 23 April/31 August 2007. 
With respect to the EC claims that certain US me asures taken to comply were inconsistent with the 
US obligations under the covered agreements, the co mpliance Panel made no finding with respect to 
Section 129 determination in case 11, which it had found was not properly before it; the EC claims 
under Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement a nd Article VI:I of the GATT 1994 in respect of 
cases 2, 3, 4 and 5; and the EC claims under Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement in respect of cases 2, 4 and 5. 
The Panel further found that, to the extent that the measures taken by the United States to comply with 
the recommendations and rulings adopted by the DSB in  the original proceeding are inconsistent with 
the obligations of the United States under the covere d agreements, and to the extent that the United 
States has otherwise failed to implement the recomme ndations and rulings of the DSB in the original 
dispute, these recommendations and rulings of the DS B remain operative.  It therefore made no new 
recommendation.   WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 64  
 
  C. A
PPELLATE BODY REPORTS  
D. APPELLATE BODY COMPLIANCE REPORTS (ARTICLE  21.5) 
IV. REPORTS CURRENTLY UNDER APPEAL 
A. ORIGINAL PANEL REPORTS  
1. WT/DS350 – United States – Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing 
Methodology 
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 2 October 2006, the European Communities requested 
consultations with the United States concerni ng its continued application of the "zeroing" 
methodology.  In particular, the request for cons ultations concerns (i) the implementing regulation 
(19 CFR Section 351) of the US Department of Co mmerce, especially section 351.414(c)(2);  and (ii) 
the Import Administration Antidumping Manual (1997 edition), including the computer program(s) to 
which it refers.  The European Communities cl aims that, based on these regulations, the US 
Department of Commerce continued to apply the " zeroing" methodology in the determinations of the 
margin of dumping in the final results of the anti-dumping administrative reviews concerning various EC goods, and any assessment instructions issued pur suant to those final results.  The European 
Communities considers that the relevant US  regulations, zeroing me thodology, practice, 
administrative procedures and measures for de termining the dumping margin in reviews are 
inconsistent with: 
• Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 9.1, 9.3, 9.5, 11, including Articles 11.2 and 11.3, and 18.4 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement ; 
• Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994;  and 
• Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. 
On 9 October 2006, the European Communities, in a further request for consultations,  identified 
additional administrative reviews in which the US  Department of Commer ce applied the "zeroing" 
methodology in calculating the margin of dumping, and requested that those cases be added to the list. 
On 10 October 2006, Japan requested to join th e consultations.  On 12 October 2006, Thailand 
requested to join the consultations.  On 13 Oct ober 2006, Brazil and India requested to join the 
consultations.  On 10 May 2007, the European Comm unities requested the estab lishment of a panel.  
At its meeting on 22 May 2007, the DSB deferred th e establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 
4 June 2007, the DSB established a panel.  Chin ese Taipei, India, Japan and the United States 
reserved their third-party rights.  Subsequently, Br azil, China, Egypt, Korea, Norway and Thailand 
reserved their third-party rights.  On 29 June  2007, the European Co mmunities requested the 
Director-General to compose the Panel.  On 6 July  2007, the Director-General composed the Panel. 
On 1 October 2007, the Chairman of the Panel inform ed the DSB that it would not be possible for the 
Panel to complete its work in six months in lig ht of scheduling conflicts.  The Panel expects to 
complete its work in June 2008. 
Following the resignation on 8 November 2007 of one of the panelists, the parties agreed on the 
appointment of a new panelist on 27 November 2007.  On 14 December 2007, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that due to the resignatio n of one of the panelists , further delays were 
unavoidable and that the Panel expects to  complete its work in September 2008.  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 65 
 
 
  On 1 October 2008, the Panel report was circulated  to Members.  The Panel found that certain 
proceedings that were identified in the EC's panel request but not in its consultations request were 
within its terms of reference, but that the EC's cl aims in connection with the continued application of 
the anti-dumping duties, as well as certain prelimin ary determinations identified in its panel request, 
were not within its terms of reference. 
The Panel found that : 
– the United States acted inconsistently with the obligation set out under Article 2.4.2 by using 
model zeroing in the four investigations at issue in this dispute; 
– the United States acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article VI:2 of the GATT 
1994 and Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by applying simple zeroing in the 29 
periodic reviews at issue in this dispute; 
– The United States acted inconsistently with  its obligations under Article 11.3 of the 
Agreement by using, in the eight sunset review s at issue in this dispute, dumping margins 
obtained through model zeroing in prior investigations.   
The Panel applied judicial economy with regard to certain claims regarding the use of model zeroing 
in the investigations at issue, th e use of simple zeroing in the periodic reviews at issue, and the use of 
margins obtained in prior proceedings through the zeroi ng methodology in the sunset reviews at issue. 
The Panel recommended that the DSB request the Unite d States to bring its into conformity with its 
obligations under the WTO Agreement.  The Panel declined to make a suggestion on how the DSB 
recommendations and rulings may be im plemented by the United States.   
One member of the Panel expressed a separate opini on with regard to the EC's claims regarding 
zeroing in investigations and zeroing in periodic review s.  That member of the Panel agreed with the 
conclusions reached by the majority of the Members of  this Panel regarding all the claims raised by 
the European Communities in this dispute, but di sagreed with the legal reasoning developed by the 
majority regarding the EC's claims on simple zeroi ng in periodic reviews, and, in part, model zeroing 
in investigations and provided hi s opinion on these matters. 
On 6 November 2008, the European Communities no tified the DSB its decision to appeal to the 
Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in the Panel report and certain  legal interpretations 
developed by the Panel.  On 18 November 2008, the United States notified the DSB its decision to 
appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of la w covered in the Panel re port and certain legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel.  On 22 D ecember 2008, the Chairman of the Appellate Body 
informed the DSB that due to the time required fo r completion and translation of the report, the 
Appellate Body would not be able to circulate its report within 60 days.  It is estimated that the 
Appellate Body report would be circulated on 4 February 2009. WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 66  
 
  B. C
OMPLIANCE PANEL REPORTS (ARTICLE  21.5) 
V. COMPLETED PANEL AND APPELLATE BODY REVIEW 
A. APPELLATE BODY AND PANEL REPORTS ADOPTED  
1. WT/DS360 – India – Additional and Extra-Additional Duties on Imports from the 
United States 
Complaint by the United States.  On 6 March 2007,  the United States requested consultations with 
India with respect to "additional duties" or extra a dditional duties" that India applies to imports from 
the United States, which include (but are not lim ited to) wines and distilled products (HS2204, 2205, 
2206 and 2208.  The measures include: 
• Sections 2 and 3, and First Schedule, of th e Customs Tariff Act, 1975 ("basic customs duty", 
"additional duty" and "extra additional duty"); 
• Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 ("basic customs duty"); 
• Customs Notification No. 5/2004 (8 January 2004) ("basic customs duty" inter alia  on 
spirits); 
• Customs Notification No. 20/1997 (1 March 1997) ("basic customs duty" inter alia  on wine); 
• Customs Notification No. 32/2003 (1  March 2003) ("additional duty" inter alia  on wine and 
spirts);  
• Customs Notification No. 19/2006 (1 March 2006) ("extra additional duty" inter alia  on wine 
and spirits) 
as well as any amendments, related measures or implementing measures. The United States claims that the measures are incons istent with Articles II:1(a) and (b), and III:2 and 
III:4 of the GATT 1994. 
On 16 March 2007, the European Communities request ed to join the consultations.  On 21 March 
2007, Australia requested to join the consultations.  Subsequently, India informed the DSB that it had 
accepted the request of the European Communities to  join the consultations.  On 24 May 2007, the 
United States requested the establishment of a pa nel.  At its meeting on 4 June 2007, the DSB 
deferred the establishment of a panel.  At its mee ting on 20 June 2007, the DSB established a panel.  
Australia, Chile, the European Communities, Japan a nd Viet Nam reserved their third-party rights.  
On 3 July 2007, the panel was composed.  On 17 December 2007, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that due to the complexity of the dispute, and the administrative and procedural 
matters involved, the Panel is not able to complete its work in six months.  The Panel expects to issue 
its final report to the parties in the course of March 2008. 
The Panel report was circulated to Members on 9 J une 2008.  The Panel concluded that the United 
States has failed to establish that the Additional Duty on alcoholic liquor is inconsistent with 
Article II:1(a) or (b) of the GATT 1994 and that it has also failed to establish that the SUAD is 
inconsistent with Article II :1(a) or (b) of the GATT 1994.  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 67 
 
 
  In the light of these conclusions, the Panel made no recommendations under Article 19.1 of the DSU.  
However, it offered some concluding remarks.  The panel recalled that, after the establishment of this 
Panel, India issued new customs notifications maki ng certain changes to the AD on alcoholic liquor 
and the SUAD, "to address concerns raised by [Indi a's] trading partners".  The Panel noted that, 
therefore, its disposition of the US claims under Article II:1(a) and (b) does not necessarily imply that 
it would be consistent with India's WTO obligations  for India to withdraw the relevant new customs 
notifications or otherwise re-establish the status quo ante , i.e., the situation as it existed on the date of 
establishment of the Panel.  By the same token, in making this point, the panel did not wish to suggest 
that the entry into force of the new customs notif ications necessarily impli es that the AD on alcoholic 
liquor, to the extent it still exists, and the SUAD are WTO-consistent.   
On 1 August 2008, the United States notified its deci sion to appeal to the Appellate Body certain 
issues of law covered in the Panel report and certain legal interpretati ons developed by the Panel.  On 
13 August 2008, India notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and 
legal interpretations developed by the Panel.  On 25 September 2008, the Chairman of the Appellate 
Body informed the DSB that due to the time require d for completion and translation of the report, the 
Appellate Body would not be able to circulate its report within 60 days.  The Appellate Body report 
would be circulated no later than 30 October 2008. 
On 30 October 2008, the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members.  The Appellate Body 
found: 
The Appellate Body rejected the United States' claim that the Pane l limited the scope of the United 
States' challenge to the Additional Duty as impo sed only through Customs Notification 32/2003, and 
the Extra-Additional Duty as imposed only through Customs Notification 19/2006.   
As regards the Panel's findings with respect to the interpretation of Articles II:1(b) and II:2(a), the 
Appellate Body found that the Panel erred in its interpretation that Ar ticle II:1(b) covers only duties or 
charges that "inherently discriminate against imports ", that the Panel erred in interpreting the term 
"equivalent" in Article II:2(a) as requiring only a qualitative comparison of the relative function of a 
charge and internal tax, thereby incorrectly excl uding quantitative considerations relating to their 
effect and amount, and that the Panel also erred in fi nding that "consistency with Article III:2" is not a 
necessary condition in the application of Article II: 2(a).  Consequently, the Appellate Body reversed 
the Panel's findings that the United States failed to  establish that the Additional Duty and the Extra-
Additional Duty are inconsistent with Artic les II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994.  
The Appellate Body also found that the United Stat es was required to present arguments and evidence 
that the Additional Duty and the Extra-Additional Du ty are not justified under Article II:2(a), and that 
India, in asserting that those duties are justified,  was required to adduce arguments and evidence in 
support of its assertion.   
The Appellate Body also considered that the Additional Duty would no t be justified under 
Article II:2(a) of the GATT 1994 insofar as it results  in the imposition of charges on imports of 
alcoholic beverages in excess of the excise duties applied on like domestic products, and, 
consequently, that this would render the Additional Duty  inconsistent with Article II:1(b) to the extent 
that it results in the imposition of duties in ex cess of those set forth in India's Schedule of 
Concessions.   
The Appellate Body also considered that the Ex tra-Additional Duty would not be justified under 
Article II:2(a) of the GATT 1994 insofar as it results  in the imposition of charges on imports in excess 
of the sales taxes, value-added taxes, and other local taxes or charges that India alleges are equivalent 
to the Extra-Additional Duty;  and, consequently, that this would render the Extra-Additional Duty WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 68  
 
  inconsistent with Article II:1(b) to the extent th at it results in the imposition of duties in excess of 
those set forth in India's Schedule of Concessions.   
Finally, the Appellate Body found that the Panel did not act contrary to Articles 3.2, 11, and 19 of the 
DSU in providing "concluding remarks" in paragraph 8. 2 of the Panel Report.  In view of its findings 
and conclusions, the Appellate Body made no recomme ndation, in this case, to the Dispute Settlement 
Body pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU. 
At its meeting on 17 November 2008, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as reversed by the Appellate Body report. 
2. WT/DS345 – United States – Customs Bond Di rective for Merchandi se subject to Anti-
Dumping/Countervailing Duties 
Complaint by India. On 6 June 2006, India requ ested consultations with the United States on the 
Amended Bond Directive and the enhanced bond requirement imposed by the United States on imports of frozen warmwater shrimp from India.  I ndia considers that the Amended Bond Directive as 
such and the enhanced bond requi rement are inconsistent with: 
• Articles 1, 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 7.5, 9.2, 9.3, 9.3.1, 18.1 and 18.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ; 
• Articles I, II, III, VI:2, VI:3 (including Note 1 Ad paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article VI), X, XI 
and XIII of the GATT 1994;  and 
• Articles 10, 17.4, 17.5, 19.3, 19.4, 32.1 and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement . 
On 21 June 2006, Brazil, China and Thailand requested  to join the consultations.  The United States 
informed the DSB that they had accepted the requ ests of Brazil, China and Thailand to join the 
consultations. 
On 13 October 2006, India requested the establishmen t of a panel.  At its meeting on 26 October 
2006, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 21 November 2006, the DSB 
established a panel.  Brazil, China, the Europ ean Communities, Japan and Thailand reserved their 
third party rights.  On 19 January 2007, India request ed the Director-General to compose the Panel.  
On 26 January 2007, the Director-General composed the Panel. 
On 27 July 2007, the Chairman of the Panel info rmed the DSB that it would not be possible for the 
Panel to complete its work within si x months of the date of composition, inter alia , due to the nature 
and scope of the dispute. 
On 29 February 2008, the Panel report was circulated to Members.  The Panel rejected India's claims 
that the laws, rules and regulations of the United States that authorize the imposition of the EBR and 
the instruments comprising the Amended CBD are inconsistent as such  with the provisions of Articles 
1, 7.1(iii), 7.2, 7.4, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 (including 9.3.1), 18.1 and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ;  
Articles 10, 17.1(c), 17.2, 17.4, 19.2, 19.3, 19.4 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement ;  Articles VI:2 and 
VI:3 of the GATT 1994 ;  and the Ad Note thereto. 
The Panel upheld India's claims that: (i) the appli cation of the EBR to subject shrimp from India is 
inconsistent with Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dump ing Agreement, and the Ad Note;  that (ii) the 
application of the EBR to subject shrimp from India prior to the imposition of the anti-dumping order is inconsistent with Article 7.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ;  and that (iii) the United States  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 69 
 
 
  violated Article 18.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 32.6 of the SCM Agreement  
because it failed to notify the Amended CBD  to the Anti-Dumping and SCM Committees. 
The Panel rejected the United States' argument that  the application of the EBR is justified under 
Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994 . 
The Panel declined to rule separately on India's claims  that:  (i) the application of the EBR to subject 
shrimp from India prior to the imposition of the anti-dumping order is inco nsistent with Articles 
7.1(iii), 7.4 and 7.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ;  that (ii) the application of the EBR to subject 
shrimp from India is inconsistent with Articles I:1,  II:1(a) and (b), X(3)(a), XI:1 and XIII of the GATT 
1994 ;  and that (iii) the laws, rules and regulations  of the United States that authorize the imposition 
of the EBR and the instruments compri sing the Amended CBD are inconsistent as such  with Articles 
I:1, II:1(a) and (b), X(3)(a), XI:1 and XIII of the GATT 1994 . 
The Panel recommended that the United States bring its  measures into conformity with its obligations 
under the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and the GATT 1994 . 
On 17 April 2008, India notified its decision to request  the Appellate Body to review certain issues of 
law covered in the Panel report and certain legal inte rpretations developed by the Panel.  On 29 April 
2008, the United States notified its decision to appeal  to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the Panel report and cer tain legal interpretations devel oped by the Panel. The Appellate 
Body examined this appeal with that of WT/DS343. 
On 10 June 2008, the Chairman of the Appellate Body informed the DSB that it would not be able to 
provide its report within 60 days due to the time requ ired for completion and translation of the report.  
The Appellate Body estimated that the report woul d be circulated no later than 16 July 2008. 
On 16 July 2008, the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members. 
The Appellate Body inter alia : 
– upheld the Panel's finding that the additional security requirement resulting from the 
application of the EBR to subject shrimp is not  "reasonable" within the meaning of the Ad 
Note; 
– upheld the Panel's finding that the Amended CBD , by virtue of which the EBR is imposed, is 
not inconsistent "as such" with Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and 
Articles 10 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement; 
– upheld the Panel's finding that the Amended CBD , by virtue of which the EBR is imposed, is 
not inconsistent "as such" and "as applied" w ith Articles 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, and 9.3.1 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement and that it is not inc onsistent "as such" with Articles 19.2, 19.3, 
and 19.4 of the SCM Agreement; 
– found it unnecessary, for purposes of resolving this  dispute, to make an additional finding on 
India's claims that the Amended CBD is "as su ch" inconsistent with Article 18.4 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement and Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement; 
– upheld the Panel's finding that the EBR, as applied to subject shrimp, is not "necessary" 
within the meaning of Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994;  and, therefore, does not express a 
view on the question of whether a defence under Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994 was available to the United States.   WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 70  
 
  Consequently, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's conclusion that the application of the EBR to 
subject shrimp is inconsistent with Article 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because it is 
inconsistent with the Ad Note to Article VI:2 and 3 of the GATT 1994.  
The Appellate Body recommended that the DSB request the United States to bring its measure, found 
in this Report and in the Panel Report, US – Custom s Bond Directive, as modified by this Report, to 
be inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreemen t and the GATT 1994, into conformity with its 
obligations under those Agreements.  
At its meeting on 1 August 2008, the DSB adopted th e Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body report. 
3. WT/DS344 – United States – Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from 
Mexico 
Complaint by Mexico.  On 26 May 2006, Mexico requested consultations with the United States 
concerning a series of final anti-dumping determin ations by the US Department of Commerce 
concerning imports of stainless steel sheet and stri p in coils from Mexico for the period between 
January 1999 and June 2004.  The request for consu ltations also addresses: (i) certain sections of the 
US Tariff Act of 1930, as amended;  (ii) the Statement of Administrative Action that accompanied the 
Uruguay Round Agreements;  (iii) sp ecific sections of the US Depa rtment of Commerce's regulations 
codified at Title 19 of the US Code of Federa l Regulations;  (iv) the 1997 edition of the Import 
Administration Antidumping Manual; and (v) the methodology employed by the US Department of Commerce to determine the overall margin of dumping for the product subject to the original investigation and administrative reviews, where by the Department disregarded ("zeroed") negative 
dumping margins. 
Mexico considers that the above  laws, regulations, administrativ e practices and methodologies both 
"as such" and as applied in the above determinations  resulted in the nullification and impairment of 
benefits directly or indirectly accruing to Mexi co under the WTO Agreement and the Agreements 
annexed thereto.  In particular, Mexico claims th at the US laws, regulations, administrative practices, 
methodologies and determinations in ques tion are inconsistent at least with: 
• Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994;  
• Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 5, 6.10, 9 (including but not limited to 9.3), 11 and 18 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement;  and  
• Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. 
On 9 June 2006, Japan requested to join the consultations. On 12 October 2006, Mexico requested the establishmen t of a panel.  At its meeting on 26 October 
2006, the DSB established a panel.  Chile, China,  the European Communities, Japan and Thailand 
reserved their third-party rights.  On 15 December 2006, Mexico requested the Director-General to 
compose the Panel.  On 20 December 2006, the Director-General composed the Panel. 
On 21 May 2007, the Chairman of the Panel informed  the DSB that the Panel would not be able to 
complete its work in six months in light of schedul ing conflicts and that it expected to complete its 
work in November 2007.  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 71 
 
 
  On 20 December 2007, the Panel report was circulated to Members.  The Panel concluded that:  (a) 
model zeroing in investigations as such  is inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement;  (b) the USDOC acted inconsistently w ith Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement 
in the investigation on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strips in Coils from Mexico  by using model zeroing;  
(c) simple zeroing in periodic reviews is as such  not inconsistent with Article VI:1 and VI:2 of the 
GAT T 1994 and Articles 2.1, 9.3 and 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;  and (d) the USDOC did 
not act inconsistently with Article VI:1 and VI:2  of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 9.3 and 2.4 of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement by using simple  zeroing in the five periodic reviews on Stainless Steel 
Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico.  
The Panel applied judicial economy with regard to Me xico's claims under:  (a) Article VI:1 and VI:2 
of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 2.4 and 18.4 of  the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article XVI:4 
of the WTO Agreement regarding model zeroing in i nvestigations;  and (b) Article XVI:4 of the WTO 
Agreement and Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement regarding simple zeroing in periodic 
reviews. 
On 31 January 2008, Mexico notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of 
law covered in the Panel report and certain legal interpretations devel oped by the Panel.  On 26 March 
2008, the Chairman of the Appellate Body informed the DSB that it would not be able to provide its 
report within 60 days due to the time required for co mpletion and translation.  It was estimated that 
the report will be circulated no later than 30 April 2008. 
On 30 April 2008, the Appellate Body report was ci rculated to Members.  The Appellate Body: 
1. reversed the Panel's finding that simple zeroing in periodic review is not, as such, inconsistent 
with Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994  and Articles 2.1, 2.4 and 9.3 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement;  and found, instead, that simple zeroing in periodic reviews is, as such, inconsistent with Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement;  
2. reversed the Panel's finding that the United Stat es did not act inconsistently with Articles VI:1 
and VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 2.4 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;  
and found, instead, that the United States acted in consistently with Article VI:2 of the GATT 
1994 and Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreemen t by applying simple zeroing in the five 
periodic reviews at issue in this dispute;  
3. found it unnecessary, for purposes of resolving this  dispute, to make an additional finding on 
Mexico's claim that simple zeroing in periodic re views is, as such, and as applied in the five 
periodic reviews at issue in this dispute, inc onsistent with Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement, and on Mexico's related cl aim under Article 11 of the DSU;  and  
4. did not make an additional finding that th e Panel failed to discharge its duties under 
Article 11 of the DSU by making findings that co ntradict those in previous Appellate Body 
reports adopted by the DSB. 
The Appellate Body recommended that the DSB re quest the United States to bring its measures, 
found in the Appellate Body report, and in the Pane l report as modified by the Appellate Body report, 
to be inconsistent with the GATT 1994 and with th e Anti-Dumping Agreement, into conformity with 
its obligations under those Agreements.
 
On 20 May 2008, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body  report and the Panel report, as modified by the 
Appellate Body report.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 72  
 
  4. WT/DS343 – United States – Measures Relating to Shrimp from Thailand 
Complaint by Thailand.  On 24 April 2006, Thailand requested consultations with the United States 
concerning anti-dumping measures on imports of fro zen warmwater shrimp.  Thailand requests 
consultations on the United States' application in the Preliminary, Final and Amended Final 
Determinations of the practice known as "zeroing" negative dumping margins, the effect of which was 
to artificially create margins of dumping, and th e consequent imposition of definitive anti-dumping 
measures on imports of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand.   
Thailand considers that through its use of "zeroi ng", the United States has failed to make a fair 
comparison between the export price and the normal  value, and calculated distorted margins of 
dumping therefore violating: 
• Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 5.8, 9.2 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement , and 
• Articles II, III, VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994. 
In addition, Thailand requests c onsultations on the United States ' continuous bond requirement as 
such and on its application to imports of frozen warmwater shrimp from Th ailand which it considers 
may be inconsistent with Articles I:1, II, III, XI:1 and XIII:1 of the GATT 1994 and may not be 
justified under Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994. 
On 1 May 2006, India requested to join the consulta tions.  On 2 May 2006, Japan requested to join the 
consultations.  On 5 May 2006, Brazil requested to join the consultations.  On 8 May 2006, China 
requested to join the consultations.  The United States informed the DSB that it had accepted the 
requests of Brazil, China and India to join the consultations. 
On 15 September 2006, Thailand requested the estab lishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 
28 September 2006, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel.  At its meeting on 26 October 
2006, the DSB established a panel.  Brazil, Chile, China, the European Co mmunities, India, Japan, 
Korea and Mexico reserved their third-party right s.  On 19 January 2007, Thailand requested the 
Director-General to compose the Panel.  On 26 January 2007, the Director-General composed the 
Panel.  Subsequently, Viet Nam reserved its third-party rights. 
On 27 July 2007, the Chairman of the Panel info rmed the DSB that it would not be possible for the 
Panel to complete its work within si x months of the date of composition, inter alia , due to the nature 
and scope of the dispute. 
On 29 February 2008, the Panel report was circul ated to Members.  The Panel upheld Thailand's 
claims that the application of the EBR to subj ect shrimp from Thailand is inconsistent with 
Article 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , and the Ad Note.  It re jected the United States' 
argument that the application of the EBR is justified under Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994 . 
The Panel further upheld Thailand's claim that the United States acted inconsistently with 
Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  by using zeroing to calculate margins of dumping in 
respect of the anti-dumping measure.  The Panel de clined to rule separately on Thailand's claim that 
the application of the EBR to subject shrimp from Th ailand is inconsistent with Articles I, II:1(a), the 
first and second sentences of Article II:1(b), X:3(a) and XI:1 of the GATT 1994.  
The Panel recommended that the United States bring its  measures into conformity with its obligations 
under the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and the GATT 1994 .  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 73 
 
 
  On 17 April 2008, Thailand notified its decision to  request the Appellate Body to review certain 
issues of law covered in the Panel report and certain legal interpretati ons developed by the Panel.  On 
29 April 2008, the United States notified its decision to  appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of 
law covered in the Panel report and certain lega l interpretations developed by the Panel. The 
Appellate Body examined this appeal with that of WT/DS345. 
On 10 June 2008, the Chairman of the Appellate Body informed the DSB that it would not be able to 
provide its report within 60 days due to the time requ ired for completion and translation of the report.  
The Appellate Body estimated that the report woul d be circulated no later than 16 July 2008.  
On 16 July 2008, the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members. The Appellate Body inter alia : 
– upheld the Panel's finding that the additional security requirement resulting from the 
application of the EBR to subject shrimp is  not "reasonable" within the meaning of the 
Ad Note; and 
– upheld the Panel's finding that the EBR, as applied to subject shrimp, is not "necessary" 
within the meaning of Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994.   
Consequently, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's conclusion that the application of the EBR to 
subject shrimp is inconsistent with Article 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because it is 
inconsistent with the Ad Note to Article VI:2 and 3 of the GATT 1994. 
The Appellate Body recommends that the DSB requ est the United States to bring its measure, found 
in this Report and in the Panel Report, US – Shrimp (Thailand) , as modified by this Report, to be 
inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994, into conformity with its 
obligations under those Agreements.  
At its meeting on 1 August 2008, the DSB adopted th e Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body report. 
5. WT/DS341 – Mexico – Definitive Counter vailing Measures on Olive Oil from the 
European Communities 
Complaint by the European Comm unities.  On 31 March 2006, the European Communities requested 
consultations with Mexico concer ning the imposition by Mexico of definitive countervailing measures 
on imports of olive oil from the European Communities. 
The European Communities claims that the initiation a nd conduct of the investigations in this case, as 
well as the imposition of definitive countervailing measures are inconsistent with Mexico's 
obligations under, inter alia ,  
• Article VI of GATT 1994. 
• Articles 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 22 and 32 of the SCM Agreement. 
• Articles 13 and 21 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
On 7 December 2006, the European Communities requ ested the establishment of a panel.  At its 
meeting on 19 December 2006, the DSB deferred the est ablishment of the panel.  At its meeting on WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 74  
 
  23 January 2007, the DSB established a panel.  Ca nada, China, Norway and the United States 
reserved their third party rights.  Subsequently, Japan  reserved its third party rights.  On 13 February 
2007, the European Communities requested the Dir ector-General to compose the Panel.  On 
21 February 2007, the Director-General composed th e Panel.  On 14 November 2007, the Chair of the 
Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible to issue its report within six months due to the 
complexity of issues presented in the case as well as the need to translate the parties' submissions.  
The Panel expects to issue its final report to the parties by April 2008. 
On 4 September 2008, the Panel report was circulat ed to Members.  The Panel concluded that 
Mexico's definitive countervailing measures on o live oil from the European Communities were 
inconsistent with the requirements of the SCM Agreement , in that: 
(a) Mexico acted inconsistently with Article 11.11 of the SCM Agreement because Economía's 
investigation in this case was concluded more th an 18 months after the date of its initiation, 
and Article 11.11 does not permit such prolongation under any circumstances;  
(b) Mexico acted inconsistently with Article 12.4.1 of the SCM Agreement  because Economía 
failed to require non-confidential summaries of c onfidential information in sufficient detail to 
permit a reasonable understanding of the informa tion submitted in confidence, in the absence 
of sufficient explanations of the existence of exceptional circumstances and of the reasons 
why summarization was not possible; and   
(c) Mexico acted inconsistently with the obligation in Article 15.1 of the SCM Agreement  to base 
the injury determination on positive evidence and pursuant to an objective examination 
because Economía limited its injury analysis to  the periods from April to December of 2000, 
2001 and 2002.   
The Panel further concluded that the European Communities did not establish that Mexico acted 
inconsistently with certa in obligations under the SCM Agreement , the Agreement on Agriculture and 
the GATT 1994  in other respects.    
In the light of its findings, the Panel found it unnecessary to address the European Communities' 
claims under Articles 15.1 and 15.4 of the SCM Agreement in respect of Economía's analysis of the 
volume of subsidized imports and the impact of these imports on prices in the domestic market for the like product and on the domestic industry.   
Pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU , having found that Mexico h as acted inconsistently with 
provisions of the SCM Agreement  as set out above, the Panel recommended that Mexico bring its 
measures into conformity with that Agreement.   The Panel declined to make a suggestion, pursuant to 
the second sentence of Article 19.1 of the DSU,  as to how Mexico should bring its measures into 
conformity with its obligations.   
At its meeting on 21 October 2008, the DSB adopted the Panel report. 
6. WT/DS339, WT/DS340, WT/DS342 – China – Measures Affecting Imports of 
Automobile Parts 
Complaints by the European Communities (WT/DS339), the United States (WT/DS340) and Canada 
(WT/DS342).  On 30 March 2006, the European Communities and the United States, and on 13 April 2006, Canada, requested consultati ons with China regarding China's imposition of various measures 
that adversely affect exports of automobile part s from the European Commun ities, the United States 
and Canada to China.    WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 75 
 
 
  The European Communities argued that, under the me asures identified, imported automobile parts 
that are used in the manufacture of vehicles for sale in China are subject to charges equal to the tariffs 
for complete vehicles, if they are imported in excess of certain thresholds.  The European Communities considers that the m easures are inconsistent with: 
• Articles II:1(a), II:1(b), III:2, III:4, III:5 of the GATT 1994, as well as with the 
principles contained in Article III:1.  
• Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TRIMs Agreement in conjunction with paragraphs 1(a) and 
2(a) of the Illustrative List annexed to the Agreement .  
• Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.  
• China's obligations under its Access Protocol, in particular Part I, para. 7.3 of the 
Accession Protocol, and in para. 203 of th e Working Party Report on the Accession 
of China (WP Report) in conjunction with Pa rt I, para. 1.2 of the Accession Protocol, 
and para. 342 of the WP Report. 
The European Communities also considers that Chin a had nullified or impaired the benefits accruing 
to the European Communities under the Accession Protoc ol, in particular para. 93 of the WP Report, 
in conjunction with Part I, para. 1.2 of the Accession Protocol, and para. 342 of the WP Report. 
The United States argued that the measures identif ied appear to penalize manufacturers for using 
imported auto parts in the manufacture of vehicles for sale in China.  In the United States' opinion, 
although China bound its tariffs for auto parts at ra tes significantly lower than its tariff bindings for 
complete vehicles, China would be assessing a charge  on imported auto parts equal to the tariff on 
complete vehicles, if the imported parts are incorporated in a vehicle that contains imported parts in excess of thresholds.  The United States consider s that these measures are inconsistent with the 
following provisions: 
• Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement.  
• Articles II (including para. 1) and III (includi ng paras. 2, 4 and 5) of the GATT 1994.  
• Article 3 (including paras. 1 a nd 2) of the SCM Agreement.  
• The Protocol of Accession (WT/L/432) (includi ng Parts I.1.2 and I.7.3, and paras. 93 
and 203 of the Working Party Report). 
The United States also considers th at China had nullified or impaired the benefits accruing to the 
United States, directly or indirectly, under the cited agreements.  
Canada argues that the measures identified above impose different charges on vehicles manufactured 
in China depending on the domestic content of the automobile parts used in the manufacture, thus 
providing domestic manufacturers with an advantage if  they use domestic parts.  Canada also argues 
that the measure may also have an impact on fore ign investments as they confer an advantage to 
enterprises, conditioned on the use in vehicle produc tion of domestic instead of imported parts.  
Canada adds that the charges that may be assessed  on automobile parts once a vehicle is complete 
appear to constitute a charge in  excess of those set forth in China's schedule of concessions.  China 
would also be applying the tariff for completed vehicles to completely-knocked down and semi-WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 76  
 
  knocked down kits.  The measures also seem to  provide subsidies contingent upon export 
performance and upon the use of domestic over imported goods. 
Canada considers that the measures at issue are inconsistent with:  
• The Protocol of Accession (WT/L/432) (includi ng Parts I.1.2 and I.7.3, and paras. 93 
and 203 of the Working Party Report).  
• Articles II (including para. 1) and III (includi ng paras. 2, 4 and 5) of the GATT 1994.  
• Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement.  
• Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin , specifically paras. (b), (c) and (d).  
• Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.  
Canada considers that, in addition, China's meas ures may nullify or impair benefits accruing to 
Canada under the cited agreements.  
In dispute WT/DS339, Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexi co and the United States requested to join the 
consultations.  China informed the DSB that it ha d accepted the requests of Australia, Canada, Japan, 
Mexico and the United States to join the consultations. 
In dispute WT/DS340, Australia, Canada, the Europe an Communities, Japan and Mexico requested to 
join the consultations.  China informed the DSB th at it had accepted the requests of Australia, Canada, 
the European Communities, Japan and Mexico to join the consultations. 
In dispute WT/DS342, Australia, the European Co mmunities, Japan, Mexico and the United States 
requested to join the consultations.  China info rmed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of 
Australia, the European Communities, Japan, Mexico  and the United States to join the consultations. 
On 15 September 2006, the European Communities, the United States and Canada each requested the 
establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 28 September 2006, the DSB deferred the establishments 
of a panel.  At its meeting on 26 October 2006, the DSB established a single panel pursuant to 
Article 9.1 of the DSU.  Argentina, Australia, Jap an, Mexico and Chinese Taipei reserved their third-
party rights.  Subsequently, Brazil and Thailand reser ved their third-party rights.  On 19 January 2007, 
the European Communities, the United States and Canada requested the Director-General to 
determine the composition of the Panel.  On 29 January 2007, the Director-General composed the Panel. 
On 16 July 2007, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be able to complete 
its work within six months due to the complexity  of the issues presented in this case.  The Panel 
expects to issue its final report to the parties by January 2008.  On 24 January 2008, the Chairman of 
the Panel informed the DSB that due to the complicated issues presen ted in this case, the Panel now 
expected to issue its final report to the parties by the end of March 2008. 
On 18 July 2008, the Panel reports were circulated to Members.   
With respect to the complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS339), the Panel concluded that: 
– with respect to imported auto parts in general:  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 77 
 
 
   (i) Policy Order 8, Decree 125 and Announceme nt 4 are inconsistent with Article III:2, 
first sentence of the GATT 1994 in that they subject imported auto parts to an internal 
charge in excess of that applied to like domestic auto parts; 
 (ii) Policy Order 8, Decree 125 and Announcemen t 4 are inconsistent with Article III:4 of 
the GATT 1994 in that they accord imported auto parts less favourable treatment than 
like domestic auto parts; and 
 (iii) Policy Order 8, Decree 125 and Announcement 4 are not justified under 
Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994 as measures that are necessary to secure compliance 
with laws or regulations which are not inconsistent with the GATT 1994. 
– In the alternative , assuming that the measures fall within the scope of the first sentence of 
Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994, with r espect to imported auto parts in general: 
 (i) Policy Order 8, Decree 125 and Announcement  4 are inconsistent with Article II:1(a) 
and Article II:1(b), first sentence of the GATT 1994 in that they accord imported auto parts treatment less favourable than that provided for in the appropriate Part of China's Schedule of Concessions; and 
 (ii) Policy Order 8, Decree 125 and Announcement 4 are not justified under Article 
XX(d) of the GATT 1994 as measures that ar e necessary to secure compliance with 
laws or regulations which are not  inconsistent with the GATT 1994. 
– with respect to CKD and SKD kits:  (i) Policy Order 8, Decree 125 and Annou ncement 4 are not inconsistent with 
Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994. 
With respect to the European Communities' claims that Policy Order 8, Decree 125 and 
Announcement 4 are inconsistent with the TRIMs Ag reement and Article III:5 of the GATT 1994, the 
Panel decided to exercise judicial economy. 
In light of its findings, the Panel recommended that the DSB request China to bring these inconsistent 
measures as listed above into conformity  with its obligations under the GATT 1994. 
With respect to the complaint by the United States (WT/DS340), the Panel concluded that : 
– with respect to imported auto parts in general:  (i) Policy Order 8, Decree 125 and Announceme nt 4 are inconsistent with Article III:2, 
first sentence of the GATT 1994 in that they subject imported auto parts to an internal 
charge in excess of that applied to like domestic auto parts; 
 (ii) Policy Order 8, Decree 125 and Announcemen t 4 are inconsistent with Article III:4 of 
the GATT 1994 in that they accord imported auto parts less favourable treatment than 
like domestic auto parts; and 
 (iii) Policy Order 8, Decree 125 and Announcement 4 are not justified under 
Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994 as measures that are necessary to secure compliance 
with laws or regulations which are not inconsistent with the GATT 1994. WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 78  
 
  – In the alternative , assuming that the measures fall within the scope of the first sentence of 
Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994, with r espect to imported auto parts in general: 
 (i) Policy Order 8, Decree 125 and Announcement  4 are inconsistent with Article II:1(a) 
and Article II:1(b), first sentence of the GATT 1994 in that they accord imported auto parts treatment less favourable than that provided for in the appropriate Part of 
China's Schedule of Concessions; and 
 (ii) Policy Order 8, Decree 125 and Announcement 4 are not justified under Article 
XX(d) of the GATT 1994 as measures that ar e necessary to secure compliance with 
laws or regulations which are not  inconsistent with the GATT 1994. 
– with respect to CKD and SKD kits: 
 (i) Policy Order 8, Decree 125 and Annou ncement 4 are not inconsistent with 
Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994; and 
 (ii) Policy Order 8, Decree 125 and Announ cement 4 are inconsistent with China's 
commitment under paragraph 93 of China' s Working Party Report, which is an 
integral part of the WTO Agreement. 
With respect to the United Stat es' claims that Policy Order 8, Decree 125 and Announcement 4 are 
inconsistent with Article III:5 of the GATT 1994,  TRIMs Agreement and SCM Agreement, the Panel 
decided to exercise judicial economy. 
In light of its findings, the Panel recommended that the DSB request China to bring these inconsistent 
measures as listed above into conformity with  its obligations under the GATT 1994 and the WTO 
Agreement. 
With respect to the complaint by Canada (WT/DS342), the Panel concluded that:  
– with respect to imported auto parts in general:  (i) Policy Order 8, Decree 125 and Announceme nt 4 are inconsistent with Article III:2, 
first sentence of the GATT 1994 in that they subject imported auto parts to an internal 
charge in excess of that applied to like domestic auto parts; 
 (ii) Policy Order 8, Decree 125 and Announcemen t 4 are inconsistent with Article III:4 of 
the GATT 1994 in that they accord imported auto parts less favourable treatment than 
like domestic auto parts; and 
 (iii) Policy Order 8, Decree 125 and Announcement 4 are not justified under 
Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994 as measures that are necessary to secure compliance 
with laws or regulations which are not inconsistent with the GATT 1994. 
– In the alternative , assuming that the measures fall within the scope of the first sentence of 
Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994, with r espect to imported auto parts in general: 
 (i) Policy Order 8, Decree 125 and Announcement  4 are inconsistent with Article II:1(a) 
and Article II:1(b), first sentence of the GATT 1994 in that they accord imported auto parts treatment less favourable than that provided for in the appropriate Part of 
China's Schedule of Concessions; and  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 79 
 
 
   (ii) Policy Order 8, Decree 125 and Announcement 4 are not justified under Article 
XX(d) of the GATT 1994 as measures that ar e necessary to secure compliance with 
laws or regulations which are not  inconsistent with the GATT 1994. 
– with respect to CKD and SKD kits:  (i) Policy Order 8, Decree 125 and Announ cement 4 are inconsistent with China's 
commitment under paragraph 93 of China' s Working Party Report, which is an 
integral part of the WTO Agreement. 
With respect to Canada's cl aims that Policy Order 8, Decree 125 and Announcement 4 are 
inconsistent with Article III:5 of the GATT 1994 a nd the TRIMs Agreement, the Panel decided to 
exercise judicial economy. 
In light of its findings, the Panel recommended that the DSB request China to bring these inconsistent 
measures as listed above into conformity w ith its obligations under the GATT 1994 and the 
WTO Agreement.  
On 15 September 2008, China notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of 
law covered in the Panel reports and certain le gal interpretations developed by the Panel. 
On 15 December 2008, the Appellate Body reports were circulated to Members. 
In the appeal of the Panel report relating to the European Communities' claims (WT/DS339) (the "EC 
Panel Report"), and with respect to Policy Orde r 8, Decree 125 and Announcement 4 (the "measures 
at issue"), for the reasons set forth in this Report, the Appellate Body: 
– upheld the Panel's finding that the charge impo sed under the measures at issue is an internal 
charge within the meaning of Article III:2 of  the GATT 1994, and not an ordinary customs 
duty within the meaning of Article II:1(b); 
– upheld the Panel's finding that with respect to imported auto parts in general, the measures at 
issue are inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994 in that they subject 
imported auto parts to an internal charge that is  not applied to like domestic auto parts;    
– upheld the Panel's finding that with respect to imported auto parts in general, the measures at 
issue are inconsistent with Article III:4 of th e GATT 1994 in that they accord imported auto 
parts less favourable treatment than like domestic auto parts;  and 
– found it unnecessary to rule on the Panel's "alternative" finding that with respect to imported 
auto parts in general, the measures at issue are inconsistent with Article II:1(a) and (b) of the 
GATT 1994. 
The Appellate Body recommended that the DSB request  China to bring its measures, found in this 
Report, and in the EC Panel Report as upheld by this  Report, to be inconsistent with the GATT 1994, 
into conformity with its obli gations under that Agreement. 
In the appeal of the Panel report relating to th e United States' claims (WT/DS340) (the "US Panel 
Report"), and with respect to Policy Order 8,  Decree 125 and Announcement 4 (the "measures at 
issue"), for the reasons set forth in this Report, the Appellate Body: WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 80  
 
  – upheld the Panel's finding that the charge impo sed under the measures at issue is an internal 
charge within the meaning of Article III:2 of  the GATT 1994, and not an ordinary customs 
duty within the meaning of Article II:1(b); 
– upheld the Panel's finding that with respect to imported auto parts in general, the measures at 
issue are inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994 in that they subject 
imported auto parts to an internal charge that is  not applied to like domestic auto parts;    
– upheld the Panel's finding that with respect to imported auto parts in general, the measures at 
issue are inconsistent with Article III:4 of th e GATT 1994 in that they accord imported auto 
parts less favourable treatment than like domestic auto parts; 
– found it unnecessary to rule on the Panel's "alternative" finding that with respect to imported 
auto parts in general, the measures at issue are inconsistent with Article II:1(a) and (b) of the 
GATT 1994;  and  
– found that the Panel erred in construing the measures at issue as imposing a charge on 
completely knocked down (CKD) and se mi-knocked down (SKD) kits imported under 
Article 2(2) of Decree 125, and consequently reve rsed the Panel's finding that, with respect to 
their treatment of imports of CKD and SKD kits, the measures at issue are inconsistent with 
the commitment in paragraph 93 of China's Accession Working Party Report. 
The Appellate Body recommended that the DSB request  China to bring its measures, found in this 
Report, and in the US Panel Report as modified by  this Report, to be inconsistent with the 
GATT 1994, into conformity with its obligations under that Agreement. 
In the appeal of the Panel report relating to Canada's claims (WT/DS342) (the "Canada Panel 
Report"), and with respect to Policy Order 8,  Decree 125 and Announcement 4 (the "measures at 
issue"), the Appellate Body: 
– upheld the Panel's finding that the charge impo sed under the measures at issue is an internal 
charge within the meaning of Article III:2 of  the GATT 1994, and not an ordinary customs 
duty within the meaning of Article II:1(b); 
– upheld the Panel's finding that with respect to imported auto parts in general, the measures at 
issue are inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994 in that they subject 
imported auto parts to an internal charge that is  not applied to like domestic auto parts;    
– upheld the Panel's finding that, with respect to imported auto parts in general, the measures at 
issue are inconsistent with Article III:4 of th e GATT 1994 in that they accord imported auto 
parts less favourable treatment than like domestic auto parts; 
– found it unnecessary to rule on the Panel's "alt ernative" finding that, with respect to imported 
auto parts in general, the measures at issue are inconsistent with Article II:1(a) and (b) of the 
GATT 1994;  and  
– found that the Panel erred in construing the measures at issue as imposing a charge on 
completely knocked down (CKD) and se mi-knocked down (SKD) kits imported under 
Article 2(2) of Decree 125 and, consequently reve rses the Panel's finding that, with respect to 
their treatment of CKD and SKD kits, the measures at issue are inconsistent with the commitment in paragraph 93 of Ch ina's Accession Working Party Report.  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 81 
 
 
  The Appellate Body recommended that the DSB request  China to bring its measures, found in this 
Report, and in the Canada Panel Report as modified  by this Report, to be inconsistent with the 
GATT 1994, into conformity with its ob ligations under that Agreement.  
On 12 January 2009, with respect to WT/DS339, th e DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the 
Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body report. 
On 12 January 2009, with respect to WT/DS340 and WT/DS342, the DSB adopted the Appellate 
Body reports and the Panel reports, as m odified by the Appellate Body reports. 
7. WT/DS337 – European Communities – Anti-D umping Measure on Farmed Salmon 
from Norway 
Complaint by Norway.  On 17 March 2006, Norway  requested consultations with the European 
Communities concerning Council Regulation (EC)  No. 85/2006 of 17 January 2006 imposing a 
definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definiti vely the provisional duty imposed on imports of 
farmed salmon originating in Norway. 
Norway considers that the measure is inconsistent  with the European Communities' obligations under 
Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4,  3.5, 5.4, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 9.1, 
9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 18.1 and Annexes I and II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI 
of the GATT 1994 . 
On 27 March 2006, Norway supplemented its initial request for consultations. 
On 29 May 2006, Norway requested the establishment of  a panel.  At its meeting on 9 June 2006, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 22 June 2006,  the DSB established a 
panel.  Canada;  China; Hong Kong, China;  Japan ;  Korea and the United States reserved their third-
party rights.  On 27 July 2006, Norway requested th e Director-General to compose the panel.  On 
2 August 2006, the Director-General composed the Panel. 
On 2 February 2007, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible for 
the Panel to complete its work within six months of the date of composition, inter alia , due to the 
nature and scope of the dispute and in accordance with the timetable established after consultation 
with the parties.  The Panel hoped to complete its  work by the end of May 2007.  On 31 May 2007, 
the Chairman of the Panel informed  the DSB that it would not be possible for the Panel to complete 
its work within six months of the date of composition, inter alia , due to the nature and scope of the 
issues in dispute.  The Panel hoped to complete its work by the end of September 2007. 
On 16 November 2007, the Panel report was circul ated to Members.  The Panel found that the 
European Communities had acted inconsistently with Ar ticles 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.2(iii), 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 
3.5, 4.1, 5.4, 6.4, 6.8 and paragraph 3 of Annex II,  6.10, 9.2, 9.4(i) and 9.4(ii) of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement.  The Panel also found that the Europ ean Communities had not acted inconsistently with 
certain provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, in other respects, and exercised judicial economy with respect to certain claims. 
At its meeting on 15 January 2008, the DSB adopted the Panel report. WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 82  
 
  8. WT/DS336 – Japan – Countervailing Duti es on Dynamic Rando m Access Memories 
from Korea 
Complaint by Korea.  On 14 March 2006, Korea re quested consultations with Japan concerning 
countervailing duties imposed by Japan on certa in Dynamic Random Access Memories (DRAMs) 
from Korea.  According to Korea, notice of the imposition of such duties was provided by Japan in 
Cabinet Order No. 13 and Finance Notice. 35, pub lished respectively in Issue No. 4264 and Special 
Issue No. 17 of the Official Gazette dated 27 Janua ry 2006.  The request for consultations also 
concerns certain aspects of the investigation and th e determination that led to the imposition of such 
duties. 
Korea considers that the foregoing determinations ar e inconsistent with Japan's obligations under the 
GATT 1994  and under the SCM Agreement , "including, but not limited to", Articles VI:3 and X:3 of 
the GATT 1994  and Articles 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 15.5, 19, 19.1, 21, 22 and 32.1 of the SCM 
Agreement . 
On 27 March 2006, the United States requested to  join the consultations.  On 29 March 2006, the 
European Communities requested to join the consu ltations.  Subsequently, Japan informed the DSB 
that it had accepted the requests of the European Communities and the United States to join the 
consultations. 
On 18 May 2006, Korea requested the establishment of a panel.  At the DSB meeting on 30 May 
2006, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.   At its meeting on 19 June 2006, the DSB 
established a panel.  China, the European Comm unities and the United States reserved their third-
party rights.  On 24 August 2006, the Panel was composed. 
On 26 January 2007, the Chairman of the Panel inform ed the DSB that the Panel would not be able to 
complete its work in six months in light of sche duling conflicts.  The Panel expects to complete its 
work in May 2007. 
On 13 July 2007, the panel report was circulated to Members.  The Panel reject ed Korea's claims that:
 
• Japan improperly found government "entrustment or direction" of the Four Creditors to 
participate in the October 2001 restructuring, contrary to Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the SCM 
Agreement ; 
• Japan improperly found that the October 2001 r estructuring conferred a benefit on Hynix, 
contrary to Articles 1.1(b) and 14 of the SCM Agreement ; 
• Japan improperly treated certain Hynix creditors as "interested parties", and improperly 
applies facts available and made adverse infere nces, contrary to Articles 12.7 and 12.9 of the 
SCM Agreement ; 
• Japan improperly found that the October 2001 and December 2002 restructurings constituted 
"direct transfer[s] of funds", contrary to Article 1.1(a)(1)(i) of the SCM Agreement ; 
• Japan improperly determined that the Octobe r 2001 and December 2002 restructurings were 
specific, contrary to Article 2 of the SCM Agreement ; 
• Japan improperly failed to determine whether or  not a benefit continued to exist following 
changes in the ownership of Hynix as a result of the October 2001 and December 2002 
restructurings;  and  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 83 
 
 
  • Japan's determination improperly failed to de monstrate that the subsidized imports were, 
through the effects of subsidies, causing injury, contrary to Article 15.5 of the SCM 
Agreement . 
In light of its findings, the Panel upheld Korea's claims that: 
• Japan improperly found government "entrustment or direction" of the Four Creditors to 
participate in the December 2002 restructuring, contrary to Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the SCM 
Agreement ; 
• Japan improperly found that the December 2002 restructuring conferred a benefit on Hynix, 
contrary to Articles 1.1(b) and 14 of the SCM Agreement ; 
• Japan improperly calculated the amount of  benefit conferred by the October 2001 and 
December 2002 restructurings, contrary to Articles 1.1(b) and 14 of the SCM Agreement ; 
• Japan improperly used methods to calculate the amount of benefit to the recipient that were 
not provided for in its national legislation or implementing regulations, contrary to the 
chapeau  of Article 14 of the SCM Agreement ;  and 
• Japan improperly levied countervailing duties in 2006 to offset some of the subsidies 
provided by the October 2001 restructuring, even though the JIA only found that some of those subsidies applied from 2001 through 200 5, contrary to Article 19.4 of the SCM 
Agreement . 
In light of its findings, the Panel declined to rule separately on Korea's claims that: 
• Japan acted inconsistently with Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement  by reversing the 
burden of proof and basing its findings of "f inancial contribution" and "benefit" on the 
absence of evidence; 
• Japan improperly imposed countervailing duties on the basis of a flawed analysis of benefit, 
contrary to Article 19.4 of the SCM Agreement  and Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994 ;  and 
• Japan improperly imposed countervailing duties contrary to Article 32.1 of the SCM 
Agreement . 
On 30 August 2007, Japan notified its decision to app eal to the Appellate Body certains issues of law 
covered in the Panel report and certa in legal interpretations developed by the Panel.  On 24 October 
2007, the Chairman of the Appellate Body informed  the DSB that the Appellate Body would not be 
able to circulate its report within 60 days due to  the time required for completion and translation of 
the report.  The Appellate Body estimated that the report would be circulated to WTO Members no 
later than 28 November 2007. 
On 28 November 2007, the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members.  The Appellate Body: 
• as regards the Panel's review of the JIA's finding of "entrustment or direction" of the Four 
Creditors with respect to the December 2002 Rest ructuring (i) found that the Panel erred in 
failing to examine the JIA's evid ence in its totality, and that the Panel thereby failed to apply 
the proper standard of review in a manner cons istent with its obliga tions under Article 11 of 
the DSU;  and consequently, reversed the Pane l's finding that the JIA's determination of WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 84  
 
  "entrustment or direction" of the Four Creditors  is inconsistent with Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of 
the SCM AGreement.  
• upheld the Panel's finding that the JIA acted inc onsistently with Article  1.1(b) and Article 14 
of the SCM Agreement by determining that the December 2002 Restructuring conferred a 
benefit on Hynix;  
• upheld, albeit for different reasons, the Panel's findings that the JIA calculated the amount of 
benefit conferred on Hynix by the Oct ober 2001 and December 2002 Restructurings 
inconsistently with Articles 1.1(b) and 14 of  the SCM Agreement; and found that the Panel 
did not fail to conduct an objective assessment  of the matter before it, as required by 
Article 11 of the DSU;  
• reversed the Panel's finding that the methods used  by Japan to calculate the amount of benefit 
conferred on Hynix were not provided for in Japan's national legislation or implementing 
regulations as required under the chapeau of Article 14 of the SCM Agreement;  
• upheld the Panel's finding that Japan acted in consistently with Article 19.4 of the SCM 
Agreement by levying countervailing duties on imports which the JIA itself had found were 
not subsidized at the time of duty imposition;  and found that the Panel did not fail to conduct 
an objective assessment of the matter before it, as required by Article 11 of the DSU;  
• upheld the Panel's findings that the JIA's dete rmination of the existence of benefit with 
respect to the October 2001 Restructuring was not inconsistent with Articles 1.1(b) and 14 of 
the SCM Agreement;  
• upheld the Panel's finding that the JIA did not act  inconsistently with Article 12.7 and 12.9 of 
the SCM Agreement by including certain financia l institutions as "interested parties" and by 
using "facts available" for those financial ins titutions that failed to provide information;  
• upheld the Panel's finding that the JIA could properly characterize the transactions at issue in 
the October 2001 and December 2002 Restructurings  as "direct transfer[s] of funds" within 
the meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1)(i) of the SCM Agreement;  and  
• upheld the Panel's finding that the JIA did not act inconsistently with Articles 15 and 19.1 of 
the SCM Agreement by not demonstrating separat ely that the allegedly subsidized imports 
were, "through the effects of subsidies", causing injury within the meaning of the SCM 
Agreement. 
On 17 December 2007, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified 
by the Appellate Body report. 
9. WT/DS335 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measure on Shrimp from Ecuador 
Complaint by Ecuador.  On 17 November 2005, Ec uador requested consultations with the United 
States concerning the final affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value with respect to 
certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador published by the United States Department of 
Commerce (DOC) on 23 December 2004, the amended fi nal determination of sales at less than fair 
value on 1 February 2005 and the accompanying anti -dumping duty order. According to Ecuador, it 
has concerns particularly about the DOC's practic e of "zeroing" negative anti-dumping margins, based 
on which the DOC issued the foregoing determina tions and order. Ecuador considers that the  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 85 
 
 
  foregoing determinations and order are inconsistent with Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 
2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 5.8, 6.10, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement . 
On 28 November 2005, India requested to be joined in the consultations. On 1 December 2005, 
Thailand requested to be jo ined in the consultations. 
On 8 June 2006, Ecuador requested the establishment of panel.  At its meeting on 19 June 2006, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 19 July 2006, the DSB established a 
panel.  Brazil, China, the European Communities,  India, Japan, Korea and Thailand reserved their 
third-party rights.  Subsequently, Chile and Me xico reserved their third-party rights.  On 
26 September 2006, the Panel was composed.  On 20 October 2006, the parties informed the DSB of an Agreement on Procedures for this dispute. 
On 20 January 2007, the panel report was circulated to Members.  The Panel concluded that the US 
Department of Commerce acted inconsistently with  Article 2.4.2 in its final and amended final 
affirmative determinations of sales at less than fa ir value (dumping) with respect to certain frozen 
warmwater shrimp from Ecuador, and in  its final anti-dumping duty order. 
The Panel recommended the DSB to request the United  States to bring its measures into conformity 
with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
At its meeting on 20 February 2007, the DSB adopted the Panel report. 
10. WT/DS334 – Turkey – Measures Affecting the Importation of Rice 
Complaint by the United States. On 2 November 2005,  the United States requested consultations with 
Turkey concerning the latter's import restrictions on rice from the United States.  According to the 
request, Turkey requires an import license to import rice  but fails to grant such licenses to import rice 
at Turkey's bound rate of duty. According to the request, Turkey also operates a tariff-rate quota for 
rice imports requiring that, in order to import specified quantities of rice at reduced tariff levels, importers must purchase specified quantities of dom estic rice, including from the Turkish Grain 
Board (TMO), Turkish producers, or producer associations ("the domestic purchase requirement").  
The request lists more than ten measures through  which Turkey has allegedly maintained the 
foregoing restrictions on rice imports, including  Decree No. 96/7794 related to the General 
Assessment of the Regime Regarding Technical Re gulations and Standardi zation for Foreign Trade 
(Official Gazette, No. 22541, 1 February 1996, Repeated).  
The United States considers that the foregoing measures are inconsistent with the following 
provisions: 
• Article 2.1 and paragraph 1(a) of  Annex 1 of the TRIMs Agreement; 
• Articles III (including paragraphs 4, 5,  and 7) and XI:1 of the GATT 1994; 
• Article 4.2 of the Agriculture Agreement; and  
• Articles 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6,  3.2, 3.3, 3.5(a), 3.5(b), 3.5(d) , 3.5(e), 3.5(f), 3.5(g), 3.5(h), 
3.5(k), 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 of the Import Licensing Agreement. 
On 16 November 2005, Australia and Thailand requested  to join the consultations.  On 6 February 
2006, the United States requested th e establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 17 February 2006, WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 86  
 
  the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.   At its meeting on 17 March 2006, the DSB 
established a panel.  Australia, China, the Europ ean Communities, Korea and Thailand reserved their 
third-party rights.  Subsequently, Argentina, Egypt and Pakistan reser ved their third-party rights.  On 
20 July 2006, the United States requested the Direct or-General to compose the panel.  On 31 July 
2006, the Director-General  composed the panel. 
On 31 January 2007, the Chair of the Panel info rmed the DSB that it would not be possible to 
complete its work within six months due to the na ture and scope of the dispute and that the Panel 
expected to complete its work by May 2007, as envi saged in the timetable adopted after consultations 
with the parties.  On 25 May 2007, the Chair of the Panel informed the DSB that due to adjustments 
in the timetable, the Panel would not be able to comp lete its work by May.  The Panel estimated that it 
would issue its final report to the parties in June 2007. 
On 21 September 2007, the Panel report was circulated to Members.  The Panel found that Turkey's 
decision, from September 2003 and for different periods of  time, to deny, or fail to grant, Certificates 
of Control to import rice outside of the tariff rate quota, constitutes a quantitative import restriction, as 
well as a practice of discretionary import licensing, within the meaning of footnote 1 to Article 4.2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture. Accordingly, it is a measure of the kind which have been required to 
be converted into ordinary customs duties and is therefore inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  The Panel also concluded that Turkey's requirement that importers must 
purchase domestic rice, in order to be allowed to import rice at reduced-tariff levels under the tariff 
quotas, accorded less favourable treatment to imported rice than that according to like domestic rice, 
in a manner inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. 
On 22 October 2007, the DSB adopted the Panel report. 
11. WT/DS332 – Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 20 June 2005, the European Communities requested 
consultations with Brazil on the imposition of measur es that adversely affect exports of retreaded 
tyres from the EC to the Brazilian market. The EC  wished to address the following measures:  
• Brazil's imposition of an import ban on retreaded tyres; 
• Brazil's adoption of a set of measures banning the importation of used tyres, which are 
sometimes applies against imports of retreaded ty res, despite the fact that these are not used 
tyres; 
• Brazil's imposition of a fine of 400 BRL per un it on the importation, as well as the marketing, 
transportation, storage, keeping or keeping in  deposit or warehouses of imported, but not of 
domestic retreaded tyres; and  
• Brazil's exemption of retreaded tyres importe d from other Mercosur countries from the import 
ban and from the above-mentioned fi nancial penalties, in response to the ruling of a Mercosur 
panel established at the request of Uruguay. 
The EC considered that the fo regoing measures are inconsistent  with Brazil's obligations under 
Articles I:1, III:4, XI:1 and XIII:1 of the GATT 1994.  
On 4 July 2005, Argentina requested to join the consultations. On 20 July 2005, Brazil accepted 
Argentina's request to join the consultations.  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 87 
 
 
  On 17 November 2005, the European Communities requ ested the establishment of a panel.  At its 
meeting on 28 November 2005, the DSB deferred the est ablishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 20 
January 2006, the DSB established a panel.  Argentin a, Australia, Japan, Korea and the United States 
reserved their third party rights at the meeting.  Subsequently, China, Cuba, Guatemala, Mexico, 
Paraguay, Chinese Taipei and Thailand reserved thei r third party rights.  On 6 March 2006, the 
European Communities requested the Director-General to compose the panel.  On 16 March 2006, the 
Director-General composed the panel. 
On 18 September 2006, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible for 
the Panel to complete its work in six months and th at it expected to complete  its work in December 
2006.  On 21 December 2006, the Chairman of th e Panel informed the DSB that it would not be 
possible for the Panel to complete its work in December 2006 and estimated that it would issue its 
final report to the parties by April 2007. 
On 12 June 2007, the report of the Panel was circ ulated to Members.  The Panel concluded that: 
• with respect to Brazil's import prohibition on retreaded tyres (i) Portaria SECEX 14/2004 is 
inconsistent with Article XI:1 of GATT 1994 in  that it prohibits the issuance of import 
licences for retreaded tyres, and is not justif ied under Article XX(b) of GATT 1994; (ii) 
Portaria DECEX 8/1991, to the extent that it prohibits the importation of retreaded tyres, is 
inconsistent with Article XI:1 and is not justified under Article XX(b) of GATT 1994; and 
(iii) Resolution CONAMA 23/1996 is not inconsistent with Article XI:1. 
• with respect to the fines imposed by Brazil on im portation, marketing, transportation, storage, 
keeping or warehousing of retreaded tyres,  Presidential Decree 3.179, as amended by 
Presidential Decree 3.919, is inconsistent with Article XI:1 of GATT 1994 in that it imposes 
limiting conditions in relation to the importation of retreaded tyres and is not justified under 
either Article XX(b) or Article XX(d) of GATT 1994. 
• with respect to the measures maintained by the Brazilian State of Rio Grande do Sul in 
respect of retreaded tyres, Law 12.114, as am ended by Law 12.381, is inconsistent with 
Article III:4 of GATT 1994 in that it accords less  favourable treatment to imported retreaded 
tyres than to like domestic products and is not justified under Article XX(b) of GATT 1994. 
On 3 September 2007, the European Communities notif ied its intention to appeal to the Appellate 
Body certain issues of law covered in the Panel repo rt and certain legal inte rpretations developed by 
the Panel. On 31 October 2007, the Chairman of the Appellate Body info rmed the DSB that the 
Appellate Body would not be able to circulate its re port within 60 days due to the time required for 
completion and translation of the report.  The A ppellate Body estimated that the report would be 
circulated to WTO Members no later than 3 December 2007. 
On 3 December 2007, the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members.  The Appellate Body:  
• upheld the Panel's finding that the import ba n can be considered "necessary" within the 
meaning of Article XX(b) and is thus provisi onally justified under that provision and found 
that the Panel did not breach its duty under Article 11 of the DSU to make an objective assessment of the facts. 
• reversed the Panel's findings that the MERCOSUR exemption would result in the import ban 
being applied in a manner that constitutes unjustifiable discrimination and a disguised 
restriction on international trade only to the ex tent that it results in volumes of imports of WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 88  
 
  retreaded tyres that would significantly underm ine the achievement of the objective of the 
import ban; 
• reversed the Panel's findings that the MERCO SUR exemption has not resulted in arbitrary 
discrimination and that the MERCOSUR exemption has not resulted in unjustifiable discrimination; and found instead that the MERCOSUR exemption has resulted in the import 
ban being applied in a manner that constitutes ar bitrary or unjustifiable discrimination within 
the meaning of the chapeau of Article XX; 
• reversed the Panel's findings that the imports of used tyres under court injunctions have 
resulted in the import ban being applied in a manner that constitutes unjustifiable 
discrimination and a disguised restriction on inte rnational trade only to the extent that such 
imports have taken place in volumes that significantly undermine the achievement of the 
objective of the import ban; and found instead that the imports of used tyres under court 
injunctions have resulted in th e import ban being applied in a manner that constitutes arbitrary 
or unjustifiable discrimination within the m eaning of the chapeau of Article XX; and  
• with respect to Article XX of the GATT 1994, th e Appellate Body upheld, albeit for different 
reasons, the Panel's findings that the import ba n is not justified under Article XX of the 
GATT 1994. 
On 17 December 2007, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified 
by the Appellate Body report. 
12. WT/DS331 – Mexico – Anti-Dumping Duties on Steel Pipes and Tubes from Guatemala 
Complaint by Guatemala. On 17 June 2005, Gu atemala requested consultations with Mexico 
concerning the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Mexico against imports of steel pipes and tubes from Guatemala and the investigation leading thereto. 
According to Guatemala, the anti-dumping duties con cerned and the investigation leading thereto are 
inconsistent with Mexi co's obligations under, inter alia , 
• Article VI of the GATT 1994;  and 
• Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 4.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.8, 5.10, 6.2, 6.4, 
6.5, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.13, 9.1, 9.3, 12.1, 12.2, 18.1 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
On 6 February 2006, Guatemala requested the es tablishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 
17 February 2006, the DSB deferred the establishment of  a panel.  At its meeting on 17 March 2006, 
the DSB established a panel.  China, the Eur opean Communities, Honduras, Japan and the United 
States reserved their third-party rights.  On 4 May 2006, the Panel was composed. 
On 3 January 2007, the Chairman of the Panel inform ed the DSB that it would not be possible for the 
Panel to complete its work within si x months of the date of composition, inter alia , due to the nature 
and scope of the dispute and in accordance with th e timetable established after consultation with the 
parties.  The Panel hopes to complete its work by the end of March 2007. 
On 8 June 2007, the Panel report was circulated  to Members.  The Panel found that Mexico's 
initiation of the investigation, the conduct of the investigation and the imposition of a definitive anti-
dumping measure on imports of black and galvanised steel pipes and tubes from Guatemala was  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 89 
 
 
  inconsistent with the requirements of Articles 5.3, 5.8,  3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5, and paragraphs 3, 5, 6 and 
7 of Annex II, of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
Pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU, the Pane l also suggested revoking the anti-dumping measures 
applied to steel pipes and tubes from Guatemala in  order to implement properly the conclusions and 
recommendations identified in this case. 
At its meeting on 24 July 2007, the DSB adopted the Panel report. 
13. WT/DS322 – United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews 
Complaint by Japan. On 24 November 2004, Japan re quested consultations with the United States 
concerning (1) the USDOC's "zeroing" practice in anti-dumping investigations, administrative 
reviews, sunset reviews, and also in assessing the final anti-dumping duty liability on entries upon 
liquidation; (2) the USDOC's "irrefutable presumpti on" in sunset reviews; and (3) the waiver 
provisions of US law, which, in sunset reviews, oblige the USDOC, in certain situations, to find a 
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dum ping without performing a substantive review.  
According to the request for consultations from Ja pan, the US violates its WTO obligations with 
respect to the following measures:  
• the Tariff Act of 1930, in particular, sections  731, 751, 752, 771(7), 771(35)(A), 771(35)(B) 
and 777A(d);  
• the Statement of Administrative Action that  accompanied the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act;  
• the USDOC implementing regulations, 19 C.F.R. sec tion 351, in particular sections 351.218 
and 351.414;  
• the Import Administration Antidumping Manual, including the computer program(s) to which 
it refers; – the USDOC's Policy Bulletin 98.3 ("Sunset Policy Bulletin");  
• the methodology of the United States for determining dumping margins and material injury in 
anti dumping investigations;  
• the methodology of the United States for determining dumping margins in administrative 
reviews; and  
• the methodology of the United States, in sunset  reviews, for determining whether revocation 
of anti-dumping orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and 
continuation or recurrence of material inju ry within a reasonably foreseeable time.  
Japan wishes to consult with th e United States not only on the above-mentioned measures "as such", 
but also on the applications of these measures in 16 specific instances.  
Japan considers that these US measures are inconsistent with, inter alia , Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3, 
5.8, 6.1, 6.2, 9, 11, 18.3 and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 90  
 
  On 3 December 2004, India requested to join the consultations. On 8 December 2004, Norway, 
Argentina, Chinese Taipei, the European Comm unities and Mexico requested to join the 
consultations.  
On 4 February 2005, Japan requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 17 February 
2005, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 28 February 2005, the DSB 
established the panel. The European Communities;  Hong Kong, China; India; Korea and Mexico 
reserved their third party rights. On 2 March 2005, China reserved its third party rights. On 4 March 
2005, Argentina reserved its third party rights. On  7 March 2005, Norway reserved its third party 
rights. On 8 March 2005, Thailand reserved its thir d party rights. On 10 March 2005, New Zealand 
reserved its third party rights. On 7 April 2005, Jap an requested the Director General to compose the 
panel. On 15 April 2005, the Director-General composed the panel.  
On 15 November 2005, the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible for the Panel to 
complete its work within six months of the date of composition, inter alia,  due to the complexity of 
the issues and other unavoidable postponements in the timetable for the work of the Panel, and 
that the Panel hoped to complete its work by Ma rch 2006.  On 10 May 2006, the Panel informed the 
DSB that it would not be possible for the Panel to complete its work within six months due to the 
complexity of the issues and that the Panel hoped to complete its work by end August/early 
September 2006. 
On 20 September 2006, the panel report was circulated to Members.  The Panel upheld Japan's claim 
relating to the use of zeroing when used by th e USDOC in the context of multiple averaging in 
original investigations when calculating the margin of dumping by finding that it is inconsistent with 
Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  The Pa nel also agreed with Japan that the US zeroing 
methodology is a "norm" capable of being challe nged in WTO dispute settlement proceedings.  The 
Panel rejected Japan's claims that zeroing was prohibited in proceedings other than original 
investigations, i.e. periodic reviews, new shipper reviews, changed circumstances reviews and sunset 
reviews. 
On 11 October 2006, Japan notified its decision to a ppeal certain issues of law covered in the panel 
report and certain legal interpre tations developed by the Panel.   On 23 October 2006, the United 
States notified its decision to appeal certains issues of  law covered in the pane l report and certain legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. 
On 9 January 2007, the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members. The Appellate Body: 
• upheld the Panel's finding that the United States' zeroing procedures constitute a 
measure which can be challenged, as such, and therefore dismissed the United States' 
claim that the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU by concluding 
that the zeroing procedues, as the relate  to original investigations based on 
transaction-to-transaction an weighted av erage normal value-to-prices of individual 
export transactions comparisons, constitute a measure that can be challenged, as such, 
in WTO dispute settlement. 
• reversed the Panel's finding that the Unite d States does not act inconsistently with 
Articles 2.1, 2.4 and 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, and found instead th at the United Sates acts inconsistently 
with Articles 2.4 and 2.4.2 of the Anti-Du mping Agreement by maintaining zeroing 
procedures when calculating margins of dumping on the basis of transaction-to-
transaction comparisons in original investigations.  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 91 
 
 
  • reversed the Panel's findings that the Unite d States does not act inconsistently with 
Articles 2.1, 2.4 and 9.1-9.3 of the Anti- Dumping Agreement and Articles VI:1 and 
VI:2 of the GATT 1994, and found instead th at the United States acts inconsistently 
with Articles 2.4 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dump ing Agreement and Article VI:2 of the 
GATT 1994 by maintaining zeroing procedures in periodic reviews.   
• reversed the Panel's findings that the Unite d States does not act inconsistently with 
Articles 2.1, 2.4 and 9.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, and found instead that the United States acts inconsistently with Articles 2.4 and 9.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by maintaining zeroing procedures in new shipper reviews. 
• reversed the Panel's findings that the Unite d States does not act inconsistently with 
Articles 2.1, 2.4 and 9.1-9.3 of the Anti- Dumping Agreement and Articles VI:1 and 
VI:2 of the GATT 1994, and found instead that the United States acted inconsistently 
with Articles 2.4 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dump ing Agreement and Article VI:2 of the 
GATT 1994 by applying zeroing procedures in the 11 periodic reviews at issue in this appeal.  
• reversed the Panel's finding that the United States did not act inconsistently with 
Articles 2 and 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in the sunset reviews at issue in this appeal, when it relied on margins of dumping calculated in previous proceedings 
through the use of zeroing, and found in stead that the United States acted 
inconsistently with Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
At its meeting on 23 January 2007, the DSB adopted  the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, 
as modified by the Appellate Body report. 
14. WT/DS321 – Canada – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones 
Dispute 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 8 No vember 2004, the European Communities filed a 
request for consultations with Canada asserting th at Canada should have removed its retaliatory 
measures since the EC has removed the measure s found to be WTO-inconsistent in the EC – 
Hormones case.  
The issues which the EC intended to raise in the consultations included, but were not limited to:  
• the failure by Canada to remove the retaliato ry measures despite the EC's removal of the 
WTO-inconsistent measures:  
• the unilateral determinations by Canada that  the new EC legislation is a continued WTO 
violation; and  
• the failure of Canada to follow DSU Article 21.5 dispute settlement procedures to adjudicate 
the matter.  
The EC considers that the continued use by Canada of retaliatory measures in this case, in the current 
circumstances, are violations of Articles I and II of GATT 1994, and Articles 21.5, 22.8, 23.1 and 23.2 (a) and (c) of the DSU.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 92  
 
  On 19 November 2004, Australia, Mexico and the Unite d States requested to join the consultations. 
On 14 December 2004, Canada informed the DSB that  it had accepted the request of the United States 
to join the consultations.  
On 13 January 2005, the European Communities re quested the establishment of a panel. At its 
meeting on 25 January 2005, the DSB deferred the est ablishment of a panel. At its meeting on 17 
February 2005, the DSB established a panel. Aust ralia, China, Mexico, Chinese Taipei and the United 
States reserved their third-party rights. On 23 Februa ry 2005, Norway reserved its third party rights. 
On 25 February 2005, Brazil reserved its third pa rty rights. On 28 February 2005, India and New 
Zealand reserved their third party rights.  On 27 May 2005, the European Communities requested the 
Director General to compose the panel. On 6 June  2005, the Director-General  composed the panel. 
The first substantive meeting of the Panel with the parties took place on 12-15 September 2005, which 
was open for observation by the public. 
On 20 January 2006, the Chairman of the Panel info rmed the DSB that due to the complexity of the 
dispute, and the administrative and procedural ma tters involved, the Panel would not be able to 
complete its work in six months.  Based on the cu rrent assessment of the process, the Panel expected 
to issue its final report to the parties in the course of October 2006. 
On 23 January 2007, the Chairman of the Panel info rmed the DSB that it had expected to issue its 
final report to the parties in the course of Octobe r 2006.  However, due to the complexity of the 
scientific issues involved and due to the difficulties in scheduling the second open hearing of the Panel with the parties and experts consulted by the Panel, it was not possible to meet that time line. 
The Panel estimated that it would issue its final repor t to the parties in the course of June 2007.  On 
22 June 2007, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that the preparation of the Panel report 
was taking longer than expected and that it expected to  issue its final report to the parties in the course 
of October 2007. 
On 31 March 2008, the Panel report was circulated to Members.  The Panel concluded that, with 
respect to the claims of the European Communities concerning the violation of Article 23.2(a) read 
together with Articles 21.5 and 23.1 of the DSU, Canada made the following procedural violations: 
1. by seeking, through the measure at issue - th at is the suspension of concessions or other 
obligations subsequent to th e notification of the EC implementing measure (Directive 
2003/74/EC) - the redress of a violation of ob ligations under a covered agreement without 
having recourse to, and abiding by, the rul es and procedures of the DSU, Canada has 
breached Article 23.1 of the DSU; 
2. by making a determination within the meaning of Article 23.2(a) of the DSU to the effect that 
a violation had occurred without having recourse to dispute settlement in accordance with rules and procedures of the DSU, Canada has breached Article 23.2(a) of the DSU. 
In addition, having addressed the claims raised by the European Communities concerning Article 23.1 
read together with Articles 22.8 and 3.7 of the DSU, the Panel concluded that: 
1. to the extent that the measure found to be inconsistent with the SPS Agreement in the EC - 
Hormones  dispute (WT/DS48) has not been remove d by the European Communities, Canada 
has not breached Article 22.8 of the DSU; 
2. to the extent that Article 22.8 has not been  breached, the European Communities has not 
established a violation of Articles 23.1 and 3.7 of the DSU  as a result of a breach of 
Article 22.8 .  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 93 
 
 
  In the light of these conclusions, the Panel recomm ended that the DSB request Canada to bring its 
measure into conformity with its obligations under the DSU.  The Panel further suggested that, in 
order to implement its findings unde r Article 23 and in order to ensure  the prompt settlement of this 
dispute, Canada should have recourse to the ru les and procedures of the DSU without delay. 
On 29 May 2008, the European Communities notified its  decision to request the Appellate Body to 
review certain issues of law covered in the Panel re port and certain legal inte rpretations developed by 
the Panel.  On 10 June 2008, Canada notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain 
other issues of law covered in the Panel report a nd certain legal interpretations developed by the 
Panel.  The Appellate Body examined this appeal  with that of WT/DS320.  On 22 July 2008, the 
Chairman of the Appellate Body informed the DS B that in the light of the numerous and complex 
issues raised in these appeals, and the increased burden on translation services, the Appellate Body 
would not be able to circulate its report within 60  days.  The Appellate Body estimate that the report 
in these appeals will be circulated no later than 16 October 2008. 
On 16 October 2008, the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members.   As regards the DSU, the Appellate Body: 
– found that the Panel did not err in stating th at proceedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU are 
open to not only the original complainant, because they may be initiated by original 
complainants and original respondents; 
– upheld the Panel's finding that "it has juri sdiction to consider the compatibility of the 
[European Communities'] implementing measure w ith the  SPS Agreement  as part of its 
review of the claim raised by the European Communities with respect to Article 22.8 of the 
DSU"; 
– because it has not been established that the measu re found to be inconsistent with the  SPS 
Agreement  in the EC – Hormones  dispute has been removed, upheld the Panel's finding that 
"the European Communities has not established a violation of Articles 23.1 and 3.7 of the 
DSU  as a result of a breach of Article 22.8"; 
– reversed the Panel's finding that, "by maintaini ng its suspension of concessions even after the 
notification of [Directive 2003/74/EC]", Canada is  "seeking redress of a violation with respect 
to [this Directive], within the meaning of Article 23.1 of the DSU";  and 
– reversed the Panel's findings that Canada "m ade a 'determination' within the meaning of 
Article 23.2(a) in relation to Directive 2003/74/ EC" on the basis of statements made at DSB 
meetings and the fact that the suspension of concessions continued subsequent to the 
notification of Directive 2003/74/EC, and that Cana da "failed to make any such determination 
consistent with the findings contained in the panel or Appellate Body report adopted by the 
DSB or an arbitration award rendered unde r the DSU", in breach of Article 23.2(a). 
As regards the Panel's consultations with the scien tific experts, the Appellate Body found that the 
Panel infringed the European Communities' due pro cess rights, because the institutional affiliation of 
two of the experts compromised their appointment and thereby the adjudicative independence and 
impartiality of the Panel.  Accordingly, the Panel failed to comply with its duties under Article 11 of 
the DSU. 
The Appellate Body also reversed the Panel's finding that the European Communities' import ban 
relating to oestradiol-17 β is not based on a risk assessment as required by Article 5.1 of the  SPS WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 94  
 
  Agreement;  however, the Appellate Body is unable to  complete the analysis and therefore makes no 
findings as to the consistency or inconsistenc y of the import ban relating to oestradiol-17 β  with 
Article 5.1 of the  SPS Agreement. 
The Appellate Body further reversed the Panel's finding that the provisional import ban relating to 
testosterone, progesterone, trenbolone acetate, zera nol, and MGA does not meet the requirements of 
Article 5.7 of the  SPS Agreement;  however, the Appe llate Body was unable to complete the analysis 
and therefore made no findings as to the consistenc y or inconsistency of the European Communities' 
provisional import ban with Article 5.7 of the  SPS Agreement. 
The Appellate Body further found that because it ha d been unable to complete the analysis as to 
whether Directive 2003/74/EC has brought the Eur opean Communities into substantive compliance 
within the meaning of Article 22.8 of the DSU, the recommendations and rulings adopted by the DSB 
in EC – Hormones remain operative.  In the light of the ob ligations arising under Article 22.8 of the 
DSU, the Appellate Body recommended that the Di spute Settlement Body request Canada and the 
European Communities to initiate Article 21.5 proceed ings without delay in order to resolve their 
disagreement as to whether the European Comm unities has removed the measure found to be 
inconsistent in EC – Hormones  and whether the application of the suspension of concessions by 
Canada remains legally valid. 
At its meeting on 14 November 2008, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report. 
15. WT/DS320 – United States – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – 
Hormones Dispute 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 8 No vember 2004, the European Communities filed a 
request for consultations with the United States a sserting that the United States should have removed 
its retaliatory measures since the EC has removed th e measures found to be WTO-inconsistent in the 
EC – Hormones case .  
The issues which the EC intended to raise in the consultations include, but were not limited to:  
• the failure by the United States to remove the re taliatory measures despite the EC's removal of 
the WTO-inconsistent measures:  
• the unilateral determinations by the United Stat es that the new EC legislation is a continued 
WTO violation; and  
• the failure of the United Stat es to follow DSU Article 21.5 dispute settlement procedures to 
adjudicate the matter.  
The EC considers that the continued use by the Un ited States and of retaliatory measures in this case, 
in the current circumstances, are violations of Ar ticles I and II of GATT 1994, and Articles 21.5, 22.8, 
23.1 and 23.2 (a) and (c) of the DSU.  
On 17 November 2004, Canada requested to join the consultations. On 19 November 2004, Australia 
and Mexico requested to join the consultations. On  16 December 2004, the United States informed the 
DSB that it had accepted the request of Canada to join the consultations.  
On 13 January 2005, the European Communities re quested the establishment of a panel. At its 
meeting on 25 January 2005, the DSB deferred the est ablishment of a panel. At its meeting on 17  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 95 
 
 
  February 2005, the DSB established a panel. Aust ralia, Canada, China, Mexico and Chinese Taipei 
reserved their third party rights. On 23 February 20 05, Norway reserved its third party rights. On 25 
February 2005, Brazil reserved its third party ri ghts. On 28 February 2005, India and New Zealand 
reserved their third party rights. On 27 May 2005, the European Co mmunities requested the Director 
General to compose the panel. On 6 June 2005, the Director-General composed the panel. The first 
substantive meeting of the Panel with the par ties took place on 12-15 September 2005, which was 
open for observation by the public. 
On 20 January 2006, the Chairman of the Panel info rmed the DSB that due to the complexity of the 
dispute, and the administrative and procedural ma tters involved, the Panel would not be able to 
complete its work in six months. Based on the curre nt assessment of the process, the Panel expects to 
issue its final report to the parties in the course of October 2006. 
On 23 January 2007, the Chairman of the Panel info rmed the DSB that it had expected to issue its 
final report to the parties in the course of Octobe r 2006.  However, due to the complexity of the 
scientific issues involved and due to the difficulties in scheduling the second open hearing of the Panel with the parties and experts consulted by the Panel, it was not possible to meet that time line.  
The Panel estimated that it would issue its final repor t to the parties inthe course of June 2007.  On 22 
June 2007, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that the preparation of the Panel Report was 
taking longer than expected and that it expected to i ssue its final report to the parties in the course of 
October 2007. 
On 31 March 2008, the Panel report was circulated to Members.  The Panel concluded that, with 
respect to the claims of the European Communities concerning the violation of Article 23.2(a) read 
together with Articles 21.5 and 23.1 of the DSU,  the United States made the following procedural 
violations: 
1. by seeking, through the measure at issue - th at is the suspension of concessions or other 
obligations subsequent to th e notification of the EC implementing measure (Directive 
2003/74/EC) - the redress of a violation of ob ligations under a covered agreement without 
having recourse to, and abiding by, the rules and procedures of the DSU, the United States 
has breached Article 23.1 of the DSU; 
2. by making a determination within the meaning of Article 23.2(a) of the DSU to the effect that 
a violation had occurred without having recourse to dispute settlement in accordance with rules and procedures of the DSU, the United St ates has breached Article 23.2(a) of the DSU. 
In addition, having addressed the claims raised by the European Communities concerning Article 23.1 
read together with Articles 22.8 and 3.7 of the DSU, the Panel concluded that: 
1. to the extent that the measure found to be inconsistent with the SPS Agreement in the EC - 
Hormones  dispute (WT/DS26) has not been removed by the European Communities, the 
United States has not breached Article 22.8 of the DSU; 
2. to the extent that Article 22.8 has not been  breached, the European Communities has not 
established a violation of Articles 23.1 and 3.7 of the DSU as a result of a breach of 
Article 22.8 . 
In the light of these conclusions, the Panel recomm ended that the DSB request the United States to 
bring its measure into conformity with its obliga tions under the DSU.  The Panel further suggested 
that, in order to implement its findings under Article  23 and in order to ensure the prompt settlement WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 96  
 
  of this dispute, the United States should have recour se to the rules and procedures of the DSU without 
delay. 
On 29 May 2008, the European Communities notified its  decision to request the Appellate Body to 
review certain issues of law covered in the Panel re port and certain legal inte rpretations developed by 
the Panel.  On 10 June 2008, the United States notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body 
certain issues of law covered in the Panel report and certain legal interpretations developed by the 
Panel.  The Appellate Body examined this appeal  with that of WT/DS321.  On 22 July 2008, the 
Chairman of the Appellate Body informed the DS B that in the light of the numerous and complex 
issues raised in these appeals, and the increased burden on translation services, the Appellate Body 
would not be able to circulate its report within 60 days.  The Appellate Body estimated that the report 
in these appeals would be circulated no later than 16 October 2008. 
On 16 October 2008, the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members.   As regards the DSU, the Appellate Body: – found that the Panel did not err in stating th at proceedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU are 
open to not only the original complainant, because they may be initiated by original 
complainants and original respondents; 
– upheld the Panel's finding that "it has juri sdiction to consider the compatibility of the 
[European Communities'] implementing measure w ith the  SPS Agreement  as part of its 
review of the claim raised by the European Communities with respect to Article 22.8 of the 
DSU"; 
– because it had not been established that the measure found to be inconsistent with the  SPS 
Agreement in the EC – Hormones  dispute has been removed, upheld the Panel's finding that 
"the European Communities has not established a violation of Articles 23.1 and 3.7 of the 
DSU  as a result of a breach of Article 22.8"; 
– reversed the Panel's finding that, "by maintaini ng its suspension of concessions even after the 
notification of [Directive 2003/74/EC]", the United States is "seeking redress of a violation 
with respect to [this Directive], within the meaning of Article 23.1 of the DSU";  and 
– reversed the Panel's findings that the Unite d States "made a 'determination' within the 
meaning of Article 23.2(a) in relation to Di rective 2003/74/EC" on the basis of statements 
made at DSB meetings and the fact that the suspension of concessions continued subsequent 
to the notification of Directive 2003/74/EC, and that the United States "failed to make any such determination consistent with the findings contained in the panel or Appellate Body 
report adopted by the DSB or an arbitration award rendered under the DSU", in breach of 
Article 23.2(a). 
As regards the Panel's consultations with the scien tific experts, the Appellate Body found that the 
Panel infringed the European Communities' due pro cess rights, because the institutional affiliation of 
two of the experts compromised their appointment and thereby the adjudicative independence and 
impartiality of the Panel.  Accordingly, the Panel failed to comply with its duties under Article 11 of 
the DSU. 
The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding th at the European Communities' import ban relating 
to oestradiol-17 β is not based on a risk assessment as require d by Article 5.1 of the  SPS Agreement;  
however, the Appellate Body is unable to complete the analysis and therefore made no findings as to  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 97 
 
 
  the consistency or inconsistency of th e import ban relating to oestradiol-17 β with Article 5.1 of the 
 SPS Agreement. 
The Appellate Body also reversed the Panel's finding that the provisional import ban relating to 
testosterone, progesterone, trenbolone acetate, zera nol, and MGA did not meet the requirements of 
Article 5.7 of the  SPS Agreement;  however, the Appe llate Body was unable to complete the analysis 
and therefore made no findings as to the consistenc y or inconsistency of the European Communities' 
provisional import ban with Article 5.7 of the  SPS Agreement. 
Because it had been unable to complete the analys is as to whether Directive 2003/74/EC has brought 
the European Communities into s ubstantive compliance within the meaning of Article 22.8 of the 
DSU, the Appellate Body found that the recomme ndations and rulings adopted by the DSB in EC – 
Hormones  remain operative.  In the light of the obliga tions arising under Article 22.8 of the DSU, it 
recommended that the Dispute Settlement Body request the United States and the European 
Communities to initiate Article 21.5 proceedings with out delay in order to resolve their disagreement 
as to whether the European Communities has remo ved the measure found to be inconsistent in EC – 
Hormones  and whether the application of the suspensi on of concessions by the United States remains 
legally valid. 
At its meeting on 14 November 2008, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report. 
16. WT/DS315 – European Communities – Selected Customs Matters 
Complaint by the United States. On 21 September 2004, the United States requested consultations 
with the European Communities c oncerning the Communities' administration of laws and regulations 
pertaining to the classification and valuation of products for customs purposes and its failure to 
institute tribunals or procedures for the prompt review and correction of administrative action on 
customs matters.  
According to the request for consultations from th e United States, the non uniform administration by 
the European Communities of laws, regulations, judicial decisions and administrative rulings 
pertaining to the classification and valuation of pr oducts for customs purposes  and to requirements, 
restrictions or prohibitions on im ports results in disparate administration among the member States of 
these customs measures in a number of respects, including differences in the classification and 
valuation of goods.  
Furthermore, the United States claims that EC law provides that EC member States are responsible for 
the implementation of appeals procedures. It is clai med, therefore, that appeals procedures vary from 
member State to member State, and the ability to obt ain review of a customs decision by a tribunal of 
the European Communities is possible only after an importer or other interested party has exhausted 
review by national administrative and/or judicial tribunals.  
The United States considers the foregoing manner of administering the laws, regulations and related 
measures and the foregoing arrangement to be inconsistent with the EC's obligations under 
Articles X:1, X:3(a) and (b) of GATT 1994.  
On 6 October 2004, Australia, Japan and Brazil requ ested to join the consultations. On 7 October 
2004, Argentina, Chinese Taipei and India requested to join the consultati ons. On 13 January 2005, 
the United States requested the establishment of a pa nel. At its meeting on 25 January 2005, the DSB 
deferred the establishment of a panel. At its m eeting on 21 March 2005, the DSB established the 
panel. Australia, Brazil, China and Chinese Taipei reserved their third party rights. On 22 March WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 98  
 
  2005, Hong Kong, China reserved its third party righ ts. On 24 March 2005, Korea reserved its third 
party rights. On 30 March 2005, Japan reserved its third party rights.  On 31 March 2005, Argentina 
and India reserved their third party rights. 
On 17 May 2005, the United States requested the Di rector-General to compose the panel. On 27 May 
2005, the Director-General composed the panel.  
On 24 November 2005, the Chairman of the Panel in formed the DSB that it would not be possible for 
the Panel to complete its work in six months as th e Panel was still considering the legal and factual 
matters raised in this dispute, and that the Pane l hoped to complete its work by the end of March 
2006.  
On 16 June 2006, the Panel report was circul ated to Members.  The Panel found that: 
• the European Communities had violated Article  X:3(a) in three cases involving tariff 
classification and customs valuation; 
• the European Communities had not violated Article  X:3(a) in five cases in the areas of tariff 
classification, customs valuation and customs procedures;  and  
• the United States had not proved that the Europ ean Communities had violated Article X:3(a) 
in 11 cases in the areas of tariff classification, customs valuation and customs procedures. 
The Panel also found that the European Comm unities had not acted inconsistently with the 
requirements of Article X:3(b) of the GATT 1994. 
On 14 August 2006, the United States notified its inten tion to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel.  On 10 October 2006, the Chairman of the Appellate Body 
informed the DSB that it would not be able to circ ulate its report within the 60-day period due to the 
time required for completion and translation of the re port.  The Appellate Body expected to complete 
its work no later than 13 November 2006.   
On 13 November 2006, the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members.  The Appellate Body: 
• reversed the Panel's findings that the "measu re at issue" for purposes of a claim under 
Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994 must necessarily be "the manner of administration that is 
allegedly non-uniform, partial and/or unreasona ble" and found instead that the specific 
measures at issue identified in the panel re quest were the Community Customs Code, the 
Implementing Regulation, the Common Customs Tariff, and the TARIC, as administered 
collectively; 
 
• reversed the Panel's finding that the Unite d States was precluded from challenging the 
European Communities' system of customs ad ministration as a whole or overall and the 
Panel's finding that it was precluded from consid ering the United States' argument that the 
"design and structure" of the European Comm unities' system of customs administration 
necessarily result in a violation of Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994;   
 
• upheld, albeit for different reasons, the Panel's interpretation that "the steps and acts of 
administration that pre-date or post-date the establishment of a panel may be relevant to 
determining whether or not a violation of Artic le X:3(a) of the GATT 1994 exists at the time 
of [panel] establishment"; 
  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 99 
 
 
  • reversed the Panel's finding that, without excep tion, Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994 always 
relates to the application of laws and regulations , but not to laws and regulations as such;  but 
upheld the Panel's conclusions that substan tive differences in penalty laws and audit 
procedures among the member States of the Eu ropean Communities alone do not constitute a 
violation of Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994; 
 
• concluded that the Panel did not find that  Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994 requires 
uniformity of "administrative processes";  upheld the Panel's finding that the term "administer" in Article X:3(a) of the GA TT 1994 may include administrative processes that 
put into effect the legal instruments of the kind described in Article X:1 of the  GATT 1994;  
but reversed the Panel's finding that the administrative process leading to the tariff 
classification of blackout drapery lining amounts to non-uniform administration within the meaning of Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994 , and that the European Communities has 
violated Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994 with respect to the tariff classification of blackout drapery lining; 
 
• upheld the Panel's finding that "[t]he tariff cl assification of liquid crystal display monitors 
with digital video interface amounts to non-un iform administration within the meaning of 
Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994"; 
 
• reversed the Panel's finding that "the European Communities does not administer its customs 
law concerning successive sales—in particular, Article 147(1) of the Implementing 
Regulation—in a uniform manner, in violati on of Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994";  and 
 
• was unable to complete the analysis with respect  to the United States' claim that the European 
Communities' system of customs administration as a whole or overall is not administered in a 
uniform manner, as required by Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994; 
 
• upheld the conclusion of the Panel that "Article X:3(b) of the GATT 1994 does not 
necessarily mean that the decisions of the judici al, arbitral or administrative tribunals or 
procedures for the review and correction of ad ministrative action relating to customs matters 
must govern the practice of all the agencies entrusted with administrative enforcement 
throughout the territory  of a particular [WTO] Member" ;  and 
 
• with respect to Article XXIV:12 of the GATT 1994, found that the conditions on which the 
European Communities' appeal was predicated  were not satisfied, and therefore did not 
consider it. 
At its meeting on 11 December 2006, the DSB adopt ed the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.  
17. WT/DS312 – Korea – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from 
Indonesia 
Complaint by Indonesia. On 4 June 2004, Indonesia requested consultations with Korea concerning 
the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties by Korea on imports of business information paper 
and uncoated wood-free printing paper from Indonesia a nd certain aspects of the investigation leading 
to the imposition of such duties.  
According to the request for consultations from In donesia, Korea violates its WTO obligations in 
respect of the following aspects:  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 100  
 
  • Korea's initiation of investigation, notwithstandi ng several deficiencies such as the applicants' 
failure to include in the application sufficien t and adequate evidence of dumping, injury and 
causal link;  
• Korea's failure to provide in the Notice of In itiation any information regarding the factors on 
which the allegation of injury was based,.  
• the way Korea granted confidential treatment to information contained in the application,.  
• Korea's making of a request for information from a firm not subject to investigation, without 
having obtained the agreement of that firm a nd having notified the Indonesian Government of 
such request,  
• Korea's rejection of information related to the sales of a certain firm, without explaining the 
reason.  
• Korea's preliminary determination, in such resp ects as: like products, constructed value, best 
information available, denial of access to in formation, and the refusal to provide an 
opportunity to the exporters to present their views;  
• Korea's final determination, in such respect s as: like products, individual dumping margins, 
constructed value, treating a certain firm and other firms as a single economic unit; the impact 
and effect of the dumped imports on the domestic  industry and prices in the domestic market, 
failure to evaluate all relevant economic factors and indices, and denial of access to 
information. 
Indonesia considers that these Korean measures ar e inconsistent with: Article VI of GATT 1994, inter 
alia, Article VI:1, VI:2 and VI:6; Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.2. 1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1(i), 
5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.7, 6.1.2, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.5. 2, 6.7, 6.8. 6.10, 9.3, 12.1.1(iv), 12.2, 12.3, Annex I, 
and paragraphs 3, 6, a nd 7 of Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
On 16 August 2004, Indonesia requested the establis hment of a panel. At its meeting on 31 August 
2004, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by Indonesia, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 27 September 2004. Canada, China, the 
European Communities, Japan and the United States reserved their third-party rights. On 18 October 
2004, Indonesia requested the Director General to compose the panel. On 25 October 2004, the Director-General composed the panel.  
On 25 April 2005, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible for the 
Panel to complete its work in six months in light  of scheduling conflicts, and that it expected to 
complete its work in July 2005.  
On 28 October 2005, the Panel Report was circulated to Members.  In its Report:  
• The Panel found that the Korea Trade Commission  ("the KTC") acted inconsistently with 
relevant provisions of the Anti-dumping Agreem ent ("the Agreement") in determining the 
margin of dumping for one Indonesian company, in failing to provide a proper disclosure of the verification results and the details of the cal culations of the construc ted normal values for 
two Indonesian companies, and in also failing to  exercise special circumspection in the use of 
information from secondary sources instead of  domestic sales data provided by these two 
Indonesian companies. With respect to the KTC' s injury determination, the Panel found that 
the KTC erred in its assessment of the impact of dumped imports on the domestic industry  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 101 
 
 
  and in not requiring that good cause for confid ential treatment be shown regarding the 
information submitted in the application which was by nature confidential.  
• The Panel concluded that the KTC did not act inc onsistently with the relevant Articles of the 
Agreement in resorting to facts available with  respect to two Indonesian companies, in 
rejecting the domestic sales data submitted by  these two companies, in using constructed 
normal values for them, in treating three Indon esian companies belonging to the same Group 
as a single exporter and assigning a single margin of dumping to them. With respect to the KTC's injury determination, the Panel also c oncluded that the KTC did not err in its price 
analysis, in its treatment of the dumped imports made by the Korean producers from the subject countries and in disclosing its determin ation concerning the effect of the prices of 
dumped imports on the Korean industry.  
• The Panel exercised judicial economy regarding th e consequential claims raised by Indonesia, 
and did not address other claims withdrawn by Indonesia.  
• The Panel rejected Indonesia's request that th e Panel suggest that Korea bring its measures 
into conformity with its WTO obligations by revoking the anti-dumping measure at issue.  
At its meeting on 28 November 2005, the DSB adopted the Report of the Panel. 
18. WT/DS308 – Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages 
Complaint by the United States. On 16 March 2004, the United States requested consultations with 
Mexico concerning certain tax measures imposed by Me xico on soft drinks and other beverages that 
use any sweetener other than cane sugar.  
The tax measures concerned include: (i) a 20 percent tax on soft drinks and other beverages that use 
any sweetener other than cane sugar ("beverage tax" ), which is not applied to beverages that use cane 
sugar; and (ii) a 20 percent tax on the commissioni ng, mediation, agency, representation, brokerage, 
consignment and distribution of soft drinks and ot her beverages that use any sweetener other than 
cane sugar ("distribution tax").  
The US considers that these taxes are inconsistent  with Article III of GATT 1994, in particular, 
Article III:2, first and second sentences, and Article III:4 thereof.  
On 26 March 2004, Canada requested to join the consultations. On 14 May 2004, Mexico informed 
the DSB that Mexico had accepted the requested  of Canada to join the consultations.  
On 10 June 2004, the United Stated requested the es tablishment of a panel. At its meeting on 22 June 
2004, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by the United States, the DSB established a panel at  its meeting on 6 July 2004. Canada, China, the 
European Communities, Japan and Pakistan reserve d their third-party right s. On 15 July 2004, 
Guatemala reserved its third-party right. On 20 Au gust 2004, Pakistan informed the DSB that it did 
not want to participate as a third- party in the panel proceedings.  
On 18 August 2004, the Panel was composed. On 1 February 2005, the Chairman of the Panel 
informed the DSB that it expected to complete its work by the end of May 2005, as envisaged in the 
timetable adopted after consultations with the par ties. On 4 May 2005, the Chairman of the Panel 
informed the DSB that it expected to complete its  work in August 2005, and that this date took 
account of the time needed to translate the interim re port into Spanish prior to its issuance, as agreed 
with the parties.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 102  
 
  On 7 October 2005, the Report of the Panel was circulated to Members. The Panel found:  
• The soft drink tax and the distribution ta x, as imposed on imported sweeteners and on 
imported soft drinks and syrups, are incons istent with Article III:2 of GATT 1994 ;  
• The soft drink tax, the distribution tax and the bookkeeping requirements, as imposed on 
imported sweeteners, are inconsistent  with Article III:4 of GATT 1994;  
• The measures are not justified under Article XX(d) of GATT 1994. 
On 6 December 2005, Mexico notified its decision to  appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of 
law dealt with in the Panel report and certain lega l interpretations developed by the Panel.  On 2 
February 2006, the Appellate Body informed the DS B that it would not be able to provide its Report 
within the 60-day period, and that it estimated that  the Appellate Body Report would be circulated to 
WTO Members no later than 6 March 2006.   
On 6 March 2006, the Appellate Body Report was circ ulated to Members.  The Appellate Body found 
that the Panel did not err in rejecting Mexico's requ est that it decline to exercise jurisdiction.  In 
addition, the Appellate Body upheld, albeit for diffe rent reasons, the Panel's finding that Mexico's 
measures do not constitute measures "to secure compliance with laws or regulations" within the 
meaning of Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994 because that provision does not permit WTO Members 
to take measures that seek to secure complian ce by another Member of that other Member's 
international obligations. 
At its meeting on 24 March 2006, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report a nd the Panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body report.  
19. WT/DS302 – Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation and Internal 
Sale of Cigarettes 
Complaint by Honduras. On 8 October 2003, Hondur as requested consultations with the Dominican 
Republic concerning certain measures affecting the importation and internal sale of cigarettes. This 
request is a new and expanded version of a co mplaint filed by Honduras on 28 August 2003 
(WT/DS300/1).  
According to Honduras, the Dominican Republic:  
• applies special rules, procedures and admini strative practices to determine the value of 
imported cigarettes for the purpose of a pplying the Selective Consumption Tax ( inter alia , in 
certain instances, considers the value of importe d cigarettes to be equal to the value of the 
"nearest similar" product in the domestic market),  and fails to establish and apply transparent 
and generally applicable criteria for dete rmining the value of imported cigarettes ( inter alia , 
fails to establish and apply such criteria for the identification of the "nearest similar" product);  
• does not publish the surveys con ducted by the Central Bank that are to be used to determine 
the value of cigarettes for the purpose of applying the Selective Consumption Tax;  
• accords conditions of competition to imported ci garettes that are less favourable than those 
accorded to domestic cigarettes by requiring that  stamps be affixed to cigarettes packages in 
the territory of the Dominican Republic;   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 103 
 
 
  • entails costs and administrative burdens hinderi ng the importation of cigarettes by requiring 
importers of cigarettes to post a bond;  
• levies a transitional surcharge for economic st abilization of 2% of the CIF value of the 
imported goods;  
• levies a foreign exchange fee of 4.75% of  the value of the imported merchandise.  
Honduras considers that these Dominican Republic's me asures are inconsistent with Articles II:1(b), 
III:2, III:4, X:1, X:3(a), XI:1, and XV:4 of GATT 1994.  
On 23 October 2003, Guatemala and Nicaragua request ed to join the consultations. On 28 October 
2003, the Dominican Republic accepted both requests.  
On 8 December 2003, Honduras requested the estab lishment of a panel. At its meeting on 19 
December 2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to 
establish a panel by Honduras, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 9 January 2004. China, 
Chile, the European Communities and the United St ates reserved their third-party rights. On 19 
January 2004, Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Sa lvador reserved their third-party rights.  
On 17 February 2004, the Panel was composed. On 23 August 2004, the Chairman of the Panel 
informed the DSB that the Panel expected to complete its work by October 2004.  
On 26 November 2004, the Panel report was circul ated to Members. The Panel found that:  
• The transitional surcharge and the foreign exch ange fee imposed by the Dominican Republic 
are inconsistent with Article II:1(b) of GATT 1994. The foreign exchange fee is not justified 
under Article XV:9(a) of GATT 1994;  
• The stamp requirement imposed on cigarettes by the Dominican Republic is inconsistent with 
Article III:4 of GATT 1994;  
• Honduras did not demonstrate that the bond requi rement imposed on ci garette importers by 
the Dominican Republic violates either Article  X:1 or Article III:4 of GATT 1994; and  
• Before the legislation was am ended in January 2004, the Dominican Republic imposed its 
Selective Consumption Tax on im ported cigarettes in a manner inconsistent with Articles 
III:2 and X of GATT 1994.  
The Panel then recommended that the Dominican Re public bring its measures (namely, the foreign 
exchange fee, the transitional surcharge and the stamp requirement) into conformity with its WTO 
obligations.  
On 24 January 2005, the Dominican Republic notified its  intention to appeal certain issues of law and 
legal interpretations developed by the Panel. On 7 February 2005, Honduras notified its intention to 
appeal certain issues of law and legal in terpretations developed by the Panel.  
On 22 March 2005, the Chairman of the Appellate Body informed the DSB that the Appellate Body 
would not be able to circulate its Report within  the 60-day period due to the time required for 
completion and translation of the Report, and that it estimated it would be circulated to WTO Members no later than 25 April 2005. WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 104  
 
  On 25 April 2005, the report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members. The Appellate Body 
upheld the Panel's legal findings. The Appellate Body: 
• Upheld the Panel's finding that the stamp requirement imposed on cigarettes by the 
Dominican Republic is inconsistent with Artic le III:4 of GATT 1994 and is not justified 
under the exception of Article XX(d); 
• Upheld the Panel's finding that Honduras failed to demonstrate that the bond requirement 
imposed on cigarette importers by the Domini can Republic violates Article III:4 of GATT 
1994; and,  
• Rejected the appeal regarding the alleged Pane l's failure to conduct and objective assessment 
of the matter. 
At its meeting on 19 May 2005, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report a nd the Panel Report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body Report. 
20. WT/DS301 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Trade in Commercial 
Vessels 
Complaint by Korea. On 3 September 2003, Kor ea requested consultations  with the European 
Communities concerning certain measures by the EC and its member States in favour of their 
shipbuilding industry which, according to Korea, ar e inconsistent with their WTO obligations. These 
measures are as follows:  
• EC Regulation 1177/2002 ("TDM Regulation") a nd EC Regulation 1540/98, as well as the 
EC member States' implementing provisions. These measures provide for subsidies in favour of commercial vessels in various forms;  
• The provision by the EC and the member States of subsidies in support of commercial vessels 
built in the EC, in form of (a) operational aid gr anted on a contractual basis in forms such as 
grants, export credits, guarantees or tax breaks, (b) restructuring aid, (c) regional or other 
investment aid, (d) research and development aid, (e) environmental protection aid and (f) 
insolvency and closure aid.  
Korea considered that these measu res are in breach of their obligations under the provisions of the 
WTO Agreements, inter alia :  
• Articles 1, 2, 3.1, 5(a) and (c), 6.3(a), (b) or  (c), 6.4 and 6.5 of the Agreement on Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures ("SCM Agreement");  
• Articles I:1 and III:4 of GATT 1994; and  
• Article 23(1) and (2) of the DSU and Articl es 4, 7 and 32(1) of the SCM Agreement.  
Concerning the last point, the request states th at the TDM Regulation and the member States' 
implementing measures "have been designed and implemented as unilateral measures seeking redress of a perceived violation of Korea's obligations  under the SCM Agreement" and "constitute specific 
actions against perceived subsidies of another Me mber". This may refer to the dispute concerning 
Korea's own subsidies, on which a panel w as established in July 2003 (WT/DS273).   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 105 
 
 
  Korea also considered that the above-described measures nullify or impair benefits accruing to Korea 
under the WTO Agreements, within the meaning of Articles XXIII:1(a) and (b) of GATT 1994 and 
Article 5(b) of the SCM Agreement.  
On 12 September 2003, China requested to join the consultations.  On 5 February 2004, Korea request ed the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 17 February 
2004, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by Korea, the DSB established a panel at its mee ting on 19 March 2004. China, Japan and the United 
States reserved their third-party rights.  
On 13 May 2004, the Panel was composed.  On 5 November 2004, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be able to 
complete its work in six months inter alia due to  certain postponements in the Panel's timetable and 
other scheduling difficulties, and that the Panel hope d to complete its work by the end of February 
2005.  
On 22 April 2005, the Panel report was circulated to Members.  
• Regarding the claim of Korea under Article III: 4 of the GATT 1994, the Panel found that the 
subsidies authorized under the TDM Regulation we re covered by the notion of "the payment 
of subsidies exclusively to domestic producer s" in Article III:8(b) of the GATT 1994, and 
thus were not "prevented" by Article III.  
• Regarding the claim of Korea under Article I: 1 of the GATT 1994, the Panel found that since 
the subsidies authorized under the TDM Regula tion were not covered by Article III:4 of the 
GATT 1994 by virtue of Article III:8(b), they were  also not covered by the phrase "all matters 
referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article III" in Article I:1.  
• Regarding Korea's claim under Article 32.1 of  the SCM Agreement, the Panel found that 
although the measures at issue were "specific"  within the meaning of that provision as 
interpreted by the Appellate Body, the measures at issue did not constitute action "against" a 
subsidy of another member as that term has been interpreted by the Appellate Body.  
• Regarding Korea's claim under Article 23.1 of th e DSU, the Panel interpreted this provision 
as imposing a general obligation on WTO Members not to act unilaterally when seeking the redress of a violation of an obligation under th e WTO Agreement. The Panel found that the 
European Communities had adopted the TDM mechan ism in response to what it considered to 
be a violation by Korea of its obligati ons under the SCM Agreement and that the 
Communities was seeking to induce Korea to remove its allegedl y WTO-inconsistent 
subsidies. Accordingly, the Panel conclude d that the European Communities had acted 
inconsistently with Article 23.1 of the DSU.  
As above, the Panel found that the measures at issue constitute a violation of Article 23.1 of the DSU, 
while the Panel rejects the claims of Korea that th e measures at issue are in breach of Articles I and III 
of the GATT 1994 and Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement. 
On 20 June 2005, the Panel Report was adopted by the DSB.   WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 106  
 
  21. WT/DS299 – European Communities – Co untervailing Measures on Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Chips from Korea 
Complaint by Korea. On 25 July 2003, Korea requested consultations with the European 
Communities concerning the EC's provisional count ervailing measures and any final countervailing 
measures which may be finalized and implemente d later this year agai nst dynamic random access 
memory chips ("DRAMs") from Korea.  
According to Korea, when considering the determin ations with respect to the provisional measures 
against the DRAMs from Korea, which have alrea dy been implemented, and any final measures on 
the same products, which may be finalized and implemented later this year, the European 
Commission failed to comply with various WTO subs tantive and procedural requirements, including 
demonstration of the existence of a financial cont ribution and a benefit conf erred, and demonstration 
of specificity of the subsidies concerned.  
In Korea's view, these EC's measures at issue are in consistent with the EC's  obligations under the 
following WTO provisions:  
• Articles VI:3 and X.3 of GATT 1994;  
• Articles 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 22 and 32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures.  
On 25 August 2003, Korea requested further consu ltations with the EC concerning the EC's final 
countervailing measures, which were adopted by the European Council on 11 August 2003 and 
published in the Official Journal of the EC on 22 August 2003.  
Korea wished to consult on the same issues raised in its previous consultations request, but from the 
additional perspectives of the adopted final measures.  
Korea further elaborated the EC's violation of Ar ticle 15 of the SCM Agreement. Korea claimed that 
the material injury finding by the EC is inconsistent, inter alia , with Articles 15.1, 15.2, 15.4, and 
15.5 of the SCM Agreement.  
On 19 November 2003, Korea requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 1 December 
2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by Korea, the DSB established a panel at its me eting on 23 January 2004. China, Japan, Chinese 
Taipei and the United States reserved their third-party rights.  
On 24 March 2004, the Panel was composed. Following the resignation of the Chairperson on 22 June 
2004, a new Chairman of the Panel was appointed on 27 July 2004. 
On 17 June 2005, the Panel Report was circulat ed to Members. The Panel finds as follows: 
• The Panel rejects most of Korea's claims with regard to the question of subsidization, and 
finds that for three of the five programmes the EC's determinations of  financial contribution 
and benefit are consistent with the SCM Agreement . The Panel upholds Korea's claims with 
respect to the so-called "grant methodology"  applied by the European Communities for 
calculating the amount of the benefit which it finds to be inconsistent with the SCM 
Agreement .  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 107 
 
 
  • In respect of the injury determination, the Pane l also rejects most of Korea's claims. However, 
the Panel upholds Korea's claim that the EC faile d to examine the factor "wages" as a relevant 
factor affecting the domestic industry. Th e Panel also finds against the European 
Communities with regard to the investigating authority's causation analysis which the Panel 
considers not to have complied with the require ment not to attribute injury caused by other 
factors to the subsidized imports.  
At its meeting on 3 August 2005, the DSB adopted the Panel Report. 
22. WT/DS296 – United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation on Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Semiconducto rs (DRAMs) from Korea 
Complaint by Korea. On 30 June 2003, Korea re quested consultations with the United States 
concerning the US authorities' affirmative prelim inary and final countervailing duty determinations, 
the preliminary injury determination and any subseq uent determinations that may be made during the 
injury investigation, on DRAMs and DRAM modul es from Korea. Korea is also challenging all 
related laws and regulations, incl uding Section 771 of the US Tariff Act of 1930 and 19 CFR 351 
respectively.  
Korea claimed that the above de terminations are inconsistent, inter alia , with Articles VI:3 and X:3 of 
the GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 22, 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.  
On 18 August 2003, Korea requested further consu ltations with regard to the US authorities' 
countervailing duty determinations on DRAMs an d DRAM modules from Korea. This request 
concerns the USITC's affirmative fi nal injury determination  and the DOC's final countervailing duty 
order , both of which were published on 11 August 2003, that is, after the first request for 
consultations was made by Korea. Korea claime d that the determinati ons mentioned above are 
inconsistent, inter alia , with Articles 15.1, 15.2, 15.4, and 15.5 of the SCM Agreement.  
On 19 November 2003, Korea requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 1 December 
2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by Korea, the DSB established a panel at its mee ting on 23 January 2004. China, the EC, Japan and 
Chinese Taipei reserved their third-party rights.  
On 23 February 2004, Korea requested the Director  General to compose the panel. On 5 March 2004, 
the Director-General composed the panel.  
On 16 August 2004, the Chairman of the Panel in formed the DSB that it would not be able to 
complete its work in six months in light of the sch edule which was agreed after consultations with the 
parties, and that the Panel expected to  complete its work in December 2004.  
On 21 February 2005, the Panel report was circulated to Members.  
• Concerning the DOC's finding of financial contribution to Hynex Inc ., the Panel found that 
the DOC did not properly demonstrate that the Korean Government availed itself of that capacity to entrust and direct all Group B and C creditors (i.e., two groups of creditors which 
were not 100% owned by the Korean Government) to participate in all financial contributions 
at issue in this case. The Panel therefore found that there was insufficient evidence to support 
a generalized finding of entrustment or direc tion with respect to all private bodies and the 
multiple transactions over the period of investig ation. Thus, the Pane l concluded that the 
DOC's determination of entrustment or directio n of those creditors is inconsistent with 
Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the SCM Agreement . WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 108  
 
  • Concerning the DOC's finding of benefit conf erred to Hynex, the Panel found that, since 
Group B and C creditors were not found to be  entrusted or directed by the Korean 
Government (and therefore their financial re lationship with Hynix was not considered a 
financial contribution), they could have been used as possible benchmarks for the 
determination of benefit. Thus, the Panel f ound that the DOC's benefit determination is 
inconsistent with Articles 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement.  
• Concerning specificity , the Panel found that the DOC's finding of entrustment or direction 
cannot provide a proper basis for the determina tion of specificity in respect of alleged 
subsidies provided by Group B and C creditors. Howe ver, to the extent that the DOC's finding 
of specificity in respect of Group A credito rs was based on the Government of Korea's 
activity specifically focused on Hynix, the Panel considered that such finding was consistent 
with Article 2 of the SCM Agreement . 
• Concerning the ITC's injury determination, the Panel rejected all but one claim by Korea, 
related to non-attribution . The Panel found that the ITC did not properly ensure that injury 
caused by one known factor other than the allege dly subsidized imports was not attributed to 
the allegedly subsidized imports. Therefore,  the Panel found a violation of the ITC's 
obligation under Article 15.5 of the SCM Agreement .  
• The Panel either rejected or exercised judici al economy on all other claims by Korea related 
to verification meetings, burden of proof, Article 4.4 of the DSU, the levying of 
countervailing duties (Article 19.4 of the SCM Agreement  and Article VI.3 of the GATT 
1994), Articles 10 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement  and Article 22.3 of the SCM Agreement   
On 29 March 2005, the United States notified its inten tion to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel.  (The United States appealed with regard to the DOC's subsidy 
determination, but not with regard to the ITC's injury determination. ) On 27 June 2005, the Appellate 
Body circulated its report to Members.  In its Report: 
• The Appellate Body modified the Panel's inte rpretation of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) and found 
errors in the Panel's review of the evidence underlying the USDOC's finding of entrustment or 
direction. The Appellate Body concluded that these errors undermined the Panel's conclusion 
that the evidence could not support the USDOC's  finding of entrustment or direction and, 
therefore, reversed this conclusion, as well as the Panel's finding of inconsistency with 
Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv). The Appellate Body furthe r determined that it could not arrive at a 
conclusion, based on its own analysis, as to wh ether the USDOC's subsidy determination was 
consistent with Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv). 
• The Appellate Body also reversed the Panel's findings of inconsistency with Article 1.1(b) 
(benefit) and Article 2 (specificity) of the SCM Agreement  because they were premised on the 
finding of inconsistency with Ar ticle 1.1(a)(1)(iv). The Appellate Body determined that there 
were neither sufficient factual findings by the Panel nor undisputed facts in the record to 
allow it to complete the analysis.  
• The Appellate Body also found that the Panel ha d failed to comply with its obligations under 
Article 11 of the DSU to "make an objective assess ment of the matter before it, including an 
objective assessment of the facts of the case", inter alia , by failing to apply the proper 
standard of review. 
• As a result of the Appellate Body's reversals,  there remain no findings  of WTO-inconsistency 
with respect to the USDOC's subsidy  determination.  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 109 
 
 
  At its meeting on 20 July 2005, the DSB adopted th e Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body report. 
23. WT/DS294 – United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating 
Dumping Margins (Zeroing) 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 12 June 2003, the European Communities requested 
consultations with the United States concerning a methodology used by the US, among others, in the 
calculation of dumping margins, known as "zeroing". The "zeroing" methodology, generally speaking, involves treating specific price comparisons which do not show dumping as zero values in the calculation of a weighted average dumping margin.  
The request concerns specific provisions of th e US Tariff Act of 1930 and the Department of 
Commerce implementing regulation as well as US Department of Commerce methodology and its 
determinations in specific cases involvi ng products imported from the EC.  
The EC has indicated specific aspects of the zeroing methodology that it will raise in the 
consultations, including the way in which it is app lied in calculating dumping margins, its impact on 
determinations of injury, its impact  in cases which would otherwise be de minimis , and the level of the 
dumping margins in 21 specific US anti-dumping cases.  
The EC has attached to its request details of those specific cases, alleging that in each of them the US 
used zeroing methodology. Most of the products in th ese cases were steel. The EC  asserts that in each 
case the dumping margin without zeroing would have been lower, de minimis  or negative. In the EC's 
view, the Act, regulation, methodology and these speci fic determinations appear  to be inconsistent 
with the United States' obligations under the following WTO provisions:  
• Articles 1, 2.4, 3, 5.8, 9.3, 9.5, 11, 18.3 and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ;  
• Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994 ;  
• Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement .  
On 27 June 2003, India and Korea requested to join  the consultations. On 30 June 2003, Japan and 
Mexico requested to join the consultations.  
On 8 September 2003, the European Communities re quested further consultations with the United 
States. The EC wished to add ten more cases to the list of specific cases.  
The EC indicated specifi c aspects of the zeroing methodology th at it will raise in the additional 
consultations, including the way in which it is app lied in calculating dumping margins, its impact on 
determinations of injury, its impact  in cases which would otherwise be de minimis , and the level of the 
dumping margins in specific US anti-dumping cases.  
In the EC's view, these additional specific determina tions appear to be inconsistent with the US 
obligations under the same WTO provisions mentioned above.  
On 25 September 2003, Mexico requested to join the consultations.  On 5 February 2004, the EC requested the establis hment of a panel. On 16 February 2004, the EC 
submitted a revised request for the establishment of a panel. At its meeti ng on 17 February 2004, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 19 March 2004, the DSB established a WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 110  
 
  panel. Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Norway and Chinese Taipei reserved 
their third-party rights. On 23 March 2004, Hong K ong, China reserved its third-party right. On 30 
March 2004, Turkey reserved its third-party right . On 27 October 2004, the Panel was composed. 
On 22 March 2005, the Chairman of the Panel inform ed the DSB that it would not be possible for the 
Panel to complete its work in six months in light of the schedule which had been agreed after 
consultations with the parties, and that the Panel ex pected to complete its work in July 2005. On 1 
July 2005, the Panel informed the DSB that due to its continued consideration of the issues in this 
dispute, it would not be possible for the Panel to complete its work by the end of July, and that the Panel expected to complete its work in September 2005. 
On 31 October 2005, the Panel Report was circulated to Members. In its Report: 
• The Panel unanimously upheld the claims of th e European Communities as they relate to the 
specific determinations of dumping made by the United States Department of Commerce in 
the 15 original investigations at issue. The Pa nel also unanimously upheld the claims of the 
European Communities in respect of what was described by the Panel as the United States 
"methodology" of zeroing in original investigations. In doing so, the Panel found that the 
United States "methodology" of zeroing was a "norm" capable of being challenged in WTO 
dispute settlement proceedings. 
• The Panel unanimously rejected the claims of  the European Communities with respect to 
United States law, finding that the provisions in question did not speak to the issue of zeroing. 
• The Panel rejected all of the claims of the Eu ropean Communities in the context of reviews of 
existing measures. However, one member of the Panel dissented from this aspect of the 
Panel's findings. The dissenting member of the Panel would have upheld the claims of the 
European Communities as they relate to the 16 specific determinations of dumping in reviews 
as well as the United States "methodology" of zeroing in the context of reviews. The dissenting member of the Panel would also have found one provision of a United States regulation to be WTO-inconsistent in respect of reviews. 
• The Panel recommended that the DSB request th e United States to bring its measures into 
conformity with its obligations under the AD Agreement. 
At its meeting of 6 December 2005, following a joint request by the parties, the DSB agreed to extend 
the time period for the adoption of the panel report until 31 January 2006.  On 17 January 2006, the 
European Communities notified its decision to appeal  to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the panel report and certa in legal interpretations developed by the Panel.  On 30 January 
2006, the United States notified its decision to app eal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the panel report and certa in legal interpretations develope d by the Panel.  On 15 March 
2006, the Chairman of the Appellate Body informed the DSB that it would not be able to circulate its report within the 60-day period due to the time requi red for completion and translation of the report, 
and that it estimated it would be circulated to WTO Members no later than 18 April 2006. 
On 18 April 2006, the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members.  The Appellate Body 
reversed the Panel's finding that zeroing, as applied by the USDOC when assessing final anti-dumping duty liability for particular importers in the administrative reviews at issue, is not inconsistent with Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 .  
 
The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that the zeroing methodology, as it relates to original 
investigations, is inconsistent, as such, with Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .    WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 111 
 
 
  On 9 May 2006, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body  report and the Panel report, as modified by the 
Appellate Body report. 
24. WT/DS295 – Mexico – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Beef and Rice 
Complaint by the United States. On 16 June 2003 , the United States requested consultations with 
Mexico concerning its definitive anti-dumping measur es on beef and long grain white rice as well as 
certain provisions of Mexico's Foreign Trade Ac t and its Federal Code of Civil Procedure.  
The US claimed that these measures were inconsiste nt with Mexico's obligations under the provisions 
of GATT 1994, the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SC M Agreement. In particular, the US claimed 
that:  
• Mexico's definitive anti-dumping measures on beef and long grain white rice were 
inconsistent with at least Articles 3, 5.8, 6, 9, 12, 11.1 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement.  
• Certain provisions of Mexico's Foreign Trade Act and its Federal Code  of Civil Procedure 
were inconsistent with Articles 5.8, 6, 6.1.1,  6.8, 7, 9, 9.5, 10.6, 11 and 11.1 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement and Articles 11.9, 12.1.1, 12. 7, 17, 19, 19.3, 20.6, 21 and 21.1 of the 
SCM Agreement.  
The United States also claimed that Mexico's measures  appear to nullify or impair benefits accruing to 
the US directly or indirectly  under the cited agreements.  
On 19 September 2003, the United States requested th e establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 2 
October 2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of  a panel.  The DSB established a panel at its 
meeting on 7 November 2003. China, the European Communities and Turkey reserved their third-
party rights.  
On 4 February 2004, the United States requested the Director General to compose the panel. On 13 
February 2004, the Director-General composed the panel.  
On 11 August 2004, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be able to 
complete its work in six months due to the complexi ty of the matter, and that the Panel expected to 
issue its final report to the parties in November  2004. On 26 November 2004, the Chairman of the 
Panel informed the DSB that it expected  to complete its work in March 2005. 
On 6 June 2005, the report of the Panel was circulated to Members. In its report:  
• The Panel upholds all of the United States' cl aims concerning both the injury and the dumping 
margin determination of the Mexican investig ating authority in the rice investigation, 
applying judicial economy with resp ect to some other related claims.  
• With regard to the claims concerning Mexico's  Foreign Trade Act as such, the Panel also 
finds in favour of the on practically all accounts. The Panel rejected the claim with regard to Mexico's Federal Code of Civil Procedure. 
(Although the United States had originally included in  its request for consultations the definitive anti-
dumping measures imposed by Mexico on imports of beef from the United States in its request for the 
establishment of a panel the United States did not include the beef-related claims.) WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 112  
 
  On 20 July 2005, the notification of an appeal was submitted by Mexico. On 14 September 2005, the 
Appellate Body informed the DSB that it would not be  able to provide its Report within 60 days in the 
light of the participants' request for translation of  participants' and third participants's submissions, 
and that the Report would be circulated to  Members no later than 29 November. 2005. 
On 29 November 2005, the Appellate Body circulat ed its Report to Members. In its Report, the 
Appellate Body upheld, in large part, the Panel's fi ndings.  The Appellate Body rejected the Panel's 
findings that Mexico acted inconsistently with Articles 6.1, 6.10, and 12.1 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement . 
At its meeting of 20 December 2005, the DSB adopted  the Appellate Body report and Panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body report. 
25. WT/DS291, WT/DS292, WT/DS293 – European  Communities – Measures Affecting the 
Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products 
Complaints by the United States (WT/DS291), Cana da (WT/DS292) and Argentina (WT/DS293). On 
13 May 2003, the United States and Canada requested  consultations with the EC concerning certain 
measures taken by the EC and its member States af fecting imports of agricultural and food imports 
from the United States and Canada. Regarding EC-lev el measures, the US and Canada asserted that 
the moratorium applied by the EC since Octobe r 1998 on the approval of biotech products has 
restricted imports of agricultural and food prod ucts from the US and Canada. Regarding member 
State-level measures, the US and Canada asserted that a number of EC member States maintain national marketing and import bans on biotech produc ts even though those products have already 
been approved by the EC for import and marketing in the EC. On 14 May 2003, Argentina requested 
consultations with the EC on the same matter.  
According to the US, the measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with the EC's obligations under:  
• Articles 2, 5, 7 and 8, and Annexes B and C of the SPS Agreement; 
• Articles I, III, X and XI of the GATT 1994;  
• Article 4 of the Agriculture Agreement; and  
• Articles 2 and 5 of the TBT Agreement.  
According to Canada, the measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with the EC's obligations under:  
• Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.5, 5.6, 7 and 8,  and Annexes B and C of the SPS Agreement;  
• Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.8, 5.1 and 5.2 of the TBT Agreement;  
• Articles I:1, III:4, X:1 and XI:1 of the GATT 1994; and  
• Article 4.2 of the Agriculture Agreement.  
Canada also considered that the measures at issue nu llify or impair benefits accruing to Canada in the 
sense of Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994.  
According to Argentina, the measur es at issue appear to be inconsis tent with the EC's obligations 
under:   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 113 
 
 
  • Articles 2, 5, 7, 8 and 10, and Annexes B and C of the SPS Agreement; 
• Article 4 of the Agriculture Agreement;  
• Articles I, III, X and XI of the GATT 1994; and  
• Articles 2, 5 and 12 of the TBT Agreement.  
In dispute WT/DS291, Australia, Argentina, Braz il, Canada, Chile, Colombia, India, Mexico, New 
Zealand and Peru requested to join the consulta tions, The EC informed the DSB that they had 
accepted the requests of Australia, Argentina, Braz il, Canada, Chile, Colombia, India, Mexico, New 
Zealand and Peru to join the consultations.  
In dispute WT/DS292, Australia, Argentina, Brazi l, India, Mexico, New Zealand and the United 
States requested to join the consultations. The EC informed the DSB that they had accepted the 
requests of Australia, Argentina, Brazil, India, Me xico, New Zealand and the United States to join the 
consultations.  
In dispute WT/DS293, Australia, Brazil, Canada, In dia, Mexico, New Zealand and the United States 
requested to join the consultati ons. The EC informed the DSB that  they had accepted the requests of 
Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Mexico, New Zeala nd and the United States to join the consultations.  
On 7 August 2003, the United States, Canada and Ar gentina each requested the establishment of a 
panel. At its meeting on 18 August 2003, the DSB de ferred the establishment of the panels. Further to 
second requests to establish a panel from the US, Cana da and Argentina, the DSB established a single 
panel at its meeting on 29 August 2003.  
On 23 February 2004, the United States, Canada a nd Argentina requested the Director General to 
compose the panel. On 4 March 2004, the Director-Gen eral composed the panel. Argentina (in respect 
of the United States' and Canada's complaints), Au stralia, Brazil, Canada (in respect of the United 
States' and Argentina's complaints), Chile, Chin a, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, New 
Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Chinese Taip ei, Thailand, Uruguay and the United States (in 
respect of Canada's and Argentina's compla ints) reserved their third-party rights.  
On 12 July 2004, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be able to complete 
its work in six months, due, inter alia , to the parties' common request for additional time to prepare 
their rebuttals. On 18 August 2004, the Chairman of  the Panel informed the DSB that the Panel 
estimated that it would issue its final report to the parties by the end of Marc h 2005, and that the delay 
was due to the parties' common request for addition al time to prepare their rebuttals as well as the 
Panel's decision to seek scientific and technical expert advice pursuant to Article 11 of the Agreement 
on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  and Article 13 of the DSU. On 2 November 2004, the 
Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that as a result of the time taken to identify and select 
experts and, more importantly, in view of a joint request by all four parties that they be granted 
additional time to prepare their furt her submissions to the Panel, it would not be possible for the Panel 
to issue its final report to the parties by the end of  March 2005, and that the Panel estimated that it 
would issue its final report to the parties by the end of June 2005. On 13 June 2005, the Panel 
informed the DSB that the Panel est imated that it would issue its fina l report to the parties by the end 
of October 2005. On 11 August 2005, the Panel estimat ed that it would issue its final report to the 
parties by the end of December 2005.  On 21 Decemb er 2005, the Chairman of the Panel informed the 
DSB that the Panel required additional time to prep are and finalize its report.  The Panel estimated 
that it would issue its final report to the parties be the end of March 2006.  On 30 March 2006, the 
Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it woul d not be possible to issue its final reports to the WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 114  
 
  parties at the end of March 2006 as the Panel has ye t to receive, in the second half of April, further 
comments from the parties on its interim reports.  The Panel estimates that it will issue its final reports 
to the parties by mid-May 2006.  It is estimated that  the final reports will be circulated to Members no 
later than the end of September 2006. 
On 29 September 2006, the panel reports were circulated to Members.  The Panel found that the 
European Communities applied a general de facto  moratorium on the approval of biotech products 
between June 1999 and August 2003, which is when this  Panel was established.  Before the Panel, the 
European Communities had categorically denied th e existence of such a moratorium. The Panel 
further found that, by applying this moratorium, the European Communities ha s acted inconsistently 
with its obligations under Annex C(1)(a),  first clause, and Article 8 of the SPS Agreement  because the 
de facto  moratorium led to undue delays in the comp letion of EC approval procedures.  The Panel, 
however, found that the European Communities has not  acted inconsistently w ith its obligations under 
other provisions raised by the complaining parties, in cluding Articles 5.1, 5.5, 5.6, 2.2 or 2.3 of the 
SPS Agreement.
 
With regard to the product-specific EC measures, the Panel found that the European Communities has 
acted inconsistently with its obligations under A nnex C(1)(a), first clause, and Article 8 of the SPS 
Agreement  in respect of the approval procedures con cerning 24 out of 27 biotech products identified 
by the complaining parties because there were undue delays in the completion of the approval 
procedures for each of these products.  The Pane l found, however, that the European Communities 
has not acted inconsistently with its obligations un der any other provisions raised by the complaining 
parties, including Articles 5.1, 5.5 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement , with regard to any of the products 
concerned. 
With regard to the EC member State safeguard  measures, the Panel found that the European 
Communities acted inconsistently with its ob ligations under Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS 
Agreement  with regard to all of the safeguard meas ures at issue, because these measures were not 
based on risk assessments satisfying the definition of the SPS Agreement  and hence could be 
presumed to be maintained without  sufficient scientific evidence. 
At its meeting on 21 November 2006, the DSB adopted the panel reports. 
26. WT/DS285 – United States – Measures Aff ecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling 
and Betting Services 
Complaint by Antigua and Barbuda. On 21 March 20 03, Antigua and Barbuda requested consultations 
with the US regarding measures applied by central , regional and local authorities in the US which 
affect the cross-border supply of gambling and bettin g services. Antigua and Barbuda considered that 
the cumulative impact of the US measures is to prevent the supply of gambling and betting services 
from another WTO Member to the United States on a cross-border basis.  
According to Antigua and Barbuda, the measures at i ssue may be inconsistent with the US obligations 
under the GATS, and in particular Articles II, VI , VIII, XI, XVI and XVII thereof, and the US 
Schedule of Specific Commitments annexed to the GATS.  
On 12 June 2003, Antigua and Barbuda requested th e establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 
24 June 2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request by Antigua 
and Barbuda, the DSB established a panel at its me eting on 21 July 2003. Canada, the EC, Mexico 
and Chinese Taipei reserved their third-party righ ts. On 23 July 2003, Japan reserved its third-party 
rights.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 115 
 
 
  On 15 August 2003, Antigua and Barbuda requested the Director General to compose the panel. On 
25 August 2003, the Director-General composed the panel. On 29 January 2004, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible for the Panel to complete its work in six months 
because various factors had had an impact on the Pa nel's timetable, such as a party's request for 
preliminary rulings, the intervention of the holiday season, the heavy agenda of the panelists as well 
as the complexity of the legal and factual ques tions which had been raised. The Panel hoped to 
complete its work by the end of April 2004.  
In the context of the negotiations for a mutually ag reed solution to the present dispute, the parties 
requested the Panel to suspend the panel proceedi ngs, in accordance with Article 12.12 of the DSU, 
until 23 August 2004. On 25 June 2004, the Panel has agreed to this request. The parties subsequently 
requested a continuation of the suspension until 4 Oc tober 2004, and the Panel agreed to the request 
on 18 August 2004. The parties requested a continuation of the suspension until 16 November 2004, and the Panel agreed to the request on 8 Octobe r 2004. On 5 November 2004 Antigua requested the 
resumption of the panel proceedings to the Panel and the United States did not objected to this 
request. The Panel has therefore agreed to resume  the panel proceedings as from 8 November 2004.  
On 10 November 2004, the report of the Panel was ci rculated to Members. The Panel found that:  
• The GATS Schedule of the United States has been interpreted to include specific 
commitments for gambling and betting services under the sub-sector entitled "Other Recreational Services (except sporting)";  
• Three US federal laws (the Wire Act, the Travel Act and the Illegal Gambling Business Act) 
and the provisions of four US state laws (t hose of Louisiana, Massachusetts, South Dakota 
and Utah) on their face, prohibit one, several or all means of delivery included in mode 1 of 
GATS (i.e. cross-border supply), contrary to the United States' specific market access 
commitments for gambling and betting services fo r mode 1. Therefore, the United States 
failed to accord services and service suppliers of Antigua treatment no less favourable than that provided for under the terms, limitations a nd conditions agreed and specified in the US 
Schedule, contrary to Article XVI:1 and Artic le XVI:2 of the GATS (i.e. concerning market 
access);  
• Antigua failed to demonstrate that the measures at issue are inconsistent with Articles VI:1 
and VI:3 of the GATS (i.e. concerning domestic regulation);  
• The United States was not able to invoke su ccessfully the GATS exceptions provisions. In 
this regard, the United States was not able to de monstrate that the Wire Act, the Travel Act 
and the Illegal Gambling Business Act are "necessary" under Articles XIV(a) and XIV(c) of 
the GATS (i.e. "exceptions" provisions, including for public morals) and are consistent with 
the requirements of the chapeau of Article XIV of the GATS;  
• The Panel decided to exercise judicial econom y with respect to Antigua's claims under 
Articles XI (i.e. concerning payments and tr ansfers) and XVII (i.e. concerning national 
treatment) of the GATS.  
On 7 January 2005, United States notified its inte ntion to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. On 19 January 2005, Antigua and Barbuda notified its 
intention to appeal certain issues of law and le gal interpretations developed by the Panel.  
On 8 March 2005, the Chairman of the Appellate Body informed the DSB that the Appellate Body 
would not be able to circulate its Report within  the 60-day period due to the time required for WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 116  
 
  completion and translation of the Report, and that it estimated it would be circulated to WTO 
Members no later than 7 April 2005.  
On 7 April 2005, the report of the Appellate Body was circulated. The Appellate Body: 
• upheld the Panel's finding that an alleged "t otal prohibition" on the cross-border supply of 
gambling and betting services cannot, in and of itself, constitute a "measure" subject to 
dispute settlement under the GATS;  
• found that the Panel should not have ruled on cl aims advanced by Antigua with respect to 
eight state laws of the United States, as to which Antigua had not made a prima facie case of inconsistency with the GATS; 
• upheld the Panel's finding, albeit for different  reasons, that the United States' Schedule 
includes a commitment to grant full market access in gambling and betting services. In 
particular, in the course of its interpretation of the United States' Schedule, the Appellate 
Body disagreed with the Panel's designation of two documents—referred to as W/120 and the 1993 Scheduling Guidelines—as "context" for th e interpretation of Members' Schedules, 
finding instead that they cons titute "preparatory work";  
• upheld the Panel's finding that the United States acts inconsistently with Article XVI:1 and 
sub-paragraphs (a) and (c) of Article XVI:2 by maintaining certain limitations on market 
access not specified in its Schedule; and 
• reversed the Panel's finding that  the United States had not shown that the three federal statutes 
are "necessary to protect public morals or to ma intain public order", within the meaning of 
Article XIV(a); found that the United States' me asures are justified under Article XIV(a) of 
the GATS as measures "necessary to protect public morals or to maintain public order"; and 
upheld, albeit on a narrower ground, the Panel's finding that the United States had failed to 
show that these measures satisfy the conditi ons of the chapeau of Article XIV.  
At its meeting of 20 April 2005, the DSB adopted th e Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body report.  
27. WT/DS282 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods 
(OCTG) from Mexico 
Complaint by Mexico. On 18 February 2003, Mexico requested consultations with the US as regards 
several anti-dumping measures imposed by the US on imports of OCTG from Mexico, including the 
final determinations in some admi nistrative and sunset reviews; and the US authorities' determination 
regarding the continuation of the anti-dumping orders . In addition to these measures, Mexico's request 
includes a number of laws, regulations and administ rative practices (such as "zeroing") used by the 
US authorities in the above determinations. Mexico  considers that the above anti-dumping measures 
are incompatible with Articles 1, 2, 3, 6, 11 and 18 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Articles VI and 
X of the GATT 1994 and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. 
On 29 July 2003, Mexico requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 18 August 2003, 
the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Fu rther to a second request to establish a panel by 
Mexico, the DSB established a panel at its meeti ng on 29 August 2003. Argentina, China, the EC, 
Japan, Chinese Taipei and Venezuela reserved their third-party rights. On 5 September 2003, Canada 
reserved its third-party rights. On 11 Fe bruary 2004, the Panel was composed.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 117 
 
 
  On 16 August 2004, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be able to 
complete its work in six months in light of the sch edule which was agreed after consultations with the 
parties, and that the Panel expected to complete its work in March 2005. 
On 20 June 2005, the Report of the Panel w as circulated to Members. In its report: 
• Regarding Mexico's claims on the legal instrume nts governing determinati ons of likelihood of 
recurrence of dumping, the Panel concluded that  USDOC practice in sun set reviews was not a 
measure properly before it, and therefore dec lined to rule on that aspect of Mexico's 
arguments. The Panel further found that the US  Statute and the SAA were not, themselves, 
inconsistent with Article 11.3 of the Anti-Du mping Agreement, but that the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin (SPB) as such was inconsistent with Article 11.3. 
• Regarding Mexico's claims on the USDOC de termination of likeli hood of recurrence of 
dumping, the Panel found that USDOC had ma de its determinati on of likelihood of 
continuation or recurrence of dumping exclusively on the basis of a decline in import volumes, and failed to consider potentially releva nt evidence. Therefore, the Panel ruled that 
the sunset determination was not consistent with Article 11.3. 
• The Panel also found that the USITC did not act inconsistently with Article 11.3 in 
concluding that expiry of the anti-dumping me asure on OCTG from Mexico would be likely 
to lead to continuation or recurrence of injury , and that the USDOC did not act inconsistently 
with Article 11.2 in determining not to term inate the anti-dumping measure with respect to 
two Mexican exporters based on their specific ci rcumstances. The Panel also concluded that 
certain provisions cited by Mexico are not appli cable to reviews, and in addition it did not 
need to rule on a number of de pendent and consequential claims. 
On 4 August 2005, Mexico notified its decision to app eal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the Report of the Panel. On 16 August 2005, the United States notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in the Report of the Panel. On 26 
September 2005, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that due to the time required for completion 
and translation of the Report, it would not be able to circulate its Report within 60-day period, and 
that it was estimated that the Report would be ci rculated to Members no later than 2 November 2005 
On 2 November 2005, the Appellate Body circulat ed its Report to Members. The Appellate Body 
upheld
 the Panel's finding that the  USITC did not act inconsistently  with Article 11.3 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement , and ruled that it is not necessary to establish the existence of a causal link 
between likely dumping and likely injury.  However, the Appellate Body reversed  the Panel with 
respect to the  Sunset Policy Bulletin , ruling that the Panel failed to make an objective assessment of 
the matter, including an objective assessment of the facts of the case, as required by Article 11 of the  
DSU.  Essentially, the Appellate Body found that the Panel did not adequately assess the evidence  in 
order to come to its conclusion that the Bulletin  establishes an irrebuttable presumption regarding 
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. 
At its meeting on 28 November 2005, the DSB a dopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel 
Report as modified by the Appellate Body Report.  
28. WT/DS277 – United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission in 
Softwood Lumber from Canada 
Complaint by Canada. On 20 December 2002, Canada requested consultations with the United States 
regarding the investigation of the USITC in So ftwood Lumber from Canada (Invs. Nos. 701-TA-414 WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 118  
 
  and 731-TA-928 (Final)) and the final definitive an ti dumping and countervailing duties applied as a 
result of the USITC's final determination made on 2 May 2002, notice of which was published in the 
United States Federal Register on 22 May 2002 (Volume 67, Number 99 at pp. 36022-36023) that an industry in the United States is threatened with ma terial injury by reason of imports of softwood 
lumber from Canada that the Depart ment of Commerce has determined are subsidized and sold in the 
United States at less than fair value.  
Canada claimed that, through these measures, the United States has violated its obligations under 
Article VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994, Articles 1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 12 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles 10, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3,  15.4, 15.5, 15.7, 15.8, 22 and 32.1 of the SCM 
Agreement.  
On 3 April 2003, Canada requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 15 April 2003, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of the panel. Further to a second request by Canada, the DSB 
established a panel at its meeting on 7 May 2003. Th e EC and Japan reserved their third party rights. 
On 16 May 2003, Korea reserved its third party ri ghts. On 12 June 2003, Canada requested the 
Director-General to compose the panel. On 19 June  2003, the Director-General composed the panel. 
On 19 December 2003, the Chairman of the Panel info rmed the DSB that it would not be possible for 
the Panel to complete its work in six months in light of scheduling conflicts. The Panel expected to 
complete its work in February 2004.  
On 22 March 2004, the Panel report was circulated to Members. The Panel found that, in its final 
threat of injury determination, the US Internati onal Trade Commission (USITC) failed to comply with 
the requirements of Articles 3.5 and 3.7 the AD Agreement and Article 15.5 and 15.7 of the SCM 
Agreement in finding a likely imminent substan tial increase in imports and a casual link between 
imports and threat of injury to the domestic indus try in the US producing softwood lumber. The Panel 
found that the USITC's finding of likelihood of subs tantially increased imports was not consistent 
with the requirements of the Agreements, and that th e causation conclusion rested  on this inconsistent 
finding. The Panel therefore found that the anti-dum ping and countervailing measures imposed by the 
US on imports of softwood lumber from Canada are inconsistent with the US  obligations under those 
provisions, and recommended that those measures be brought into conformity with the US obligations.  
At its meeting on 26 April 2004, the DSB adopted the Panel report.  
29. WT/DS276 – Canada – Measures Relating to  Exports of Wheat and Treatment of 
Imported Grain 
Complaint by the United States. On 17 December 2002, the United States requested consultations 
with Canada as regards matters concerning the expor t of wheat by the Canadian Wheat Board and the 
treatment accorded by Canada to  grain imported into Canada.  
According to the United States, the actions of th e Government of Canada and the Canadian Wheat 
Board (entity enjoying exclusive rights to pur chase and sell Western Canadian wheat for human 
consumption) related to export of wheat appear to be  inconsistent with paragr aphs 1(a) and 1(b) of 
Article XVII of GATT 1994.  
As regards the treatment of grain imported into Ca nada, the United States maintains that the following 
Canadian measures are inconsistent with Article III of the GATT 1994 and Article 2 of TRIMs since 
they discriminate against imported grain:   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 119 
 
 
  • Under the Canadian Grain Act and Canadian regulations, imported wheat cannot be mixed 
with Canadian domestic grain being received into  or discharged out of grain elevators, and  
• Canadian Law caps the maximum revenues that railroads may receive on the shipment of 
domestic grain but not revenues received on th e shipment of imported grain; and Canada 
provides a preference for domestic grain ove r imported grain when allocating government-
owned railcars.  
On 20 December 2002, the European Communities,  Japan and Mexico requested to join the 
consultations. On 24 December 2002, Australia request ed to join the consultations. On 6 March 2003, 
the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 18 March 2003, the DSB deferred the 
establishment of a panel. Further to a second request  by the US, the DSB established a Panel at its 
meeting on 31 March 2003. Chile, Chinese Taipei, the EC, Japan and Mexico reserved their third-
party rights. On 9 and 10 April 2003 respectively,  China and Australia reserved their third-party 
rights. On 2 May 2003, Canada requested the Dire ctor-General to compose the panel. On 12 May 
2003, the Director-General compo sed the panel. On 30 June 2003, the United States submitted a new 
request for the establishment of a panel. On 1 July 2003, the Chair of the Panel informed the DSB that 
it had agreed to the United States' request to susp end the Panel for three weeks from 1-21 July 2003. 
The DSB established a second panel at its meeting on 11 July 2003. Australia, Chile, China, the EC, 
Japan and Chinese Taipei reserved their third-party ri ghts. On 25 July 2003, Mexico reserved its third-
party rights. On 11 July 2003, the second Panel wa s composed. Further to a request by the United 
States, acceded to by the Panel, the preliminary ruling by the Panel was circulated to Members for 
their information on 21 July 2003. On 30 October 2003, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB 
that the first Panel would not be able to complete its work within six months due to the three week 
suspension requested by the US fo llowing the issuance of a prelimin ary ruling by the Panel and the 
harmonization of this Panel's timetable with that of the second Panel and that the Panel expected to 
issue its final report to the parties in February 2004.  
On 6 April 2004, the Panel report was circulated to Members. The Panel found that:  
• The United States had failed to establish its cl aim that Canada had breached its obligations 
under Article XVII:1 of the GATT 1994 with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB);  
• Section 57(c) of the Canada Grain Act, and S ection 56(1) of the Canada Grain Regulations 
were inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 and were not justified under 
Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994;  
• Sections 150(1) and (2) of the Canada Transpor tation Act were inconsis tent with Article III:4 
of GATT 1994;  
• The United States had failed to establish its claim that section 87 of the Canada Grain Act was 
inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GA TT 1994 and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement. 
On 1 June 2004, the United States notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues 
of law covered in the Panel Report and certain le gal interpretations deve loped by the Panel.  
On 30 August 2004, the Appellate Body Report was circulated to Members. The Appellate Body 
upheld the Panel's conclusion that the United States  had not demonstrated that the Canadian Wheat 
Board (CWB) Export Regime is inconsistent with  Article XVII:1 of the GATT 1994. At its meeting 
on 27 September 2004, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified 
by the Appellate Body report.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 120  
 
  30. WT/DS273 – Korea – Measures Affectin g Trade in Commercial Vessels 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 21 Oc tober 2002, the European Communities requested 
consultations with Korea on certain measures est ablishing subsidies to its shipbuilding industry 
which, according to the European Communities, are inconsistent with Korea' s obligations under the 
SCM Agreement. These measures are as follows:  
• Corporate restructuring subsidies in the form of  debt forgiveness, debt and interest relief and 
debt-to-equity swaps, provided through g overnment-owned and government-controlled 
banks;  
• Special taxation on in-kind contribution and th e special taxation on spin-off scheme provided 
in the Special Tax Treatment Control Law wh ich establishes two tax programmes limited to 
companies under corporate restructuring and provided tax concessions to Daewoo;  
• Pre-shipment loans and advance payment re fund guarantees provided by the state-owned 
Export-Import Bank of Korea ("KEXIM") to all Korean shipyards.  
The EC indicated that the subsid ies in question were granted with respect to the production of 
commercial vessels for international commerce, includi ng: bulk carriers, container ships, oil tankers, 
product and chemical tankers, LNG/LPG carriers,  passenger and RoRo ferries and other non-cargo 
vessels (including offshore units).  
The EC considered that the Korean measures are in  breach of Korea's obligations under the provisions 
of the SCM Agreement, in particular, but not necessar ily exclusively of: Articles 1, 2, 3.1, 5(a), 5(c), 
6.3 and 6.5 of the SCM Agreement.  
On 12 June 2003, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 24 June 2003, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Fu rther to a second request by the EC, the DSB 
established a panel at its meeting on 21 July 2003.  China, Japan, Mexico, No rway, Chinese Taipei and 
the United States reserved their third-party rights. The DSB also agreed, following the request by the 
EC, to initiate the Annex V procedures pursuant to  paragraph 2 of Annex V of the SCM Agreement 
with respect to developing information concer ning serious prejudice under Annex V of the SCM 
Agreement.  
On 11 August 2003, the EC requested the Director-G eneral to compose the panel. On 20 August 
2003, the panel was composed.  
Following the passing away on 11 April 2004 of Chai rman of the Panel, and pursuant to a joint 
request of the parties on 6 May 2004, the Director-General on 11 May 2004 appointed a new Chairman to the Panel.  
On 7 March 2005, the Panel report was circulated to  Members. The Panel found that certain (but not 
all) KEXIM pre-shipment loans and advance payment refund guarantees are prohibited export subsidies, and thus that Korea is in violation of  Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement. In 
accordance with Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement,  the Panel recommends that Korea withdraw the 
relevant subsidies without dela y, i.e., within 90 days.  
• With regard to the KEXIM legal regime , the Panel, finding the mandatory/discretionary 
distinction was still valid, found the KEXIM le gal regime did not require the provision of 
export subsidies, and that therefore it did not violate Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 121 
 
 
  • With regard to individual APRGs and PSLs  identified by the EC, all of these were found to be 
government financial contributions and conti ngent on export performance. In only certain 
instances, however, did the Panel find that the EC had established that the fees and interest 
rates charged were below the terms that the be neficiaries could have obtained on the market. 
The Panel found that those APRGs and PSLs provi ded at below-market terms were prohibited 
export subsidies, in violation of Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement.  
• With regard to the corporate restructurings , the Panel found that while the transactions 
constituted "financial contributions" and th e government-owned creditors were "public 
bodies" in the sense of SCM Article 1.1(a)(1), the EC had not established that the private sector creditors were "entrusted or directed " by the government to provide financial 
contributions. Looking at the terms of the restru cturings, the Panel found that the EC had not 
established that the decisions to restructure ra ther than liquidate were inconsistent with 
commercial considerations, nor that the terms of the individual elements of the restructurings 
were inconsistent with commerc ial considerations. Thus, the Pa nel found that the EC had not 
demonstrated that the restructurings involved subsidization.  
• With regard to serious prejudice , the Panel examined this claim only in respect of the 
individual instances of KEXIM financing that  it had found to constitute prohibited export 
subsidies, and that involved financing of any of the three ship types covered by the claim 
(LNGs, container ships and product/chemical tanke rs). The Panel found that the EC had not 
established that these subsidized transactions  had caused significant suppression or depression 
of world prices for any of the three ship typ es, because of the relatively small numbers of 
such transactions in relation to the total numbe r of sales of these ships by the Korean industry 
and in the world market as a whole, and becau se the EC had not presented specific evidence 
linking these transactions to overall suppression/depression of world price levels for these ships, and indeed had not attempted to make this argument. 
The DSB adopted the Panel report on 11 April 2005.  31. WT/DS269, WT/DS286 – European Communities  – Customs Classification of Frozen 
Boneless Chicken Cuts 
Complaints by Brazil (WT/DS269) and Thailand (WT/DS286). On 11 October 2002, Brazil requested 
consultations with the European Communities c oncerning EC Commission Regulation No. 1223/2002 
("Regulation No. 1223/2002"), of 8 July 2002, which provides a new description of frozen boneless 
chicken cuts under the EC Combined Nomenclature  ("CN") code 0207.14.10. According to Brazil, 
this new description includes a salt content to the product that did not exist before and subjects the 
imports of these products to a higher tariff than that  applicable to salted meat (CN code 0210) in the 
EC's Schedules under the GATT 1994.  
Brazil submits that Regulation No. 1223/2002 automa tically forces products that were previously 
imported under CN code 0210.99.39,  and subject to an ad valorem tariff rate of 15,4%, to be 
classified under CN code 0207.14.10, and subject to a higher tariff rate of 102,4 €/100kg/net. This 
tariff rate of 102,4 €/100k g/net is in excess of the tariff rate for salted meat (CN code 0210) provided 
for in the EC's Schedules under the GATT 1994.  
As a result of this measure, Brazil considered th at its commerce has been accorded treatment less 
favourable than that provided in the EC Schedules, in  contravention of the obligations of the EC under 
Articles II and XXVIII of the GATT 1994. In addition,  Brazil claimed that the application of this 
measure by the EC nullifies and impairs, within th e meaning of Article XXIII:1, benefits accruing to 
Brazil directly or indirectly under the GATT 1994.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 122  
 
  On 25 October 2002, the United States re quested to join the consultations.  
On 25 March 2003, Thailand requested consultations with the EC on the same  matter. According to 
Thailand, the measure at issue is inconsistent w ith the EC's obligations under Articles II:1(a) and 
II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 and its Schedule of C oncessions. On 3 and 10 April 2003 respectively, 
Brazil and the United States requested to join the c onsultations. The EC informed the DSB that it had 
accepted the request of Brazil to join the consultations.  
On 19 September 2003, Brazil requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 2 October 
2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by Brazil, the DSB established a panel at its m eeting on 7 November 2003. Chile, China, Thailand 
and the United States reserved their third-party rights.  
On 27 October 2003, Thailand requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 7 November 
2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a pa nel. On 21 November 2003, further to a second 
request by Thailand for the establishment of a pane l, the DSB established a single panel, pursuant to 
an agreement between the parties and in accordance with Article 9.1 of the DSU. The Members which 
had reserved their third party rights in the pane l established at the request of Brazil were also 
considered as third parties in the single panel. In  addition, Brazil, Columbia and Chile reserved their 
third-party rights in the single panel.  
On 17 June 2004, Brazil and Thailand requested th e Director-General to compose the panel.  
On 28 June 2004, the Director-General composed th e panel. On 14 July 2004, Chile informed the 
Panel that it did not want to participate as third-party in these panel proceedings.  
On 14 September 2004, Colombia informed the Panel th at it did not want to participate as third-party 
in these panel proceedings. On 19 November 2004, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that 
it would not be able to complete its work in si x months due to the complexity of the case and the 
sensitivity of the legal and factual questions that  have been raised, and that the Panel hoped to 
complete its work by the end of March 2005.  
On 30 May 2005, the Panel report was circulated to  Members. The Panel found that the measure at 
issue is inconsistent with the EC's obligations under Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994, 
because the products at issue were covered by the concession contained in heading 02.10 and yet, the 
measure at issue resulted in the imposition of cu stoms duties on the product at issue in excess of the 
duties provided for in respect of the concession contained in heading 02.10, by classifying the 
products at issue under the concession contained in heading 02.07. On 13 June 2005, the European 
Communities notified its decision to appeal to the A ppellate Body certain issues of law covered in the 
Panel Reports and certain legal in terpretations developed by the Pa nel in these reports. On 27 June 
2005, Brazil notified its decision to appeal to the Appe llate Body certain issues  of law covered in the 
Panel Reports and certain legal in terpretations developed by the Pa nel in these reports. On 11 August 
2005, the Chairman of the Appellate Body inform ed the DSB that due to the time required for 
completion and translation of the Report, the Appellate  Body would not be able to circulate its Report 
by 12 August 2005, and that it estimated that the Appellate Body Report in this appeal would be 
circulated to WTO Members no later than 12 Se ptember 2005. On 12 September 2005, the Appellate 
Body circulated its Report to Members. The Appe llate Body essentially upheld the procedural and 
substantive conclusions of the Panel, such that it found that the European Communities' measures to 
be WTO-inconsistent, although th e Appellate Body relied on different reasoning. However, the 
Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding that  the European Communities' practice, between 1996 
and 2002, of classifying the products at issue as salted meat constitutes "subsequent practice in the 
application of the treaty which establishes the agreem ent of the parties regarding its interpretation"  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 123 
 
 
  under Article 31(3)(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. At its meeting on 27 
September 2005, the DSB adopted the Appellate Bo dy Report and the Panel Report as modified by 
the Appellate Body report.  
32. WT/DS268 – United States – Sunset Reviews of  Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country 
Tubular Goods from Argentina 
Complaint by Argentina. On 7 October 2002, Ar gentina requested consultations with the US 
regarding the final determinations of the US  Department of Commerce ("DOC") and the US 
International Trade Commission ("ITC") in the sunset reviews of the anti-dumping duty order on OCTG from Argentina, issued on 7 November  2000 (65 Federal Register 66701) and June 2001 
(USITC Pub. No. 3434), respectively, and the DOC's  determination to continue the anti-dumping duty 
order on OCTG from Argentina, issued on 25 July 2001 (66 Federal Register 38630).  
Argentina considered that general US laws, re gulations, policies and procedures related to the 
administration of sunset reviews and the applica tion of anti-dumping measures were inconsistent 
either on their face or as applied with Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 18 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement (ADA); Articles VI and X of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994; 
and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
Furthermore, Argentina claimed th at the sunset review conducted by  the DOC is inconsistent with 
Articles 2, 5, 5.8, 11.3, 11.4, 12.1, and 12.3 of th e ADA. It also claimed that the sunset review 
conducted by the ITC was inconsistent with Articles 3 and 11.3 of the ADA.  
On 3 April 2003, Argentina requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 15 April 2003, 
the DSB deferred the establishment of the panel. Further to a second request by Argentina, the DSB 
established a panel at its meeting on 19 May 2003. Th e EC, Japan, Korea, Mexico and Chinese Taipei 
reserved their third-party rights. On 22 August 200 3, Argentina requested the Director-General to 
compose the panel. On 4 September 2003, the Director-General composed the panel.  
On 4 March 2004, the Chairman of the Panel informed  the DSB that it would not be able to complete 
its work in six months in light of scheduling conflicts  and that the Panel expected to complete its work 
in June 2004.  
On 16 July 2004, the report of the Panel was ci rculated to Members. The Panel found that:  
• Certain provisions of United States' law regard ing waivers in sunset reviews and certain 
provisions of the Sunset Policy Bulletin (SPB) concerning the DOC's obligation to determine 
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumpi ng in sunset reviews are inconsistent with 
the US obligations under certain provisions of the ADA. With respect to the DOC's likelihood 
determinations in the OCTG sunset review, the Panel finds that the DOC acted inconsistently 
with certain provisions of the ADA, but did not act inconsistently with other provisions of 
that Agreement;  
• The US law's standard for the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury 
determinations in sunset reviews and the ITC's determinations in the OCTG sunset review are 
not inconsistent with the relevant articles of the ADA.  
On 31 August 2004, United States notified its inten tion to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. On 28 Oc tober 2004, the Chairman of the Appellate Body 
informed the DSB that the Appellate Body would not  be able to circulate its Report within 60-day 
period due to the time required for completion and tr anslation of the Report, and that the Appellate WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 124  
 
  Body expected to complete its work no late r than 29 November 2004 On 29 November 2004, the 
Appellate Body Report was circulated to Members. The Appellate Body:  
with respect to the issues appealed by the United States:   
• upheld  the Panel's finding that Argentina's challenges to certain provisions of United States 
law—namely, Sections 751(c) and 752(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the Statement of 
Administrative Action, and the Sunset Policy Bu lletin—were set out with sufficient clarity in 
Argentina's request for the establishment of a pa nel, as required by Article 6.2 of the DSU;  
• upheld  the Panel's finding that the Sunset Polic y Bulletin is a "measure" subject to WTO 
dispute settlement proceedings;  
• found  that the Panel did not meet its obligatio n under Article 11 of the DSU to "make an 
objective assessment of the matter before it", with respect to the Panel's analysis leading to its 
conclusion that the Sunset Policy Bulletin is  inconsistent with Article 11.3 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement (governing reviews of anti-dumping duties after five years) because the 
Panel relied solely on overall statistics and did no t appear to conduct a qualitative analysis of 
the cases filed in evidence. Consequently, the Appellate Body reversed  this conclusion of the 
Panel;  
• upheld  the Panel's finding that Section 751(c)(4 )(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and Section 
351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the USDOC Regulations—provisions that allow for parties to be considered to have waived their rights to pa rticipation in a sunset review proceeding under 
certain circumstances—are inconsistent with Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  
because the USDOC's determinations based on such waivers do not qualify as reasoned 
conclusions based on positive evidence;  
• upheld  the Panel's finding that Section 351.218( d)(2)(iii) of the USDOC Regulations —a 
provision that allows for parties to be "deemed" to have waived their rights to participation in 
a sunset review proceeding under certain circumst ances—is inconsistent with Articles 6.1 and 
6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because the deemed waiver negates a party's ample 
opportunity to present evidence and full opportuni ty to defend its interests as required by 
Article 6.1 and 6.2; and  
• found  that the Panel, in the course of arriving at  its conclusions on waivers (points 4 and 5 
above), did not fail to meet its obligations unde r Article 11 of the DSU to "make an objective 
assessment of the matter before it, including an objective assessment of the facts of the case";  
with respect to the issues appealed by Argentina:   
• upheld  the Panel's finding that the disciplines in Article 3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  
regarding original determination of injury do  not apply to investigating authorities when 
making determinations in sunset reviews. The Appellate Body further found  that the Panel did 
not err in its interpretation of the term "injury" in Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement , or in its analysis with respect to the factors that must be considered by an 
investigating authority when making a determination in a sunset review;  
• upheld  the Panel's finding that investigating authorities are not prohibited, by virtue of 
Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , from "cumulating" the effects of likely dumped 
imports when determining whether injury to th e domestic industry would be likely to continue 
or recur after termination of anti-dumpi ng duties. The Appellate Body further upheld  the  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 125 
 
 
  Panel's finding that the conditions applicable to such "cumulation" set out in Article 3.3 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement  do not apply in the context of sunset reviews under Article 11.3;  
• found  that the Panel did not err in its interpretati on of the term "likely" in Article 11.3 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement , and upheld  the Panel's finding that the determination made by the 
United States International Trade Commission (" USITC"), with respect to the likelihood of 
continuation or recurrence of injury to th e domestic industry upon termination of anti-
dumping duties, was not inconsistent with Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;  
• upheld  the Panel's finding that Sections 752(a)(1) and 752(a)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930—
which allow the USITC to consider the like lihood of injury recurring "within a reasonably 
foreseeable time"—are not inconsistent with Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement . 
The Appellate Body further upheld  the Panel's finding that the United States did not act 
inconsistently with Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  in the application of these 
provisions by the USITC in the sunset review determination underlying this dispute; and  
• declined to rule  on Argentina's conditional appeal  of two issues, one under the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement  relating to the "practice" of the USODC in sunset reviews, and the other under the 
GATT 1994 relating to the administration of sunset review laws by the USDOC.  
At its meeting on 17 December 2004, the DSB adopt ed the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.  
33. WT/DS267 – United States -Subsidies on Upland Cotton 
Complaint by Brazil. On 27 September 2002 Brazil re quested consultations with the US regarding 
prohibited and actionable subsidies provided to US producers, users and/or exporters of upland cotton, 
as well as legislation, regulations, statutory inst ruments and amendments thereto providing such 
subsidies (including export credits), grants, and any other assistance to the US producers, users and 
exporters of upland cotton ("US upland cotton industry").  
Brazil contended that these measures were inconsis tent with the obligations of the US under the 
following provisions: Articles 5(c), 6.3(b), (c) and (d), 3.1(a) (including item (j) of the Illustrative List 
of Export Subsidies in Annex I), 3.1(b), and 3.2 of  the SCM Agreement; Articles 3.3, 7.1, 8, 9.1 and 
10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Article III:4 of GATT 1994. Brazil was of the view that 
the US statutes, regulations, and administrative pr ocedures listed above were inconsistent with these 
provisions as such and as applied.  
On 9 October and 11 October 2002, Zimbabwe and India, respectively, requested to join the 
consultations. On 14 October 2002, Argentina and Ca nada requested to join the consultations. The 
United States informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Argentina and India to join the 
consultations.  
On 6 February 2003, Brazil request ed the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 19 February 
2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request by Brazil, the DSB 
established a Panel at its meeting on 18 March 2003 . Argentina, Canada, China, Chinese Taipei, the 
EC, India, Pakistan and Venezuela reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's 
proceedings. At that meeting, the Chairman of th e DSB announced that he continued to consult with 
Brazil and the US on the issue of appointing a DSB representative to facilitate the information-
gathering process, pursuant to the Annex V pro cedures under the SCM Agreement, which had been 
invoked by Brazil in its panel request. On 24 March 200 3, Benin reserved its third-party rights. On 25 
March 2003, Australia reserved its third-party righ ts. On 26 March 2003, Pa raguay reserved its third-WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 126  
 
  party rights. On 28 March 2003, New Zealand reserved its third-party rights. On 4 April 2003, Chad 
reserved its third-party rights. On 9 May 2003, Braz il requested the Director-General to compose the 
panel. On 19 May 2003, the Director-General composed the panel.  
On 17 November 2003, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be able to 
complete its work in six months due to the comple xity of the matter and that the Panel expected to 
issue its final report to the parties in May 2004.  
On 8 September 2004, the report of the Panel was circulated to Members. The Panel found that:  
• agricultural export credit guarantees are subject  to WTO export subsidy disciplines and three 
United States export credit guarantee programme s are prohibited export subsidies which have 
no Peace Clause protection and are in violation of those disciplines;  
• the United States also grants several other pr ohibited subsidies in respect of cotton;  
• United States' domestic support programmes in respect of cotton are not protected by the 
Peace Clause, and certain of these programmes resu lt in serious prejudice to Brazil's interests 
in the form of price suppression in the world market.  
In respect of the prohibited subsidies, the Pane l recommended that the United States withdraw the 
measures found to be inconsistent without delay, that  is, within six months of the date of adoption of 
the Panel report by the DSB or 1 July 2005 (which ever is earlier).  In respect of the actionable 
subsidies, the Panel referred to Artic le 7.8 of the SCM Agreement.   
On 18 October 2004, United States notified its inten tion to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. On 16 D ecember 2004, the Chairman of the Appellate Body 
informed the DSB that due to the numerous and comp lex issues arising in this  dispute, the Appellate 
Body would not be able to circulate its Report by Friday, 17 December 2004. The Chairman then 
stated in the letter that in the light of the numer ous and complex issues raised, the increased burden on 
the Appellate Body as well as the translation services, the intervening holiday period, and the fact that 
the Appellate Body expected to be considering tw o or three other appeals in the coming weeks, the 
Appellate Body estimated that the Appellate Body Re port in this appeal would be circulated to WTO 
Members no later than Thursday, 3 March 2005.  
On 3 March 2005, the Appellate Body  Report was circulated to Members. The Appellate Body found 
inter alia  as follows:  
(a) As regards the applicability of the Peace Clause  to this dispute, the Appellate Body:  
• upholds  the Panel's finding that two challenged measures (production flexibility contract and 
direct payments) are related to the type of production undertaken after the base period and 
thus are not green box  measures conforming fully to pa ragraph 6(b) of Annex 2 to the 
Agreement on Agriculture ; and, therefore, are not exempt, by virtue of Article 13(a)(ii), from 
actions under Article XVI of GATT 1994 and Part III of the SCM Agreement ;  
• modifies  the Panel's interpretation of the phrase "support to a specific commodity" in 
Article 13(b)(ii), but upholds  the Panel's conclusion that the challenged domestic support 
measures granted support to upland cotton; and  
• upholds  the Panel's finding that the challenged domestic support measures granted, between 
1999 and 2002, support to upland cotton in excess  of that decided during the 1992 benchmark  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 127 
 
 
  period and, therefore, that these measures are not exempt, by virtue of Article 13(b)(ii), from 
actions under Article XVI:1 of th e GATT 1994 and Part III of the SCM Agreement ;  
(b) As regards serious prejudice , the Appellate Body:  
• upholds  the Panel's finding that the effect of th e challenged price-contingent subsidies 
(marketing loan program payments, user marketing (Step 2) payments, market loss assistance 
payments, and counter-cyclical payments) are significant price suppression within the 
meaning of Article 6.3(c) of the SCM Agreement , by in turn upholding  the Panel's findings 
that: (i) the "same market" in Article 6.3(c) ma y be a "world market", a "world market" for 
upland cotton exists, and "the A-Index can be taken to reflect a world price in the world 
market for upland cotton"; (ii) "a causal link ex ists" between the price-contingent subsidies 
and significant price suppression, and that this link is not attenuated by other factors raised by 
the United States; (iii) it was not required to  quantify precisely the benefit conferred on 
upland cotton by the price-contingent subsidies;  and (iv) the effect of the price-contingent 
subsidies for marketing years 1999 to 2002 is significant price suppression in the same period;  
• finds  that the Panel set out the findings of fact , the applicability of relevant provisions, and 
the basic rationale behind this finding, as required by Article 12.7 of the DSU; and  
• finds  it unnecessary to rule on the interpretation of the term "world market share" in 
Article 6.3(d) of the SCM Agreement  and neither upholds nor reverses  the Panel's finding that 
this term means world supply  share;  
(c) As regards user marketing (Step 2) payments , the Appellate Body:  
• upholds  the Panel's findings that Step 2 payments to domestic users  of United States upland 
cotton, under Section 1207(a) of the FSRI Act of 2002, are subsidies contingent on the use of domestic over imported goods that are inconsistent with Artic les 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM 
Agreement ; and  
• upholds  the Panel's findings that Step 2 payments to exporters  of United States upland cotton, 
pursuant to Section 1207(a) of the FSRI Act of 2002, are subsidies contingent upon export 
performance within the meani ng of Article 9.1(a) of the Agreement on Agriculture  that are 
inconsistent with Articles 3.3 and 8 of that Agreement and Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM 
Agreement;  
(d) As regards export credit guarantee programs , the Appellate Body:  
• in a majority  opinion, upholds  the Panel's finding that Article 10.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture  does not exempt export credit guarantees from the export subsidy disciplines in 
Article 10.1 of that Agreement;  
• one Member of the Division, in a separate  opinion, expresses the contrary view that 
Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture  exempts  export credit guarantees from the 
disciplines of Article 10.1 of that Agreement until international disciplines are agreed upon;  
• finds  that the Panel did not improperly apply the burden of proof  in finding that the United 
States' export credit guarantee programs are prohi bited export subsidies under Article 3.1(a) 
of the SCM Agreement  and are consequently inconsistent w ith Article 3.2 of that Agreement;  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 128  
 
  • upholds  the Panel's finding that "the United States export credit guarantee programmes at 
issue—GSM 102, GSM 103 and SCGP—constitute a per se  export subsidy within the 
meaning of item (j) of the Illustrative List of Export Subsidies in Annex I of the SCM 
Agreement ", and upholds  the Panel's findings that these export credit guarantee programs are 
export subsidies for purposes of Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement  and are inconsistent 
with Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of that Agreement; and  
• finds  that the Panel did not err  in exercising judicial economy  in respect of Brazil's allegation 
that the United States' export credit guarantee programs are prohibited export subsidies, under 
Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement , because they confer a "benefit" within the meaning of 
Article 1.1 of that Agreement.   
At its meeting on 21 March 2005, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report a nd the Panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body report.  
34. WT/DS265, WT/DS266, WT/DS283 – European Communities – Export Subsidies on 
Sugar 
Complaints by Australia (WT/DS265), Brazil (WT/DS266) and Thailand (WT/DS283). On 27 
September 2002, Australia and Brazil requested consultations with the European Communities 
concerning the export subsidies provided by the EC in the framework of its Common Organisation of 
the Market for the sugar sector. The requests con cerned Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/2001 of 
19 June 2001 on the EC's common organization of the markets in the sugar sector, and all other 
legislation, regulations, administrative policies and other instruments relating to the EC regime for 
sugar and sugar containing products including the ru les adopted pursuant to the procedure referred to 
in Article 42(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 126 0/2001, and any other provision related thereto. 
On 14 March 2003, Thailand requested consultations  with the European Communities on the same 
matter.  
Australia contended that the EC provides under the a bove measures export subsid ies in excess of the 
export subsidy commitments that it has specified in Section II of Part IV of its Schedule of 
Concessions, in relation to "C sugar" and an amount of 1.6 million tons of sugar per year and possibly 
also sugar in incorporated products. It further alleg es that the EC may also be paying a higher per unit 
subsidy on incorporated products than on the primar y product. In addition, u nder the EC sugar regime 
refiners are paid a subsidy, in the form of the in tervention price, for refining EC sugar which is not 
available to imported sugar, thus affording l ess favourable treatment to imported products.  
According to Australia, the regulation and related instruments and measures taken thereunder appear 
to be inconsistent with, at least:  
• Articles 3.3, 8, 9.1, 10.1 and 11 of the Agreement on Agriculture,  
• Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement; and  
• Articles III:4 and XVI of GATT 1994.  
According to Brazil, the EC provides, under Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/2001, export 
subsidies for sugar and sugar containing products above its reduction commitment levels specified in 
Section II of Part IV of its Schedule of Concessions . Brazil explained that the EC intervention price 
system for sugar guarantees a high price for the s ugar that is produced within certain production 
quotas (A and B quotas). Sugar produced in excess of  these quotas (so-called C sugar) cannot be sold 
internally in the year in which it is produced: it mu st be exported or carried over to fulfil the following  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 129 
 
 
  year's production quotas. Under the EC's common orga nization of the sugar market and its regulatory 
framework, exporters of C sugar are able to export C s ugar at prices below its total cost of production.  
In addition, according to the EC's Schedule for s ugar and the agricultural notifications submitted by 
the EC to the WTO for marketing years 1995/1996 through 2000/2001, the EC provides export subsidies in excess of its commitments to approximate ly 1.6 million tons of sugar per year. The export 
subsidies provided by the EC (referred to in the EC Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/2001 as 
"export refunds") cover the difference between the world market price and the high prices in the 
Community for the products in question, thus enabling those products to be exported.  
Brazil also believed that the EC sugar regime acco rds less favourable treatme nt to imported sugar and 
is thus in violation of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.  
Brazil claimed that, by providing export subsidi es for sugar in excess of its reduction commitment 
levels the EC is acting inconsistently with at least the requirements of:  
• Articles 3.3, 8, 9.1(a) and (c), and 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture;  
• Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement; and  
• Articles III:4 and XVI of GATT 1994.  
According to Thailand:  
• The EC sugar regime accords imported sugar a le ss favourable treatment than that accorded to 
domestic sugar and provides for subsidies con tingent upon the use of domestic over imported 
products;  
• The EC sugar regime accords export subsid ies above its reduction commitment levels 
specified in Section II of Part IV of the EC's  Schedule to the sugar produced in excess of its 
production quotas (so-called C sugar);  
• The EC provides export subsidies (known as "e xport refunds") that cover the difference 
between the world market price and the high pri ces in the EC for the products in question, 
thus enabling those products to be exported.  
Thailand considered that the above subsidies are in consistent with the EC's obligations under:  
• Article III:4 of GATT 1994;  
• Articles 3.1(a), 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement; and  
• Articles 3.3, 8, 9.1 and 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
In the dispute WT/DS265, Barbados, Belize, Brazil , Canada, Colombia, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Fiji, 
Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya,  Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, St . Kitts and Nevis, Swaziland and 
Zimbabwe requested to join the consultations. On 24 October 2002, the EC informed the DSB that it 
had accepted the requests of Barbados, Belize, Brazil,  Canada, Colombia, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Fiji, 
Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya,  Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, St . Kitts and Nevis, Swaziland and 
Zimbabwe to join the consultations. WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 130  
 
  In the dispute WT/DS266, Australia, Barbados, Beli ze, Canada, Colombia, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Fiji, 
Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya,  Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, St . Kitts and Nevis, Swaziland and 
Zimbabwe requested to join the consultations. On 24 October 2002, the EC informed the DSB that it 
had accepted the requests of Australia, Barbados, Be lize, Canada, Colombia, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, 
Fiji, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Madagascar, Ma lawi, Mauritius, St. Kitts and Nevis, Swaziland 
and Zimbabwe to join the consultations. 
On 9 July 2003, Australia, Brazil and Thailand each requested the establishment of a panel. At its 
meeting on 21 July 2003, the DSB deferred the estab lishment of the panels. Further to second requests 
to establish a panel from Australia, Brazil and Thailand, the DSB established a single panel at its meeting on 29 August 2003. Barba dos, Canada, China, Colombia, Ja maica, Mauritius, New Zealand, 
Trinidad and Tobago and the US reserved their third-party rights. On 1 September 2003, Belize, 
Cuba, Fiji and Guyana reserved their third-pa rty rights. On 2 September 2003, Paraguay and 
Swaziland reserved their third-part y rights. On 5 September 2003, India, Madagascar and Malawi 
reserved their third-party rights. On 8 Septembe r 2003, Australia, Brazil, St. Kitts and Nevis, 
Tanzania and Thailand reserved thei r third-party rights. On 26 Se ptember 2003, Kenya reserved its 
third-party right. On 5 November 2003, Côte d'Ivoire reserved its third-party right.  
On 15 December 2003, Australia, Brazil and Thailand requested the Director-General to determine 
the composition of the panel. On 23 December 2003, th e Director-General compo sed the Panel. On 23 
June 2004, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DS B that it would not be able to complete its work 
in six months due to the complexity of the matter a nd that the Panel expected to complete its work by 
early September 2004.  
On 15 October 2004, the Panel circulated to Members its  separate but identical reports with respect to 
WT/DS283, WT/DS266 and WT/DS265 respectively. The Panel found, inter alia, that:  
• the European Communities' annual budgetary outlay and quantity commitment levels for 
exports of subsidized sugar were  determined with reference to the entries specified in Section 
II, Part IV of its Schedule and the content of Footnote 1 in relation to these entries was of no 
legal effect and did not enlarge or otherwise modify the European Communities' specified 
commitment levels.  
• the European Communities' exports of suga r had exceeded its annual commitment levels 
since 1995, and in particular since the marketing year 2000/2001.  
• producers/exporters of "ACP/India equivale nt sugar" that exceeded the European 
Communities' reduction commitment levels r eceived subsidies within the meaning of 
Article 9.1(a) of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
• producers/exporters of C sugar that exceed ed the European Communities' reduction 
commitment levels received payments on export by virtue of governmental action, within the 
meaning of Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
In light of Article 10.3 of the Agreement on Agricu lture, which provides that where a Member exports 
an agricultural product in quantities that exceed its quantity commitment level, that Member will be 
treated as if it has granted WTO-inconsistent export subsidies for the excess quantities, unless the 
Member presents adequate evidence to "establish" the contrary, the Panel reached the conclusion that 
the European Communities had not demonstrated that the exports of C sugar and "ACP/India equivalent" sugar in excess of its annual commitment levels were not subsidized.  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 131 
 
 
  The Panel concluded that the European Commu nities, through its sugar regime, had acted 
inconsistently with its obligati ons under Articles 3.3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture, by 
providing export subsidies within the meaning of Article 9.1(a) and (c) of the Agreement on 
Agriculture in excess of the quantity commitment level and the budgetary outlay commitment level 
specified in Section II, Part IV of Schedule CXL. 
At its meeting of 13 December 2004, following a re quest from all the parties, the DSB agreed to 
extend the 60-day period for the adoption of the Panel report until 31 January 2005. On 13 January 
2005, the European Communities notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel.  
On 28 April 2005, the report of the Appellate Body  was circulated. The Appellate Body found that: 
• Footnote 1 does not enlarge or otherwise modify the European Communities' commitment 
levels as specified in its Schedule; Foot note 1 does not contain a commitment to limit 
subsidization of exports of ACP/ India equivalent sugar; and th at Footnote 1 is inconsistent 
with the Agreement on Agriculture, becau se it does not contain a budgetary outlay 
commitment and does not subject subsidized exports of ACP/India equivalent sugar to 
reduction commitments.  
• in the particular circumstances of this dispute, th ere is a "payment" in the form of a transfer of 
financial resources from the high revenues resu lting from sales of A and B sugar, to the 
export production of C sugar, within the mean ing of Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on 
Agriculture; such payments were "on the expor t" within the meaning of Article 9.1(c), 
because C sugar, under European Communities' law,  must be exported; and that he European 
Communities had acted inconsistently with Articles 3.3 and 8 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture by providing export subsidies in exce ss of its commitment levels as specified in 
its Schedule.  
• the Panel erred in not ruling on the Complain ing Parties' claims under the SCM Agreement, 
because the Panel's ruling under the Agreemen t on Agriculture was in sufficient to fully 
resolve the dispute, especially in relation to  implementation of a remedy; but that because 
there was insufficient material before it, it was not in a position to complete the legal analysis 
and to examine the Complaining Parties' clai ms under the SCM Agreement that were left 
unaddressed by the Panel. 
At its meeting of 19 May 2005, the DSB adopted th e Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body report.  
35. WT/DS264 – United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from 
Canada 
Complaint by Canada. On 13 September 2002, Canada  requested consultations under Article 4.8 of 
the DSU (urgency procedure) with  the US concerning the final affirmative determination of sales at 
less than fair value (dumping) with respect to certain softwood lumber products from Canada (Inv. 
No. A-122-838) announced by the US Departme nt of Commerce (DOC) on 21 March 2002 pursuant 
to section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as ame nded on 22 May 2002 (Final Determination). The 
measures at issue include the initiation of the invest igation, the conduct of the investigation and the 
Final Determination.  
Canada considered these measures and, in par ticular, the determinati ons made and methodologies 
adopted therein by the DOC under authority of the United States Tariff Act of 1930 , to violate Articles WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 132  
 
  1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.8, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.9 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  
and Articles VI and X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.  
On 6 December 2002, Canada requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting of 19 December 
2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request by Canada, a panel 
was established by the DSB at its meeting on 8 Janua ry 2003. The EC and India reserved their third-
party rights. On 15 January 2003, Japan reserved it s third-party rights. On 25 February 2003, the 
Panel was composed.  
On 25 August 2003, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that due to the complexity of the 
matter, the Panel would not be able to complete its work in six months. The Panel expected to issue its 
final report to the parties in December 2003. On 2 December 2003, the Chairman of the Panel 
informed the DSB that the Panel e xpected to issue its final report to the parties in February 2004.  
On 13 April 2004, the Panel report was circulated to Members. The Panel found that, in its final 
dumping determination, the US Department of  Commerce (DOC) failed to comply with the 
requirements of Articles 2.4.2 of the AD Agreemen t because the DOC did not take into account all 
export transactions by applying the "zeroing" met hodology when calculating the margin of dumping. 
(One member of the Panel issued a dissenting opini on regarding the finding on "zeroing".) The Panel 
found that all other claims s ubmitted by Canada failed.  
On 13 May 2004, the United States notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues 
of law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations de veloped by the Panel. On 8 July 
2004, the Chairman of the Appellate Body informed the DSB that it would not be possible for the Appellate Body to complete its work within 60-da y period due to the time required for completion 
and translation of the Report. The Appellate Body expected to complete its work no later than 11 
August 2004.  
On 11 August 2004, the Appellate Body Report was circulated to Members. The Appellate Body:  
• upheld  the Panel's finding that the United States had acted inconsistently with the Anti-
Dumping Agreement  by calculating margins of dumping on the basis of a methodology 
incorporating the practice of "zeroing";  
• reversed  the Panel's finding that the United States did not act inconsistently with the Anti-
Dumping Agreement  when calculating the amount of fina ncial expense attributable to the 
production of softwood lumber for Abitibi,  one of the Canadian companies under 
investigation. Although the Appellate Body re versed the Panel on this issue, it was not 
required itself to rule on whether the United St ates had acted inconsistently with its WTO 
obligations in this regard; and  
• upheld  the Panel's finding that the United States did not act inconsistently with certain 
provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  when calculating the amount for by-product 
revenue from the "sale" of wood chips for Tembec, another Canadian company under 
investigation. The Appellate Body did not dist urb the Panel's finding that the United States 
had not acted in a biased, non-objective, or other than even-handed manner.  
At its meeting on 31 August 2004, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body repor t and the Panel report, 
as modified by the Appellate Body report.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 133 
 
 
  36. WT/DS257 – United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with respect to 
certain Softwood Lumber from Canada 
Complaint by Canada. On 3 May 2002, Canada re quested consultations with the US. The request 
concerned the final affirmative countervailing du ty determination by the US Department of 
Commerce (File No. C-122839) issued on 25 March 2002, with respect to cer tain softwood lumber 
from Canada. The measures at issue include the initia tion and conduct of the investigation, the final 
determination, provision of expedited reviews, a nd other matters related to these measures. Canada 
contended that these measures were inconsistent with , and violate US obligations under Articles 1, 2, 
10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 22 and 32.1 of the SCM Ag reement and Articles VI:3 and X:3 of GATT 1994.  
On 18 July 2002, Canada requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 29 July 2002, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. On 19 August 2002, Canada requested the withdrawal of 
its previous request for the establishment of a panel and submitted a new request. In particular, 
Canada claimed that in initiating the Lumber IV i nvestigation, the United States had violated Articles 
10, 11.4 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement. In all th e other claims, the new request corresponded to the 
previous one (18 July 2002). At its meeting on  30 August 2002, the DSB deferred the establishment 
of a panel. At its meeting on 1 October 2002, th e DSB established a panel. The EC, India and Japan 
reserved their third-party rights to participate in  the panel proceedings. On  8 November 2002, the 
panel was composed.  
On 29 August 2003, the Panel report was circulated  to Members. The Panel found that the USDOC 
Final Countervailing Duty Determina tion was inconsistent with Articles 10, 14, 14(d) and 32.1 SCM 
Agreement and Article VI:3 of GATT 1994. The Pane l decided to apply judicial economy as regards 
Canada's claims under Article 19.4 SCM Agreemen t and Article VI:3 of GATT 1994 concerning the 
methodologies used to calculate the subsidy rate; and its  claims of violation of the procedural rules of 
evidence set forth in Article 12 SCM Agreement. Furthe r to Canada's statement at the first substantive 
meeting of the Panel with the parties that it did not consider it appropriate to press its claims under 
Articles 10, 11.4 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement c oncerning the initiation of the investigation, the 
Panel also refrain from addressing and making a ruling on these claims. Accordingly, the Panel 
recommended that the DSB requests the United States to  bring its measure into conformity with its 
obligations under the SCM Agreement and GATT 1994.  
On 2 October 2003, the United States notified its d ecision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain 
issues of law covered in the Panel Report and certa in legal interpretations developed by the Panel. 
However, on 3 October 2003, the United States withdr ew its notice of appeal for scheduling reasons, 
although the withdrawal is conditional on the US right  to file a new notice of appeal within the 
timeframe permitted by the DSU.  
On 21 October 2003, the United States notified its deci sion to re-file its appeal to the Appellate Body 
of certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpre tations developed by the 
Panel.  
On 17 December 2003, the Chairman of the Appella te Body informed the DSB that the Appellate 
Body would not be able to circulate its Report with in the 60-day period due to the time required for 
completion and translation of the Report and it estimated that the Appellate Body Report would be circulate to WTO Members no later than 19 January 2004.  
On 19 January 2004, the Appellate Body Report was circulated to Members. The Appellate Body:  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 134  
 
  • upheld the Panel's finding that the US had correctly  determined that harvesting rights granted 
by Canadian provincial governments in respect  of standing timber constituted the provision of 
goods under Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement ; 
• reversed the Panel's interpretation of Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement and the Panel's 
finding that the US had improperly determined the existence and amount of the "benefit" 
resulting from the financial contribution provided.  Then the Appellate Body found that it was 
unable to complete the legal analysis of whethe r the US had correctly determined benefit in 
this investigation, due to insufficient factual findings by the Panel and insufficient undisputed 
facts in the Panel record; and  
• upheld the Panel's finding that the US had acted inconsistently with provisions of the SCM 
Agreement and the GATT 1994 by failing to analyze whether subsidies were passed through 
in sales of logs by sawmill-owning harvesters to unrelat ed lumber producers. On the other 
hand, the Appellate Body reversed the Panel's fi ndings that the US acted inconsistently with 
its WTO obligations by failing to consider whet her subsidies were passed through in sales of 
primary lumber by sawmills to unrelated lumber remanufacturers, because both primary and 
remanufactured lumbers were products subject  to USDOC's aggregate investigation.  
At its meeting on 17 February 2004, the DSB adopted  the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, 
as modified by the Appellate Body report.  
37. WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/DS251, WT/DS 252, WT/DS253, WT/DS254, WT/DS258, 
WT/DS259 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products 
Complaints by the European Communities (W T/DS248), Japan (WT/DS249), Korea (WT/DS251), 
China (WT/DS252), Switzerland (WT/DS253), Norway (WT/DS254), New Zealand (WT/DS258) and Brazil (WT/DS259).  
On 7 March 2002, the European Communities requ ested consultations with the United States 
regarding the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US in the form of an increase in duties on 
imports of certain flat steel, hot-rolled bar, cold-fi nished bar, rebar, certain welded tubular products, 
carbon and alloy fittings, stainless steel bar, stainless steel rod, tin mill products and stainless steel wire and in the form of a tariff rate quota on im ports of slabs effective as of 20 March 2002. The 
European Communities considered that the aforem entioned US measures were in breach of US 
obligations under the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994, and in particular Articles 2.1, 2.2 
,3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 7.1 and 9.1 of the Agreement on Sa feguards and Articles I:1, XIII and 
XIX:1 of GATT 1994. The European Communities also reserved all its rights regarding the pursuit of 
the remedies provided for under the Agreement on Safeguards and the DSU.  
On 14 March 2002, Japan and Korea requested to join the consultations. On 15 March 2002, 
Switzerland and Canada also requested to join th e consultations. On 20 March 2002, Venezuela also 
requested to join the consultations. On 21 Marc h 2002, Norway and China requested to join the 
consultations as well. On 22 March 2002, Mexico al so requested to join the consultations. On 25 
March 2002, New Zealand also requested to join th e consultations. The US informed the DSB that it 
had accepted the requests of Canada, China, Jap an, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, 
Switzerland and Venezuela to join the consultations.  
On 20 March 2002, Japan (WT/DS249) requested consultations with the United States also with 
regard to the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on the imports of certain steel products 
and claimed violations of Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4. 1, 4.2, 5.1, 7.1, 7.4. 8.1, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3 of the  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 135 
 
 
  Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I:1, II, X: 3, XIII and XIX:2 of GATT 1994. On 27 March, 
Norway requested to join the consultations. On 5 Ap ril, Mexico requested to join the consultations. 
On 9 April 2002, New Zealand requested to join the consultations. The US info rmed the DSB that it 
had accepted the requests of Mexico, New Zeala nd and Norway to join the consultations.  
On 20 March 2002, Korea (WT/DS251) requested cons ultations with the United States also with 
regard to the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on the imports of certain steel products 
and the related laws of the US, including Secti ons 201 and 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 
311 of the NAFTA Implementation Act. Korea claimed viola tions of Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4, 5, 7.1, 7.4, 
8.1, 9.1 and 12 of the Agreement on Safegua rds, Articles X:3 and XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and 
Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement. On 27 March 2002, Japan and Norway requested to join 
the consultations. On 5 April, Mexico and New Zeal and requested to join the consultations. The US 
informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Japan, Mexico, New Zealand and Norway to 
join the consultations.  
On 26 March 2002, China (WT/DS252) requested c onsultations with the United States also with 
regard to the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of certain steel products 
and claimed violations of Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1 and 12 of the 
Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I:1, II, X: 3, XIX:1 and XIX:2 of GATT 1994. On 4 April 
2002, Japan requested to join the consultations. On 5 April 2002, New Zealand also requested to join 
the consultations. The US informed the DSB that  it had accepted the requests of Japan and New 
Zealand to join the consultations.  
On 3 April 2002, Switzerland (WT/DS253) also requ ested consultations with the United States with 
regard to the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of certain steel products 
and claimed violations of Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7.1, 8.1 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I:1 and XIX:1 of GATT 1994.  On 11 April 2002, New Zealand requested to 
join the consultations. On 15 April 2002, Japan requ ested to join the consultations. The US informed 
the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Japan  and New Zealand to join consultations.  
On 4 April 2002, Norway (WT/DS254) requested cons ultations with the United States with regard to 
the same safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of certain steel products and claimed 
violations of Articles 3, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7, 8.1,  9.1 and 12 of the Agreemen t on Safeguards and Articles 
I:1, II, X:3 and XIX of GATT 1994. On 11 Apr il 2002, New Zealand requested to join the 
consultations. On 15 April 2002, Japan requested to join the consultations. The US informed the DSB 
that it had accepted the requests of Japan a nd New Zealand to join consultations.  
On 14 May 2002, New Zealand (WT/DS258) requested  consultations with the United States with 
regard to the same safeguard measures on steel impo sed by the US and claimed violations of Articles 
2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7, 8.1 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I:1, X and XIX:1 of GATT 1994. On 24 May 2002, the European Communities requested to join the consultations. On 27 May 2002, Japan requested to join the consultations. On 30 May 2002, Korea 
requested to join the consultations. On 31 May 2002,  Norway, China and Mexico  requested to join the 
consultations. The US informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of China, the EC, Japan, 
Korea, Mexico and Norway to join consultations.  
On 21 May 2002, Brazil (WT/DS259) requested consu ltations with the United States with regard to 
the same definitive safeguard measu res imposed by the US on imports of certain steel products. On 24 
May 2002, the European Communities requested to join the consultations. On 27 May 2002, Japan 
requested to join the consultations. On 30 May 2002,  Korea requested to join the consultations. On 31 
May 2002, Norway, China and Mexico requested to join the consultations. The US informed the DSB WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 136  
 
  that it had accepted the requests of China, the EC , Japan, Korea, Mexico and Norway to join 
consultations.  
Further to individual requests for the establishment of a panel submitted by the eight complainants at 
the following DSB meetings:  
• 3 June 2002 – the EC claimed that the US measures violated Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.2(a), 4.2(b), 
4.2(c) and 5.1 of the Agreement on Safe guards and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994;  
• 14 June 2002 – Japan claimed that the US measu res violated Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the 
Agreement on Safeguards and Artic les I:1, X:3 and XIX:1 of GATT 1994. Korea claimed that 
the US measures violated Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles X:3, XIII and XIX of GATT 1994;  
• 24 June 2002 – China claimed that the US measures violated Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 
5.2, 8.1, 9.1 and 12 of the Agreement on Safe guards and Articles I:1, II and XIX of GATT 
1994. Switzerland claimed that the US measures viol ated Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4, 5.1 and 8.1 
of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XI X:1 of GATT 1994. Norway claimed that the 
US measures violated Articles 2, 3, 4, 5.1, 7.1 and 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards and 
Articles I:1, X:3(a) and XIX of GATT 1994;  
• 8 July 2002 – New Zealand claimed that the US measures violated Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.2, 
5.1, 7 and 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles X:3(a) and XIX:1 of GATT 1994;  
• 29 July 2002 – Brazil claimed that the US measures violated Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4 and 5 of 
the Agreement on Safeguards and Articl es I:1, X:3 and XIX:1 of GATT 1994;  
The DSB established a single Panel, pursuant to an  agreement between the parties and in accordance 
with Article 9.1 of the DSU.  
The Members which had reserved their third-party ri ghts in the Panels established at the request of 
these parties were also considered as third parties in the single Panel. Canada, Chinese Taipei, Cuba, Malaysia, Mexico, Thailand, Turkey and Venezuela ha ve reserved their rights to participate in the 
Panel proceedings as a third party.  
On 15 July 2002, the DSB was notified of a proce dural agreement between the United States and the 
European Communities, Japan, Korea, China, Sw itzerland, Norway and New Zealand. On 18 July 
2002, the DSB was notified of a procedural agre ement between the United States and Brazil.  
On 15 July 2002, the European Communities, Japan , Korea, China, Switzerland, Norway and New 
Zealand requested the Director-Gener al to determine the composition of the Panel. On 25 July 2002, 
the Panel was composed.  
On 23 October 2002, Malaysia decided to withdraw  as a third party from the panel proceedings.  
On 20 February 2003, the Chairman of the Panel in formed the DSB that the Panel would not be able 
to complete its work in six months due to the volume, complexities and sensitivity of the legal and 
factual questions that had been raised. The Panel hoped  to complete its work by the end of April 2003.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 137 
 
 
  The Panel circulated its Reports1 to Members on 11 July 2003. The Panel concluded that all the 
United States' safeguard measures at issue were inco nsistent with at least one of the following WTO 
pre-requisites for the imposition of a safeguard measure: lack of demonstration of (i) unforeseen 
developments; (ii) increased imports; (iii) causation;  and (iv) parallelism. The Panel thus requested 
the United States to bring the relevant safeguard measures into conformity with its obligations under 
the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994..  
On 11 August 2003, the US notified its decision to app eal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the Panel Report a nd certain legal interpretations  developed by the Panel.  
On 8 October 2003, the Chairman of the Appellate Body informed the DSB that the Appellate Body 
would not be able to circulate its Report within 60 days due to the time required for completion and 
translation of the Report and that it estimated that the Appellate Body Report in this appeal would be 
circulated to WTO Members no later than 10 November 2003.  
On 10 November 2003, the Appellate Body Report w as circulated to Members. The Appellate Body 
upheld  the Panel's ultimate conclusions that each of th e ten safeguard measures at issue in this dispute 
was inconsistent with the United States' obligations  under Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and the 
Agreement on Safeguards . The Appellate Body reversed  the Panel's findings that the US failed to 
provide a reasoned and adequate e xplanation on "increased imports" and on the existence of a "causal 
link" between increased imports and serious injury for two of the ten safeguard measures. Ultimately, 
however, even these measures were found to be inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on other 
grounds.  
At its meeting on 10 December 2003, the DSB adopt ed the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.  
38. WT/DS246 – European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff 
Preferences to Developing Countries 
Complaint by India. On 5 March 2002, India requ ested consultations with the EC concerning the 
conditions under which the EC accords tariff pr eferences to developing countries under its current 
scheme of generalized tariff preferences ("GSP scheme").  
India presented this request pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU, Article XXIII:1 of the GATT 1994 and 
paragraph 4(b) of the so called Enabling Clause.  
India considered that the tariff preferences accorded  by the EC under the special arrangements, (i) for 
combatting drug production and trafficking and (i i) for the protection of labour rights and the 
environment, create undue difficulties for India's exports to the EC, including for those under the 
general arrangements of the EC's GSP scheme, and nullify or impair the benefits accruing to India 
                                                      
1 Although all complaints made by the eight co-complainants were considered in a single panel 
process, the United States requested the issuance of eight separate panel reports, claiming that to do otherwise 
would prejudice its WTO rights, including its right to settle the matter with individual complainants.  The complainants vigorously opposed this request, stating that  to grant it would only delay the panel process.  The 
Panel decided to issue its decisions in the form of "one document constituting eight Panel Reports".  Thus, for 
WTO purposes, this document is deemed to be eight sepa rate reports, relating to each of the eight complainants 
in this dispute.  The document comprises a common cover page, a common descriptive part and a common set 
of findings.  However, the document also contains conclusions and recommendations that are "particularized" 
for each of the complainants, with a separate number (sym bol) for each individual comp lainant.  In the Panel's 
view, this approach respected the rights of all parties while ensuring the prompt and effective settlement of the 
disputes. WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 138  
 
  under the most favoured nation provisions of Article  I:1 of the GATT 1994 and paragraphs 2(a), 3(a) 
and 3(c) of the Enabling Clause.  
In India's view, the conditions under which the EC accorded tariff preferences under the special 
arrangements could not be reconciled with the requirements provided in paragraphs 2(a), 3(a) and 3(c) 
of the Enabling Clause.  
On 20 March 2002, Venezuela requested to be jo ined in the consultations. On 21 March 2002, 
Colombia requested to be joined in the consultations.  
On 6 December 2002, India requested  the establishment of a panel. At its meeting of 19 December 
2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 27 January 2003, the DSB 
established a Panel. During the meeting, Brazil, Co lombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, 
Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, Peru, Sri Lanka, Ve nezuela and the US reserved their third-party 
rights. On 28 January 2003, Nicaragua reserved it s third-party rights. On 29 January 2003, Panama 
reserved its third-party rights. On 3 February, Maurit ius and Pakistan reserved their third-party rights. 
On 6 February, Bolivia reserved its  third party rights. On 24 Febr uary 2003, India requested the 
Director-General to compose the Panel. On 6 March 2003, the Director-General composed the Panel.  
On 22 September 2003, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible to 
complete its work in six months due to the comp lexity of the matter involved and that the Panel 
expected to complete its work at the end of October 2003.  
On 1 December 2003, the Panel report was circulated  to the Members. The Panel found that: (i) India 
has demonstrated that the ta riff preferences under the Special  Arrangements to Combat Drug 
Production and Trafficking (the "Drug Arrangeme nts") provided in the EC's GSP scheme are 
inconsistent with Article I:1 of  GATT 1994; (ii) the EC has failed to demonstrate that the Drug 
Arrangements are justified under paragraph 2(a) of the Enabling Clause, which requires that the GSP 
benefits be provided on a "non-discriminatory" basis;  and (iii) the EC has fa iled to demonstrate that 
the Drug Arrangements are justified under Article  XX(b) of GATT 1994 since the measure is not 
"necessary" for the protection of human life or health  in the EC, nor is it in conformity with the 
Chapeau of Article XX. (One panelist presented a dissenting opinion that the Enabling Clause is not 
an exception to Article I:1 and that India h as not made a claim under the Enabling Clause.)  
On 8 January 2004, the European Communities notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body 
certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report.  On 5 March 2004, the Chairman of the Appellate 
Body informed the DSB that it would not be possibl e for the Appellate Body to complete its work 
within the 60-day period due to the time require d for completion and translation of its Report. The 
Appellate Body estimated that the Report would be ci rculated to Members no later than 7 April 2004.  
On 7 April 2004, the Appellate Body Report was circulated to Members. In the Report:  
• The Appellate Body upheld two of the Panel's findings ((i) the Enabling Clause operates as an 
exception to Article I:1 of the GATT 1994; and (ii) the Enabling Clause does not exclude the applicability of Article I:1 of the GATT 1994). The Appellate Body modified, however, one 
of the Panel's findings with respect to the re lationship between Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 
and the Enabling Clause. The Appellate Body foun d that the complaining party is obliged not 
only to claim inconsistency with Article I:1 of  the GATT 1994, but also to raise the relevant 
provisions of the Enabling Clause that the comp laining party argues are not satisfied by the 
challenged measure. Based on these findings, and because the EC did not appeal any other 
aspect of the Panel's reasoning with respect to Article I:1, the Appellate Body found that it  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 139 
 
 
  need not rule on the Panel's conclusion as to th e consistency of the challenged measure with 
Article I:1 of the GATT 1994.  
• The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's legal in terpretation of paragraph 2(a) of the Enabling 
Clause and footnote 3 thereto, by concluding that, in granting differential tariff treatment, preference-granting countries are required, by virtue of the term "non-discriminatory", to 
ensure that identical treatment is available to a ll similarly-situated GSP beneficiaries, that is, 
to all GSP beneficiaries that have the same "d evelopment, financial and trade needs" to which 
the treatment in question is intended to res pond. With respect to the consistency of the 
challenged measure with the Enabling Clause, th e Appellate Body upheld, albeit for different 
reasons, the Panel's conclusion that the Europ ean Communities failed to demonstrate that the 
challenged measure was justified under para graph 2(a) of the Enabling Clause.  
At its meeting on 20 April 2004, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report a nd the Panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body report.  
39. WT/DS245 – Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples 
Complaint by the United States. On 1 March 2002, the United States requested consultations with 
Japan regarding restrictions allegedly imposed by Japan on imports of apples from the United States.  
The United States' complaint arose from the maintenan ce by Japan of quarantine restrictions on apples 
imported into Japan, which restrictions were said to be necessary to protect against introduction of fire 
blight. Among the measures the United States complain ed of were the prohibition of imported apples 
from orchards in which any fire blight was detected , the requirement that export orchards be inspected 
three times yearly for the presence of fire blight and the disqualification of any orchard from 
exporting to Japan should fire blight be detected  within a 500 meter buffer zone surrounding such 
orchard.  
The United States claimed that these measures might be  inconsistent with the obligations of Japan 
under:  
• Article XI of GATT 1994,  
• Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6, 6.1, 6.2 and 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement, and  
• Article 14 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
On 7 May 2002, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 22 May 
2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to by the United 
States, at its meeting on 3 June 2002, the DSB est ablished a panel. Australia, Brazil and the EC 
reserved their third-party rights. On 10 June 2002, Ne w Zealand reserved its third party rights. On 12 
June 2002, Chinese Taipei reserved its third party rights.  
On 9 July 2002, the US requested  the Director-General to compo se the panel. On 17 July 2002, the 
panel was composed. On 16 January 2003, the Chai rman of the Panel informed the DSB that the 
Panel could not complete its work within 6 months  from its composition. The Panel expected to issue 
its final report to the parties by the end of May 2003.  
The Panel circulated its Report to Members on 15 July 2003. The Panel found that Japan's 
phytosanitary measure imposed on imports of apples from the United States was contrary to 
Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement and was not jus tified under Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement and WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 140  
 
  that Japan's 1999 Pest Risk Assessment did not meet the requirements of Article 5.1 of the SPS 
Agreement.  
On 28 August 2003, Japan notified its decision to a ppeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the Panel Report a nd certain legal interpretations  developed by the Panel.  
On 23 October 2003, the Chairman of the Appellate Body informed the DSB that the Appellate Body 
would not be able to circulate its Report within 60 days due to the time required for completion and 
translation of the Report and that it estimated that the Appellate Body Report in this appeal would be 
circulated to WTO Members no later than 26 November 2003.  
On 26 November 2003, the report of the Appellate Bo dy was circulated. The Appellate Body rejected 
all four of Japan's claims on appeal. The Appellate Body upheld
 the Panel's findings that Japan's 
phytosanitary measure at issue was inconsistent with  Japan's obligations under Articles 2.2, 5.7, and 
5.1 of the SPS Agreement. The Appellate Body al so found that the Panel properly discharged its 
duties under Article 11 of the DSU in the Panel's assessment of the facts of the case. The US sole 
claim on appeal challenged the "authority" of the Pa nel to make findings and draw conclusions with 
respect to apples other than "mature, symptomless" apple fruit. The Appellate Body rejected this 
claim, finding that the Panel did have the "authorit y" to make rulings covering all apple fruit that 
could possibly be exported from the United States to Japan, including apples other than "mature, 
symptomless" apples.  
At its meeting on 10 December 2003, the DSB adopt ed the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.  
40. WT/DS244 – United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan 
Complaint by Japan. On 30 January 2002, Japan re quested consultations with the United States in 
respect of the final determinations of both the Un ited States Department of Commerce (DOC) and the 
United States International Trade Commission in th e full sunset review of the anti-dumping duties 
imposed on imports of corrosion-resistant carbon steel  flat products from Japan. These determinations 
were issued on 2 August 2000 and 21 November 2000, respectively.  
• Japan claimed that these determinations were  erroneous and based on deficient rulings, 
procedures and provisions pertaining to the Un ited States Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
("the Act") and related regulations.  
• Japan further claimed that the procedures and pr ovisions of the Act and related regulations as 
well as the above determinati ons were inconsistent with, inter alia , Articles VI and X of 
GATT 1994; Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 (including Annex II), 11, 12, and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
On 13 February 2002, the EC requested to join  the consultations. On 14 February 2002, India 
requested to join the consultations.  
On 4 April 2002, Japan requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 17 April 2002, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request from Japan, the DSB 
established a panel at its meeting on 22 May 2002. Br azil, Canada, Chile, EC, India. Korea, Norway 
and Venezuela reserved third-party rights to  participate in the Panel proceedings.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 141 
 
 
  On 9 July 2002, Japan requested th e Director-General to compose th e panel. On 17 July 2002, the 
panel was composed.  
On 5 August 2002 Venezuela decided to withdraw as a third party from the panel proceedings.  
On 9 January 2003, the Chair of the Panel informed th e DSB that it would not be possible to complete 
its work within six months due to the timetable adopted after having heard the parties' views and 
based on the time periods prescribed in Appendix 3 of  the DSU. The Panel expected to complete its 
work by April 2003. On 22 May 2003, the Panel issued  its report to the parties to the dispute. On 14 
August 2003, the Panel circulated its Report to the Me mbers. The Panel rejected  all of Japan's claims 
challenging various aspects of the US laws and regulations regardi ng the conduct of "sunset" reviews 
of anti-dumping duties under US law. The Panel found, inter alia , that the obligations pertaining to 
evidentiary standards for self-initiation and de minimis standards in investigations do not apply to 
sunset reviews. The Panel also rej ected Japan's argument that the US Sunset Policy Bulletin – which, 
by its own terms, provides guidance on methodological or analytical issues not explicitly addressed by the US statute and regulations – was a manda tory instrument that could be challenged as such in 
WTO dispute settlement. Rather, the Panel found that the Bulletin may be challenged only in respect 
of its application by the US Department of Co mmerce ("USDOC") in a particular case. The Panel 
further found that the USDOC's determination of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping 
in this particular case was not WTO-inconsistent. Accordingly, the Panel made no recommendation.  
On 15 September 2003, Japan sent its notification of an appeal to the DSB and filed the Notice of 
Appeal with the Appellate Body.  
On 12 November 2003, the Chairman of the Appella te Body informed the DSB that the Appellate 
Body would not be able to circulate its Report w ithin 60 days due to the time required for completion 
and translation of the Report and that it estimated that the Appellate Body Report in this appeal would 
be circulated to WTO Members no later than 15 December 2003.  
On 15 December 2003, the report of the Appellate Bo dy was circulated to Members. The Appellate 
Body upheld
 three findings but reversed  four of the Panel's legal fi ndings. The Appellate Body found , 
contrary to the Panel, that the Bulletin can be challenged in WTO dispute settlement. However, the 
Appellate Body did not find any of the provisions of the Bulletin inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement or the WTO Agreement. Although its analys is of Japan's claims differed from that of the 
Panel in important respects, the Appellate Body did not make any finding that the US had acted 
inconsistently with its obligations under the An ti-Dumping Agreement or the WTO Agreement.  
At its meeting on 9 January 2004, the DSB adopted th e Appellate Body report a nd the Panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body report.  
41. WT/DS243 – United States – Rules of Origin for Textiles and Apparel Products 
Complaint by India. On 11 January 2002, India re quested consultations with the United States in 
respect of its rules of origin applicable to imports of textiles and apparel produc ts as set out in Section 
334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Secti on 405 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 
and the customs regulations implementing these provisions.  
India argued that, prior to the above mentioned Secti on 334, the rule of origin applicable to textiles 
and apparel products was th e "substantial transformation" rule. India considered that Section 334 
changed the system by identifying specific processi ng operations which would confer origin to the 
various types of textiles and appa rel products. In India's view, these changes appear to have been 
made to protect the United States textiles and clothing industry from import competition. India WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 142  
 
  indicated that the changes introduced by Section 334 had already been challenged by the European 
Communities on the grounds that they were incompa tible with the United States' obligations under the 
Agreement on Rules of Origin and other WTO Agreements (WT/DS151). India explained that that dispute was settled through a procès-verbal whereby the United States agreed  to introduce legislation 
amending Section 334. According to India, the changes introduced by the amending legislation, i.e. 
Section 405, were aimed at taking account of the particular export interests of the European 
Communities.  
India is of the view that the changes introdu ced by Sections 334 and 405 have resulted in 
extraordinary complex rules under which the criteria th at confer origin vary between similar products 
and processing operations. India argued that the stru cture of the changes, the circumstances under 
which they were adopted and their effect on the conditions of competition for textiles and apparel 
products suggest that they serve trade policy purposes. On those grounds, India questioned the 
compatibility of those changes with paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Article 2 of the Agreement on 
Rules of Origin.  
On 7 May 2002, India requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 22 May 2002, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request by India, the DSB established 
a panel at its meeting on 24 June 2002. EC, Pakistan and the Phili ppines reserved their third party 
rights. On 3 July 2002, Bangladesh reserved its thir d party rights. On 4 July 2002, China reserved its 
third party rights. On 10 October 2002, the Panel was composed. On 9 April 2003, the Chairman of 
the Panel informed the DSB that due to the complexi ty of the matter, the Panel would not be able to 
complete its work in six months. The Panel expects to  issue its final report to the parties in early May 
2003.  
On 20 June 2003, the Panel Report was circul ated to Members. The Panel found that:  
• India failed to establish that section 334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act is 
inconsistent with Articles 2(b) or 2(c) of the RO Agreement ; and  
• India failed to establish that section 405 of th e Trade and Development Act is inconsistent 
with Articles 2(b), 2(c) or 2(d) of the RO Agreement ;  
• India failed to establish that the customs regulations contained in 19 C.F.R. § 102.21 are 
inconsistent with Articles 2(b), 2(c) or 2(d) of the RO Agreement ;  
At its meeting on 21 July 2003, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.  
42. WT/DS241 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-D umping Duties on Poultry from Brazil 
Complaint by Brazil. On 7 November 2001, Brazil re quested consultations with Argentina in respect 
of the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Argentina on imports of poultry from Brazil, 
classified under Mercosur tariff line 0207.11.00 an d 0207.12.00. These measures were adopted by the 
Ministry of Economy of Argentina in Resolution 574 from 21 July 2000, published in the Argentinean Official Gazette on 24 July 2000. Brazil consider ed that the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed, 
as well as the investigation conducted by the Arge ntinean Authorities might have been flawed and 
based on erroneous or deficient procedures, inconsis tent with Argentina's obligations under Articles 1, 
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12 and Annex II of the Anti-Du mping Agreement, Article VI of the GATT 1994, and 
Articles 1 and 7 of the Customs Valuation Agreement.  
On 19 November 2001, the EC requested to join the consultations. On 25 February 2002, Brazil 
requested the establishment of a panel. At its  meeting on 8 March 2002, the DSB deferred the  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 143 
 
 
  establishment of a panel. At the DSB meeting on 17 April 2002, the panel was established. Argentina 
noted that notwithstanding the establishment of th e panel at the present meeting, it was still hopeful 
that a mutually satisfactory solution to the dispute could be found. Canada, Chile, the EC, Guatemala, 
Paraguay and the US reserved their third-party rights.  
On 17 June 2002, Brazil requested the Director-Gener al to compose the panel. On 27 June 2002, the 
panel was composed.  
On 18 December 2002, the Chair of the Panel info rmed the DSB that it would not be possible to 
complete its work in six months due to the sched ule agreed with the parties and that the Panel 
expected to complete its work by the beginning of April 2003.  
On 22 April 2003, the Panel circulated its Report to  the Members. The Panel found that Argentina had 
acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 2.4,  2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 5.1, 5.8, 6.1.1, 
6.1.3, 6.8 and Annex II, 6.10 and 12.1 of the An ti-Dumping Agreement. The Panel also concluded 
that Argentina had not acted inconsistently with  a number of Articles from the same Agreement and 
declined to rule on a number of claims for judicial economy reasons.  
At its meeting on 19 May 2003, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.  43. WT/DS238 – Argentina – Definitive Safe guard Measure on Imports of Preserved 
Peaches 
Complaint by Chile. On 14 September 2001, Chile re quested consultations with Argentina in respect 
of a definitive safeguard measure which Argentina applies on imports of peaches preserved in water 
containing added sweetening matter, including syrup,  preserved in any other form or in water. 
According to Chile Argentina's definitive safeguard me asure is inconsistent with Articles 2, 4, 5 and 
12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994.  
On 6 December 2001, Chile requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 18 December 
2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of the panel. At the DSB meeting on 18 January 2002, a panel was established. Immediately after the estab lishment, Chile stated that it would not, for the 
moment, proceed with the appointment of pane lists, as it was still hoping to reach a mutually 
satisfactory solution with Argentina. The Europ ean Communities, Paraguay and the United States 
reserved their third-party rights to participate in  the Panel's proceedings. On 13 March 2002, Chile 
informed the Chairman of the DSB that it would like the composition of the panel to go ahead. The panel was composed on 16 April 2002.  
On 15 October 2002, the Chair of the Panel inform ed the DSB that it would not be possible to 
complete its work in six months due to the sched ule agreed with the parties and that the Panel 
expected to circulate its report at the end of Janua ry 2003. On 14 February 2003, the Panel circulated 
its Report to the Members. The Panel concluded that the Argentine preserved peaches measure was 
imposed inconsistently with certain provisions  of the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994. In 
particular:  
• Argentina acted inconsistently with its oblig ations under Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 by 
failing to demonstrate the existence of unforeseen developments as required;  
• Argentina acted inconsistently with its oblig ations under Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and 
Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safe guards by failing to make a determination of 
an increase in imports, in absolute or relative terms, as required;  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 144  
 
  • Argentina acted inconsistently with its oblig ations under Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and 
Articles 2.1, 4.1(b) and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards because the competent authorities, in their determination of the existence of a threat of serious injury:  
1. did not evaluate all of the relevant factors having a bearing on the situation of the domestic 
industry;  
2. did not provide a reasoned and ad equate explanation of how the 
facts supported their determination; and  
3. did not find that serious injury was clearly imminent.  
The Panel did not find that Argentina acted inconsis tently with its obligations under Articles 2.1 and 
4.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards by basing a finding of the existence of a threat of serious 
injury on an allegation, conjecture or remote po ssibility. The Panel exercised judicial economy with 
respect to all other claims.  
At its meeting on 15 April 2003, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.  
44. WT/DS236 – United States – Preliminary De terminations with Respect to Certain 
Softwood Lumber from Canada 
Complaint by Canada. On 21 August 2001, Canada requested consultations with the US concerning 
the preliminary countervailing duty determination and the preliminary critical circumstances determination made by the US Department of Co mmerce on 9 August 2001, with respect to certain 
softwood lumber from Canada. This request also concerned US measures on company-specific expedited reviews and administrative reviews. In particular:  
• As far as the preliminary countervailing duty dete rmination is concerned,  Canada considered 
this determination to be incons istent with US obligations under Articles 1, 2, 10, 14, 17.1, 
17.5, 19.4 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreem ent and Article VI(3) of GATT 1994.  
• With respect to the preliminary critical circumst ances determination, Ca nada considered this 
determination to be inconsiste nt with Articles 17.1, 17.3, 17.4, 19.4 and 20.6 of the SCM 
Agreement.  
• As regards US measures on company-specific expedited reviews and administrative reviews, 
Canada considered these measures are inconsistent  with US obligations under Article VI:3 of 
the GATT 1994 and Articles 10, 19.3, 19.4, 21.1, 21.2 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.  
• Canada also considered that the US had failed to  ensure that its laws and regulations are in 
conformity with its WTO obligations as require d by Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and 
Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
On the grounds that the affirmative prelimin ary countervailing duty and critical circumstances 
determinations had an immediate and significant trad e impact, Canada requested urgent consultations 
pursuant to Article 4.8 of the DSU. Although accepti ng Canada's request to enter into consultations, 
the US did not accept this to be a case of urgency for the purposes of Article 4.8 of the DSU since the 
measures in question involve the posting of bond fo r or deposit of preliminary duties which could be 
refunded in whole or in part.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 145 
 
 
  On 25 October 2001, Canada requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 5 November 
2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a pane l. At its meeting on 5 December 2001, the DSB 
established a panel. The EC and India reserved thei r third-party rights to participate in the panel 
proceedings. On 17 December 2001, Japan requested to participate in the proceedings as a third party.  
On 22 January 2002, Canada requested the Direct or-General to determine the composition of the 
panel. On 1 February 2002, the Director-General composed the panel.  
On 27 September 2002, the Panel Report was ci rculated. The Panel found that the USDOC 
Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination:  
• was not inconsistent with Article 1.1 (a) SC M Agreement when the USDOC found that the 
provision of stumpage constituted a financial contribution, in the form of the provision of a 
good or service;  
• failed to determine the existence and amount of benefit to the producers of the subject 
merchandise on the basis of the prevailing ma rket conditions in Canada as required by 
Article 1.1 (b) and Article 14 and 14 (d) SCM Agreement; and  
• failed to establish that a benefit was conferred to  certain producers of the subject merchandise 
as the USDOC did not examine whether a benefit was passed through by the unrelated 
upstream producers of log inputs to the downstream producers of the subject merchandise;  
Therefore, the Panel concluded that the USDO C's imposition of provisiona l measures based on the 
preliminary countervailing duty determination was inc onsistent with the US obligations under Articles 
1.1 (b), 10, 14, 14 (d), and 17.1(b) SCM Agreement.  
The Panel exercised judicial economy in respect of Canada's claim that the USDOC instructions 
transmitted to the United States Customs Service on 4 September 2001, imposed provisional measures 
in excess of the subsidy preliminarily found to exist in a manner inconsistent with Articles 10, 17.2, 
17.5, 19.4 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreem ent and Article VI:3 of GATT 1994.  
The Panel further concluded that the retroactive imposition of a provisional measure on the basis of 
the USDOC Preliminary Critical Circumstances Dete rmination is inconsiste nt with Articles 20.6, 
17.3, and 17.4 SCM Agreement and exercised judicial  economy in respect of Canada's claim that the 
USDOC failed to establish the existence of critical  circumstances under Article 20.6 SCM Agreement 
in its Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination.  
Finally, the Panel concluded that the US laws a nd regulations challenged by  Canada on expedited and 
administrative reviews are not inconsistent with  the SCM Agreement as they do not require the 
executive authority to act in a manner inconsistent with the US obligations under Articles 19 and 21 
of the SCM Agreement concerning expedited and administrative reviews. As a result the Panel 
rejected Canada's claims that the United States has fail ed to ensure that its laws and regulations are in 
conformity with its WTO obligations as require d by Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and 
Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
The Panel recommended that the DSB request the Unite d States to bring its measure into conformity 
with its obligations under the SCM Agreement.  
At its meeting on 1 November 2002, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 146  
 
  45. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines 
Complaint by Peru. On 20 March 2001, Peru requ ested consultations with the EC concerning 
Regulation (EEC) 2136/89 which, according to Peru, pr events Peruvian exporters to continue to use 
the trade description "sardines" for their products.  
Peru submitted that, according to the relevant Codex Alimentarius standards (STAN 94-181 rev. 
1995), the species " sardinops sagax sagax " are listed among those species which can be traded as 
"sardines". Peru, therefore, considered that the a bove Regulation constitutes an unjustifiable barrier to 
trade, and, hence, in breach of Articles 2 and 12 of the TBT Agreement and Article XI:1 of GATT 
1994. In addition, Peru argues that the Regulati on is inconsistent with the principle of non-
discrimination, and, hence, in breach of Articles I and III of GATT 1994.  
Further to Peru's request, the DSB established a Panel at its meeting on 24 July 2001. Canada, Chile, 
Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela and the US reserved th eir third-party rights. On 31 August 2001, Peru 
requested the Director-General to  determine the composition of the Panel. On 11 September 2001, the 
Panel was composed. On 11 March 2002, the Panel in formed the DSB that it would not be able to 
issue its report within 6 months, due to the comple xity of the matter and scheduling constraints. The 
Panel expects to complete its work by end of Ap ril 2002. On 3 May 2002, the parties to the dispute 
requested the Panel to suspend its proceedings, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, until 21 May 
2002. On 6 May 2002, the Panel agreed to this request.  
The Panel Report was circulated to Members on 29 May 2002. The Panel concluded that the EC 
Regulation was inconsistent with Ar ticle 2.4 of the TBT Agreement.  
On 28 June 2002, the EC notified its decision to app eal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the in the Panel report and certain le gal interpretations developed by the Panel.  
On 26 September 2002 the report of the Appellate Body was circulated. The Appellate Body:  
• found that the condition attached to the withdrawal of the Notice of Appeal of 25 June 2002 
was permissible, and that the appeal of the EC, commenced by the Notice of Appeal of 28 June 2002, was admissible;  
• found that the amicus curiae briefs submitted were admissible but their contents did not assist 
in deciding the appeal;  
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.35 of the Panel Report, that the EC Regulation is a 
"technical regulation" under the TBT Agreement;  
• upheld the Panel's findings, in paragraph 7.60 of the Panel Report, that Article 2.4 of the TBT 
Agreement applies to measures that were adopt ed before 1 January 1995 but which have not 
"ceased to exist", and, in paragraph 7.83 of the Panel Report, that Article 2.4 of the TBT 
Agreement applies to existing technical re gulations, including the EC Regulation;  
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.70 of  the Panel Report, that Codex Stan 94 is a 
"relevant international standard" unde r Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement;  
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.112 of the Panel Report, that Codex Stan 94 was 
not used "as a basis for" the EC Regulation within the meaning of Article 2.4 of the TBT 
Agreement;  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 147 
 
 
  • reversed the Panel's finding, in  paragraph 7.52 of the Panel Re port, that, under the second part 
of Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement, the burden of proof rested with the EC to demonstrate 
that Codex Stan 94 is an "ineffective or in appropriate means for the fulfilment of the 
legitimate objectives pursued" by the EC through the EC Regulation, and found, instead, that 
the burden of proof rested with Peru to demons trate that Codex Stan 94 is an effective and 
appropriate means to fulfil those "legitimate obj ectives", and, upheld the Panel's finding, in 
paragraph 7.138 of the Panel Report, that Pe ru has adduced sufficient evidence and legal 
arguments to demonstrate that Codex Stan 94 is not "ineffective or inappropriate" to fulfil the 
"legitimate objectives" of the EC Regulation;  
• rejected the claim of the EC that the Pane l did not conduct "an objective assessment of the 
facts of the case", as required by Article 11 of the DSU;  
• rejected the claim of the EC that the Panel ma de a determination, in paragraph 7.127 of the 
Panel Report, that the EC Regulation is trade-rest rictive, and, declared moot and without legal 
effect the two statements, in paragraph 6.11 and in footnote 35 of the Panel Report, on the 
trade-restrictive character of the EC Regulation; and  
• found it unnecessary to complete the analysis under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, 
Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, or Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.  
Therefore, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's fi nding, in paragraph 8.1 of the Panel Report, that 
the EC Regulation is inconsistent with  Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement.  
The Appellate Body recommended that the DSB request the EC to bring the EC Regulation, as found 
in its and in the Panel Report, as modified by its Repor t, to be inconsistent with Article 2.4 of the TBT 
Agreement, into conformity with EC's obligations under that Agreement.  
On 23 October 2002, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified 
by the Appellate Body Report.  
46. WT/DS222 – Canada – Export Credits a nd Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft 
Complaint by Brazil. On 22 January 2001, Brazil re quested consultations with Canada concerning 
subsidies which are allegedly being granted to Canada's regional aircra ft industry. Brazil's claims are 
as follows:  
• Export credits, within the meaning of Item (k) of Annex I to the SCM Agreement, are being 
provided to Canada's regional aircraft industry by the Export Development Corporation 
(EDC) and the Canada Account.  
• Loan guarantees, within the meaning of Item (j ) of Annex I to the SCM Agreement, are being 
provided by EDC, Industry Canada, and the Pr ovince of Quebec, to support exports of 
Canada's regional aircraft industry.  
• Brazil takes the view that all of the above-m entioned measures are subsidies, within the 
meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement, sin ce they are financial contributions that confer 
a benefit.  
• According to Brazil, they are also contingent, in law or in fact, upon export, and constitute, 
therefore, a violation of Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 148  
 
  Further to Brazil's request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of  12 March 2001. Australia, 
the EC, India and the US reserved their third pa rty rights. On 7 May 2001, Brazil requested the 
Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 11 May 2001, the Panel was 
composed.  
On 9 August 2001, the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible to complete its work 
within the 3 months deadline from its composition. The panel informed that it expected to complete 
its work by October 2001. On 28 January 2002, the Panel circulated its repor t to the Members. The 
Panel:  
• rejected Brazil's claims that the EDC Corporate Account, Canada Account, the IQ 
programmes "as such" constitute pr ohibited export subsidies contrary  to Article 3.1(a) of the 
SCM Agreement;  
• rejected Brazil's claim that  the EDC Corporate Account, Canada Account and the IQ 
programmes "as applied" constitute  prohibited export subsidies contrary to Article 3.1(a) of 
the SCM Agreement;  
• upheld Brazil's claim th at the EDC Canada Account financing to Air Wisconsin, to Air 
Nostrum and to Comair constitutes a prohibited ex port subsidy contrary to Article 3.1(a) of 
the SCM Agreement;  
• rejected Brazil's claim that the EDC Corporat e Account financing to ASA, ACA, Kendell Air 
Nostrum and Comair in December 1996 , March 1997 and Marc h 1998 constitutes a 
prohibited export subsidy contrary to Ar ticle 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement;  
• rejected Brazil's claim that IQ equity guarantees to ACA, Air Littoral, Midway, Mesa Air 
group, Air Nostrum and Air Wisconsin constitute  prohibited export subsidies contrary to 
Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement; and  
• rejected Brazil's claim that IQ loan guarantees to Mesa Air Group and Air Wisconsin 
constitute prohibited export subsidies contrary to Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement.  
The Panel also recommended that Canada withdr aw the subsidies identified within 90 days.  
At its meeting on 19 February 2002, the DSB adopted the panel report.  
47. WT/DS221 – United States – Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
Complaint by Canada. On 17 January 2001, Canada requested consultations with the US concerning 
Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements  Act (the "URAA") and the Statement of 
Administrative Action accompanying the URAA. In Ca nada's view, in a situation in which the DSB 
has ruled that the US has, in an anti-dumping or countervailing duty proceeding, acted inconsistently 
with US obligations under the AD or SCM Agreemen ts, the US law prohibits the US from complying 
fully with the DSB ruling. Under US law, de terminations whether to levy anti-dumping or 
countervailing duties are made after th e imports occur. With regard to imports that occurred prior to a 
date on which the US directs compliance with the DSB ruling, the measures require US authorities to 
disregard the DSB ruling in making such determina tions, even where the determination whether to 
levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties is made af ter the date fixed by the DSB for compliance. In 
such circumstances, determinations by the US to  levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties would be 
inconsistent with its obligations  under the AD or SCM Agreements.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 149 
 
 
  Canada considered that these measures are inconsiste nt with US obligations under Article21.3 of the 
DSU, in the context of Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.7 and 21.1 of the DSU; Article VI of the GATT 1994; Articles 10 and note 36, 19.2, 19.4 and note 51, 21.1, 32.1, 32.2, 32.3, and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement; Articles 1, 9.3, 11.1, 18.1-4 and note 12 of the AD Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the 
WTO Agreement.  
Further to Canada's request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 23 August 2001. Chile, EC, 
India and Japan reserved their third-party rights. On  30 October 2001, the Panel was composed. On 30 
April 2002, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DS B that the Panel would not be able to complete 
its work in six months due to the complexity of the matter and that the Panel expected to issue its final 
report to the parties by the end of June 2002. On 15 July 2002, the Panel circulated its report to 
Members. The Panel concluded that that Canada ha d failed to establish that section 129(c)(1) of the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act was inconsistent wi th Articles VI:2, VI:3 and VI:6(a) of the GATT 
1994; Articles 1, 9.3, 11.1 and 18.1 and 18.4 of the AD Agreement; Articles 10, 19.4, 21.1, 32.1 and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. In the light of its conclusion, 
the Panel made no recommendations to the DSB. 
On 30 August 2002, the DSB adopted the Panel report.  
48. WT/DS219 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron 
Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil 
Complaint by Brazil. On 21 December 2000, Brazil requested consultations with the EC as regards 
definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Council  Regulation (EC) No. 1784/2000 concerning 
imports of malleable cast iron tube  or pipe fittings originating, inter alia , in Brazil.  
• Brazil considered that the EC's establishment of the facts was not proper and that its 
evaluation of these facts was not unbiased and obj ective, both at the pr ovisional and definitive 
stage, particularly in relation to the initiati on and conduct of the investigation (including the 
evaluation, findings and determination of dumpi ng, injury and causal link between them).  
• Brazil also challenged the evaluation and findi ngs made in relation to the "community 
interest".  
• In sum, Brazil considered that the EC had infringed Article VI of GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 
2, 3, 4 ,5 , 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 15 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.  
Further to Brazil's request, the DSB established a pane l at its meeting of 24 July 2001. Chile, Japan, 
Mexico and the US reserved their third-party rights. The Panel was composed on 5 September 2001.  
On 15 January 2002, both parties requested the Panel to suspend its work until  1 March 2002 with a 
view to reaching a mutually agreed solution. The Panel agreed to the request. On 28 February 2002, 
both parties requested the Panel to further suspend its work until 5 April 2002 with a view to reaching 
a mutually agreed solution. The Panel agreed to this request. On 22 April 2002, the Panel resumed its 
work, in accordance with Brazil's request. On 3 Ma y 2002, the Chairman of the Panel notified the 
DSB that it would not be possible to complete its work in six months in light of, inter alia , scheduling 
conflicts. The Panel expects to complete its wo rk in December 2002. On 7 March 2003, the Panel 
circulated its Report to the Members. The Panel conc luded that the EC had ac ted inconsistently with 
its obligations under:  
• Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in “zeroing” negative dumping margins in its 
dumping determination; and  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 150  
 
  • Article 12.2 and 12.2.2 in that it is not dir ectly discernible from the published Provisional or 
Definitive Determination that the European Co mmunities addressed or explained the lack of 
significance of certain injury factors listed in Article 3.4.  
The Panel ruled against Brazil on all other claims. On 23 April 2003, Brazil notified its decision to 
appeal certain issues of law as well as certain le gal interpretations developed by the Panel.  
On 22 July 2003, the Appellate Body Report was circ ulated to Members. Of the seven issues appealed 
by Brazil, the Appellate Body rejected Brazil's clai ms with respect to six issues. The Appellate Body 
upheld  the Panel's findings that the European Co mmunities did not act inconsistently with 
Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 or with Articles 1, 2.2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, or 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement . In the course of upholding these findings, the Appellate Body also rejected Brazil's claim 
that the Panel, contrary to its obligation under Article 17.6(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , failed 
to assess properly the facts of the matter before it when admitting into evid ence the document referred 
to as Exhibit EC-12. The Appellate Body reversed  the Panel's finding with respect to one issue. The 
Appellate Body found, in contrast to the Panel, that the European  Communities acted inconsistently 
with Articles 6.2 and 6.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to disclose to interested parties 
during the anti-dumping investigation certain informati on related to the evaluation of the state of the 
domestic industry, which was containe d in document Exhibit EC-12.  
On 18 August 2003, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by 
the Appellate Body Report.  
49. WT/DS217, WT/DS234 – United States – Cont inued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 
2000 
Joint complaint by Australia, Brazil, Chile, Europ ean Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea 
and Thailand (WT/DS217), and Canada and Mexico (WT/DS234) . On 21 December 2000 and 21 
May 2001 respectively, the complainants request ed consultations with the US concerning the 
amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930 signed on 28 October 2000 with the title of "Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000" (the "Act ") usually referred to as "the Byrd Amendment". 
According to the complainants the Act is inconsis tent with the obligations of the United States under 
several provisions of the GATT, the AD Agreemen t, the SCM Agreement, and the WTO Agreement. 
In particular, the Act is alleged to  be inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under: (i) 
Article 18.1 of the ADA in conjunction with Article VI:2 of the GATT and Article 1 of the ADA; (ii) 
Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement, in conjunction with Article VI:3 of the GATT and Articles 4.10, 
7.9 and 10 of the SCM Agreement; (iii) Article X(3) (a) of the GATT; (iv) Article 5.4 of the ADA and 
Article 11.4 of the SCM Agreement; (v) Article 8 of the ADA and Article 18 of the SCM Agreement; 
(vi) Article 5 of the SCM Agreement; and (vii ) Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement 
establishing the WTO, Article 18.4 of the ADA and Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement. 
On 12 July 2001, the complainants in dispute WT /DS217 requested the establishment of a panel. At 
its meeting on 24 July 2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second 
request to establish a panel by the complainants, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 23 
August 2001. Argentina; Canada; Costa Rica; Ho ng Kong, China; Israel; Norway and Mexico 
reserved their third-party rights.  
On 10 August 2001, Canada and Mexico  requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 23 
August 2001, the DSB deferred the est ablishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a 
panel by Canada and Mexico, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 10 September 2001. The 
DSB also agreed, in accordance with Article 9 of th e DSU, that the panel est ablished to examine the  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 151 
 
 
  complaint by Australia, Brazil, Chile, EC, India,  Indonesia, Japan, Korea and Thailand (WT/DS217) 
on 23 August 2001 would also examine the comp laint by Canada and Mexico (WT/DS234).  
On 15 October 2001, all 11 complainants request ed the Director-General to determine the 
composition of the Panel. On 25 October 2001, the Panel was composed. On 17 April 2002, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that the Panel would not be able to complete its work in six 
months since the parties were given the maximum amount of time for preparing submissions and oral 
statements. The Panel expected to complete its work by July 2002.  
On 16 September 2002, the Panel Report was circulat ed to Members. The Panel concluded that the 
CDSOA was inconsistent with Articles 5.4, 18.1 and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Articles 
11.4, 32.1 and 32.5 of the Subsidies Agreement, Articles VI:2 and VI:3 of the GATT 1994, and 
Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. The Panel rej ected the complaining parties' claims that the 
CDSOA was inconsistent with Artic les 8.3 and 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Articles 4.10, 7.9 
and 18.3 of the Subsidies Agreement, and Article  X:3(a) of the GATT 1994. They also rejected 
Mexico's claim that the CDSOA violated SCM Article 5(b). The CDSOA is a new and complex measure, applied in a complex legal environment. In  concluding that the CDSOA was in violation of 
the abovementioned provisions, the Panel had been c onfronted by sensitive issues regarding the use of 
subsidies as trade remedies. If Members were of the vi ew that subsidisation is a permitted response to 
unfair trade practices, the Panel suggested that they  clarify this matter through negotiation. Pursuant 
to Article 3.8 of the DSU, the Panel concluded that  to the extent that the CDSOA was inconsistent 
with the provisions of the Anti Dumping Agreem ent, the SCM Agreement, and the GATT 1994, the 
CDSOA nullified or impaired benefits accruing to the complaining parties under those agreements. 
The Panel recommended that the DSB request the Unit ed States to bring the CDSOA into conformity 
with its obligations under the Anti Dumping Agreem ent, the SCM Agreement, and the GATT of 1994 
by repealing the CDSOA.  
On 18 October 2002, the United States notified its d ecision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain 
issues of law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel. On 
13 December 2002, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that it was not able to circulate the Report 
within 60 days from the appeal and that the Report w as to be circulated no later than 16 January 2003. 
On 16 January 2003, the Appellate Body circ ulated its Report. The Appellate Body:  
• upheld the finding of the Panel, in paragraphs 7.51 and 8.1 of the Panel Report, that the 
CDSOA is a non-permissible specific action ag ainst dumping or a subsidy, contrary to 
Article 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement ;  
• consequently upheld the Panel's finding, in paragr aphs 7.93 and 8.1 of the Panel Report, that 
the CDSOA is inconsistent with certain provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the 
SCM Agreement and that, therefore, the United States h as failed to comply with Article 18.4 
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the 
WTO Agreement ;  
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.4 of the Panel Report, that, pursuant to Article 3.8 
of the DSU, to the extent that the CDS OA is inconsistent with provisions of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement , the CDSOA nullifies or impairs benefits 
accruing to the Complaining Parties under those Agreements;  
• reversed the Panel's findings, in  paragraphs 7.66 and 8.1 of the Panel Report, that the CDSOA 
is inconsistent with Article 5.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 11.4 of the SCM 
Agreement ;  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 152  
 
  • rejected the Panel's conclusion, in paragraph 7. 63 of the Panel Report, that the United States 
may be regarded as not having acted in good fa ith with respect to its obligations under 
Article 5.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 11.4 of the SCM Agreement ; and  
• rejected the claim of the United States that the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 9.2 of 
the DSU by not issuing a separate panel report in the dispute brought by Mexico.  
The Appellate Body recommended that the DSB re quest the United States bring the CDSOA into 
conformity with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement , the SCM Agreement , and the 
GATT 1994. Further to Canada's request, the DSB ad opted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel 
Report, as modified by the Appellate Body, at its meeting on 27 January 2003.  
50. WT/DS213 – United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 10 November 2000, the EC requested consultations 
with the US in respect of countervailing duties im posed by the US on imports of certain corrosion-
resistant carbon steel flat products ("corrosion resistant steel"), dealt with under US case number C-428-817. This dispute related, in particular, to the final results of a full sunset review of the above 
measure, carried out by the US Department of Commerce ("DOC") and published in the US Federal 
Register No. 65 FR 47407 of 2 August 2000. In this  decision, the DOC found that revocation of the 
countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or  recurrence of a countervailable 
subsidy. The EC considered that this finding is in consistent with the obligations of the US under the 
SCM Agreement and, in particular, in breach of Articles 10, 11.9 and 21 (notably 21.3) thereof.  
On 5 February 2001, the EC requested further cons ultations. As the consulta tions failed, a panel was 
established by the DSB on 10 September 2001 further to the request of the EC. Japan and Norway 
reserved their third-party rights. On 18 October 2001, the EC requested the Director-General to 
determine the composition of the Panel. On 26 October 2001, the Director-General composed the Panel. On 12 April 2002, the Chairman of the Pane l informed the DSB that the Panel would not be 
able to complete its work within six months due to  the parties' wish to use the maximum time periods 
prescribed in Appendix 3 of the DSU. The Panel e xpected to complete its work by July 2002.  
On 3 July 2002, the Panel circulated its re port to Members. The Panel concluded that:  
• US CVD law and the accompanying regulations ar e consistent with Artic le 21, paragraphs 1 
and 3, and Article 10 of the SCM Agreement in  respect of the application of evidentiary 
standards to the self-initiation of sunset reviews;  
• US CVD law and the accompanying regulations ar e inconsistent with Article 21.3 of the SCM 
Agreement in respect of the application of a 0.5 per cent de minimis standard to sunset 
reviews, and therefore violate Article 32.5 of  the SCM Agreement and, consequently, also 
Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement;  
• the United States, in applying a 0.5 per cent de mi nimis standard to the instant sunset review, 
acted in violation of Article 21.3 of the SCM Agreement;  
• US CVD law and the accompanying regulations and statement of policy practices are 
consistent with Article 21.3 of  the SCM Agreement in respect of the obligation to determine 
the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of  subsidisation in sunset reviews; and   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 153 
 
 
  • the United States, in failing to determine properl y the likelihood of continuation or recurrence 
of subsidisation in the sunset review on carbon steel, acted in violation of Article 21.3 of the SCM Agreement.  
The Panel recommended that the DSB request the Un ited States to bring its measures mentioned in 
paragraphs (b), (c) and (e) into conformity w ith its obligations under the WTO Agreement.  
One member of the Panel dissociated himself from the Panel assessment relating to the US CVD law 
as such and as applied in the sunset review on carbon steel in respect of application of a de minimis 
standard to sunset reviews. This member did not sh are the view of the majority of the Panel that the 
silence in Article 21.3 of the SCM Agreement as to  the applicability of a de minimis standard to 
sunset reviews means that this standard applies to sunset reviews. Accordingly, and contrary to the 
panel's above findings, this member concluded that:  
• US CVD law and the accompanying regulations are consistent with Article 21.3 of the SCM 
Agreement in respect of the application of a 0.5 per cent de minimis standard to sunset 
reviews; and  
• the United States, in applying a 0.5 per cent de mi nimis standard to the instant sunset review, 
did not act in violation of Article 21.3 of the SCM Agreement.  
On 30 August 2002, the US notified its decision to app eal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the Panel report. The Report was ci rculated to Members on 28 November 2002. The 
Appellate Body:  
• upheld Panel findings relating to the Panel's te rms of reference; the consistency of United 
States law with obligations relating to the self-initiation of sunset reviews by domestic 
authorities; and the consistency of United St ates law with obligations relating to the 
determination to be made in a sunset review;  
• reversed the Panel's interpretation of Artic le 21.3 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures as regards de minimis subsidization in sunset reviews. Accordingly, 
the Appellate Body also reversed the related Panel findings that United States law, as such 
and as applied, were inconsis tent with that provision. 
On 19 December 2002, the DSB adopted the Appe llate Body Report and the Panel Report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body Report.  
51. WT/DS212 – United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products 
from the European Communities 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 10 November 2000, the EC requested consultations 
with the US concerning the continued applicati on by the United States of countervailing duties on a 
number of products. In particular, the EC claimed that the application of the " same person " 
methodology by the US, and the continued imposition of duties based on it, are in breach of Articles 
10, 19 and 21 of the SCM Agreement, because there is no proper determination of a benefit to the producer of the goods under investigation, as require d by Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement. The 
EC included in this request for consul tations 14 US countervailing duty orders
2 where this " same 
                                                      
2 Original imposition of countervailing duties (post-WTO measures) :  Stainless Sheet and Strip in 
Coils from France (C-427-815); Certain Cut-to-Length Ca rbon Quality Steel from France (C-427-817); Certain 
Pasta from Italy (C-475-819); Stainle ss Steel Sheet and Strip in coils from  Italy (C-475-821); Certain Stainless WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 154  
 
  person " methodology was applied. All these cases involve  alleged non-recurring subsidies granted to 
firms prior to a change of ownership;  
On 1 February 2001, the EC requested further c onsultations with the US. Failing consultations and 
further to the request of the EC, the DSB establis hed a panel at its meeting of 10 September 2001. 
Brazil, India and Mexico reserved their third-part y rights. On 25 October 2001, the EC requested the 
Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 5 November 2001, the Panel was 
composed. On 18 April 2002, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be able to complete its work in six months due to the complexity of the matter. The Panel expected to 
complete its work by mid July 2002.  
On 31 July 2002, the Panel Report was circulated to  the Members. The Panel concluded that where a 
privatization is at arm's length and for fair mark et value, the benefit from a prior non-recurring 
financial contribution bestowed upon the state-owne d producer no longer accrues to the privatized 
producer. Therefore, the Panel found that both the 12  countervailing duty determinations and Section 
1677(5)(F) were inconsistent with WTO Law.  
On 9 September 2002 the US notified its decision to appeal certain issues of law covered in the Panel 
Report and certain legal interpreta tions developed by the Panel. The United States sought review by 
the Appellate Body of the conclusi ons of the Panel set forth in para graphs 8.1(a)-(d) and 8.2 of the 
Panel Report.  
On 9 December 2002, the Appellate Body Report was circulated to Members. The Appellate Body:  
• upheld the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 8.1 (a ), (b) and (c) of the Panel Report, that the 
United States has acted inconsistently with Artic les 10, 14, 19.1, 19.4, 21.1, 21.2 and 21.3 of 
the SCM Agreement, by imposing and maintain ing countervailing duties without determining 
whether a "benefit" continues to exist in twelve countervailing duty determinations;  
• reversed the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.1( d), first sentence, of the Panel Report, that 
"[o]nce an importing Member has determined that a privatization has taken place at arm's-length and for fair market value, it must reach  the conclusion that no "benefit" resulting from 
the prior financial contribution (or subsidiza tion) continues to accrue to the privatized 
producer"; and  
• reversed the Panel's conclusion, in paragra ph 8.1(d), second sentence, of the Panel Report, 
that Section 771(5)(F) of the Tariff Act 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5)(F), is inconsistent with the SCM Agreement.  
• upheld the Panel's conclusion, in  paragraph 8.2 of the Panel Report, that, insofar as the United 
States has infringed its obligations under the SCM Agreement, as set out in paragraphs 8.1(a), 
(b), and (c) of the Panel Report, these actions of the United States constitute prima facie nullification or impairment of benefits accrui ng to the European Communities, pursuant to 
                                                                                                                                                                    
 
Steel Wire Rod from Italy (C-475-823);  Stainless Steel Plate in coils from  Italy (C-475-825); Certain Cut-to-
length Carbon-quality steel plate from Italy (C-475-827). Administrative reviews: Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel 
Flat Products from Sweden (C-401-401); Cut-to Length  Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden (C-401-804); Grain-
oriented electrical steel from Italy * (C-475-812). Sunset reviews: Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
United Kingdom (C-412-815); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from France (C-427-
810); Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Germany (C-428-817); Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
Spain (C-469-804). 
* Preliminary determination, plus final sunset results  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 155 
 
 
  Article 3.8 of the DSU; and, because the Unite d States has failed to rebut this presumption, 
the United States has in fact nullified or impaired benefits accruing to the European Communities under the SCM Agreement.  
The Appellate Body recommended that the DSB requ est the United States to bring its measures and 
administrative practice (the "same person" methodolog y) into conformity with its obligations under 
that Agreement. On 8 January 2003, the DSB a dopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel 
Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report.  
52. WT/DS211 – Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey 
Complaint by Turkey. On 6 November 2000, Turkey  requested consultations with Egypt concerning 
an anti-dumping investigation by the Egyptian Ministry of Trade and Supply with respect to imports 
of rebar from Turkey. The investigation was comp leted and the final report released on 21 October 
1999. As a result of the investigation, anti-dumping duties were imposed, ranging from 22.63-61.00 per cent ad valorem.  
Turkey considered that:  
• Egypt made determinations of injury and du mping in that investigation without a proper 
establishment of the facts and based on an ev aluation of the facts that was neither unbiased 
nor objective;  
• during the investigation of material injury or threat thereof and the causal link, Egypt acted 
inconsistently with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.1 and 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and  
• during the investigation of sales at less than nor mal value, Egypt violated Article X:3 of the 
GATT 1994, as well as Articles 2.2, 2.4, 6.1, 6.2,  6.6, 6.7 and 6.8, a nd Annex II, Paragraphs 
1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 and Annex I, Paragr aph 7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
On 3 May 2001, Turkey requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 16 May 2001, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to  a second request to establish a panel by Turkey, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 20 J une 2001. Chile, the EC, Japan and the US reserved 
their third party rights. On 18 July 2001, the Panel was composed.  
On 8 August 2002, the Panel Report was circulated  to WTO Members. The Panel concluded that 
Egypt did not act inconsistently with its obligations under:  
(a) Article 3.4 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not established that the Egyptian Investigating 
Authority was required to examine and evaluate the particular factors identified by Turkey as 
"relevant factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry";  
(b) Article 3.2 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey h as not established that there was a legal obligation 
on the Egyptian Investigating Authority to perform the price undercutting analysis in the way asserted 
by Turkey;  
(c) Article 3.1 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not established that the Egyptian Investigating 
Authority's price undercutting finding was not based on positive evidence;  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 156  
 
  (d) Articles 6.1 and 6.2 of the AD Agreement in respect  of the alleged change in scope of the injury 
investigation from threat of material injury to presen t material injury and noti ce thereof to the Turkish 
exporters;  
(e) Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not establish ed that the Egyptian 
Investigating Authority violated the positive eviden ce requirement of Article 3.1 by virtue of the 
Investigating Authority not developing certain specif ic kinds of evidence, nor has Turkey established 
that, as a consequence, Egypt violated the require ment of Article 3.5 to demonstrate a causal 
relationship between the dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry;  
(f) Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey h as not established that the Egyptian Investigating 
Authority's evaluation of the possible causation of injury by factors other than the dumped imports 
was inconsistent with Article 3.5;  
(g) Article 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not established that the Egyptian 
Investigating Authority was obligated by Articles 3.1 and 3.5 to perform an analysis and make a 
finding of the type asserted by Turkey in respect of whether the imports caused injury "through the 
effects of dumping";  
(h) Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement and paragraph 5 of Annex II theret o, with regard to three of the 
Turkish exporters, as an unbiased and objective inves tigating authority could have found that these 
three exporters failed to provide necessary information and that resort to facts available was therefore 
justified in calculating the cost of produc tion in respect of these three exporters;  
(i) Article 6.1.1 of the AD Agreement, as the request for information at issue was not a 
"questionnaire" in the sense of this provision , and the minimum time-period provided for in 
Article 6.1.1 was therefore not applicable  to this request for information;  
(j) Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement, or paragraph 6 of Annex II thereto, with regard to the 19 August 
1999 request for information, as Turkey has not established that the time-period allowed by the 
Egyptian Investigating Authority for submission of the requested information was unreasonable or, as 
a consequence, that the Egyptian Investigating Auth ority failed to provide the Turkish exporters with 
a full opportunity for the defence of their interests;  
(k) Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement, or paragra ph 6 of Annex II thereto, with regard to the 23 
September 1999 request for information, as Turkey has not established that the time-period allowed 
by the Egyptian Investigating Authority for th e submission of the requested information was 
unreasonable or, as a consequence, that the Egyptia n Investigating Authority failed to provide the 
Turkish exporters with a full opportunity for the defence of their interests;  
(l) Paragraph 3 of Annex II to the AD Agreement, as this provision does not apply to the selection of 
particular information as "facts available";  
(m) Paragraph 7 of Annex II to the AD Agreement,  as Turkey has not established that the Egyptian 
Investigating Authority failed to use "special circ umspection" in estimating the prevailing inflation 
rate in Turkey, which was applied to the data re ported by one respondent, at 5 per cent per month;  
(n) Article 6.7 of the AD Agreement, paragraph 7 of Annex I thereto, and paragraphs 1 and 6 of 
Annex II thereto, as Turkey has not established that  these provisions contain the obligations asserted 
by Turkey, i.e., Turkey has not established that it is  mandatory for investigating authorities to conduct 
"on-the-spot" verification of information submitted, that investigating authorities are precluded from requesting additional information during the course of the investigation, that the rights of the Turkish  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 157 
 
 
  exporters were seriously prejudiced, or that the actions of the Egyptian Investigating Authority 
impaired their "opportunity to provide further explanations";  
(o) Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey  has not established that the burden of proof 
requirement of that provision is applicable to the request for certain cost information by the Egyptian 
Investigating Authority in its letter of 19 August 1999 , nor, even if that requirement were applicable, 
that the request imposed an unreasonable bur den of proof on the Turkish respondents; 
(p) Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement and paragr aph 6 of Annex II thereto, as Turkey has not 
established that the Egyptian Investigating Author ity denied requests of Turkish exporters for 
meetings;  
(q) Article 2.4 of the AD Agreem ent, as Turkey has not made a prima facie case that the Egyptian 
Investigating Authority violated this provision in failing to make an adjustment to normal value for 
differences in terms of sale;  
(r) Articles 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2 of the AD Ag reement, as Turkey has not made a prima facie case that the 
Egyptian Investigating Authority viol ated these provisions in deciding not  to make an interest income 
offset in calculating cost of producti on and constructed nor mal value; and  
(s) Article X:3 of GATT 1994 as Turkey has not establis hed that Egypt administer ed its relevant laws, 
regulations, decisions or rulings in a non-uniform , non-impartial or unreasonable manner in deciding 
not to accept an offer of certain respondents to trav el to Cairo for a meeting with the Investigating 
Authority.  
The Panel concluded that Egypt acted inc onsistently with its obligations under:  
(t) Article 3.4 of the AD Agreement, in that while  it gathered data on all of the factors listed in 
Article 3.4, the Egyptian Investigating Authority failed to evaluate all of the factors listed in 
Article 3.4 as it did not evaluate productivity, actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, 
employment, wages, and ability to raise capital or investments; and  
(u) Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement, and paragraph 6 of Annex II thereto, with regard to two of the 
Turkish exporters, as the Egyptian Investigating Author ity, having received the information that it had 
identified to these two respondents as being necessary, nevertheless found that they had failed to 
provide the necessary information, and further, did not inform these two exporters of this finding and 
did not give them the required opportunity to provide  further explanations before resorting to facts 
available.  
With respect to those of Turkey's claims not addressed above, the Panel concluded that:  (v) the claim was not within its terms of refe rence (claim under AD Article 17.6(i), claim under 
Article X:3 of GATT 1994 in respect of selection of particular facts available), or was abandoned by 
Turkey (claim under Article X:3 in respect  of resort to facts available); or  
(w) in the light of considerations of judicial economy, it was neither necessary nor appropriate to 
make findings. The Panel recommended Egypt to  bring its definitive anti-dumping measures on 
imports of steel rebar from Turkey into conformity with the relevant provisions of the AD Agreement.  
On 1 October 2002, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 158  
 
  53. WT/DS207 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain 
Agricultural Products 
Complaint by Argentina. On 5 October 2000, Argentina requested consultations with Chile 
concerning:  
• the price band system established by Law 18.525 (as subsequently amended by Law 18.591 
and Law 19.546), as well as implementing regulatio ns and complementary and/or amending 
provisions; and  
• the provisional safeguard measures adopted on 19 November 1999 by Decree No. 339 of the 
Ministry of Economy and the definitive safe guard measures imposed on 20 January 2000 by 
Decree No. 9 of the Ministry of Economy on th e importation of various products, including 
wheat, wheat flour and edible vegetal oils.  
Argentina considered that these measures raised qu estions concerning the obligations of Chile under 
various agreements. According to Argentina, the provisions with which the measures relating to the 
said price band system are inconsistent, include, but are not limited to, the following: Article II of the 
GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agricu lture. According to Argentina, the provisions 
with which the safeguard measures are inconsistent , include, but are not limited to, the following: 
Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement, and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994.  
On 19 January 2001, Argentina requested the establis hment of a panel. At its meeting on 1 February 
2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by Argentina, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 12 March 2001. Australia, Brazil, 
Colombia, Costa Rica, the EC, Ecuador, El Sa lvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, Nicaragua, 
Paraguay, the US and Venezuela reserved their third party rights. On 7 May 2001, Argentina 
requested the Director-General to  determine the composition of the Panel. On 17 May 2001, the Panel 
was composed.  
On 23 November 2001, the Panel informed the DSB that  it would not be able to complete its work in 
six months due to the scheduling requests of the part ies. The Panel expected to complete its work by 
the end of March 2002. On 3 May 2002, the Panel circulated its report to Members. The Panel 
concluded that:  
(a) the Chilean PBS is inconsistent with Ar ticle 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and 
Article II:1(b) of GATT 1994; (b) as regards the Ch ilean safeguard measures on wheat, wheat flour 
and edible vegetable oils:  
1. Chile has acted inconsistently with Article 3. 1 of the Agreement on Safeguards by not making 
available the relevant minutes of the sessions of the CDC through an appropriate medium so 
as to constitute a "published" report;  
2. Chile has acted inconsistently with Article  XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 because the CDC failed 
to demonstrate the existence of unforeseen deve lopments, and Article 3.1 of the Agreement 
on Safeguards because the CDC's report did not set  out findings and reasoned conclusions in 
this respect in its report;  
3. Chile has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and Articles 2 and 4 of 
the Agreement on Safeguards because the CDC fa iled to demonstrate the likeness or direct 
competitiveness of the products produced by the domestic industry, and, consequently, failed to identify the domestic industry;   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 159 
 
 
  4. Chile has acted inconsistently with Article  XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1 and 
4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards because th e CDC failed to demonstrate the increase in 
imports of the products subject to the safegua rd measures required by those provisions;  
5. Chile has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Article 4.1(a), 
4.1(b) and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safe guards because the CDC did not demonstrate the 
existence of a threat of serious injury;  
6. Chile has acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards 
because the CDC did not demonstrate a causal link;  
7. Chile has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and Article 5.1 of the 
Agreement on Safeguards because the CDC did not ensure that the measures were limited to 
the extent necessary to prevent or reme dy injury and facilitate adjustment;  
8. Argentina failed to establish that Chile has act ed inconsistently with the requirement of 
Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Agre ement on Safeguards to conduct an  "appropriate investigation" 
because Argentina allegedly did not have a full oppor tunity to participate in the investigation 
and did not have access to any public summary of the confidential information on which the 
Chilean authorities may have based their determination.  
On 24 June 2002, Chile notified its decision to app eal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the Panel Report a nd certain legal interpretations  developed by the Panel.  
On 23 September 2002 the report of the Appellate Body was circulated. The Appellate Body:  
(a) found that the Panel acted inconsistently with  Article 11 of the DSU by making its finding, in 
paragraph 7.108 of the Panel Report, that the du ties resulting from Chile's price band system are 
inconsistent with Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994, on the basis of the second  sentence of that 
provision, which was not before the Panel, and, therefore, reverses this finding;  
(b) decided that the Panel did not err in choosing to examine Argentina's cl aim under Article 4.2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture before examining Ar gentina's claim under Article II:1(b) of the GATT 
1994;  
(c) with respect to Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture:  
upheld the Panel's finding, in para graphs 7.47 and 7.65 of the Panel Report, that Chile's price band 
system is a border measure that is similar to variable import levies and minimum import prices;  
reversed the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.52 and 7.60 of the Panel Report, that an "ordinary 
customs duty" is to be understood as "referring to a customs duty which is not applied on the basis of 
factors of an exogenous nature";  
upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.102 and 8. 1(a) of the Panel Report, that Chile's price band 
system is inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture;  
(d) decided, in the light of these findings, that it was not necessary to rule on whether Chile's price 
band system is consistent with the first sentence of Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 160  
 
  The Appellate Body recommended that the DSB request Chile to bring its price band system, as 
found, in its and in the Panel Report as modified by its Report, to be inconsis tent with the Agreement 
on Agriculture, into conformity with its  obligations under that Agreement.  
At its meeting on 23 October 2002, the DSB adop ted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel 
Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report.  
54. WT/DS206 – United States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Steel Plate 
from India 
Complaint by India. On 4 October 2000, India requested consultations with the United States 
concerning:  
• final affirmative determinations of sales of certain cut-to-length carbon quality steel plate 
products from India at less than fair value by US Department of Commerce (DOC) on 13 
December 1999 and affirmed on 10 February 2000;  
• interpretation and use of provisions relating to facts available in the anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty investigations by DOC; and  
• determination and interpretation by the US  International Trade Commission (ITC) of 
negligibility, cumulation and material injury caused by the said Indian steel imports.  
India considered that these determinations are e rroneous and based on deficient procedures contained 
in various provisions of US anti-dumping and coun tervailing duty law. Ac cording to India, these 
determinations and provisions ra ise questions concerning the obligations of the United States under 
the GATT 1994, the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement, and the Agreement establishing 
the WTO (WTO Agreement). India considered that  the provisions of these agreements with which 
these measures and determinations appear to be inconsistent, include, but are not limited to, the 
following: Articles VI and X of the GATT 1994; Articles 1, 2, 3 (especially 3.3), 5 (especially 5.8), 6 (especially 6.8), 12, 15, 18.4 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; Articles 10, 11 (especially 11.9), 15 (especially 15.3), 22 and 27 (especially 27.10) of the SCM Agreement; Article XVI of the WTO Agreement.  
Further to India's request, the DSB established a Pa nel at its meeting of 24 July 2001. Chile, the EC 
and Japan reserved their third-rights. On 16 Octobe r 2001, India requested the Director-General to 
determine the composition of the Panel. On 26 October 2001, the Director-General composed the Panel. On 16 April 2002, the Chairman of the Pane l informed the DSB that the Panel would not be 
able to complete its work in six months in li ght of scheduling conflicts. The Panel expected to 
complete its work in June 2002 , depending on translation.  
On 28 June 2002, the Panel circulated its re port to Members. The Panel concluded that:  
• the United States statutory provisions governing th e use of facts available, sections 776(a) and 
782(d) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as ame nded, are not inconsistent with Articles 6.8 
and paragraphs 3, 5, and 7 of Annex II of the AD Agreement.  
• the United States did not act inconsistently with  Article 15 of the AD Agreement with respect 
to India in the anti-dumping investigation underlying this dispute.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 161 
 
 
  The Panel also concluded that the "practice" of the USDOC concerning the application of "total facts 
available" was not a measure which can give rise to an independent claim of violation of the AD 
Agreement, and have therefore not rule d on India's claim in this regard.  
With respect to India's claims not a ddressed above, the Panel concluded that:  
• it would not rule on India's abandoned claim; and  
• in light of considerations of judicial econom y, it was neither necessary nor appropriate to 
make findings with respect to the remainde r of India's claims. The Panel therefore 
recommended that the DSB request the United States to bring its measure into conformity with its obligations under the AD Agreement.  
At its meeting on 29 July 2002, the DSB adopted the Panel report.  55. WT/DS204 – Mexico – Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services 
Complaint by the United States. On 17 August 2000, the US requested consultations with Mexico in 
respect of Mexico's commitments and obligations  under the GATS with respect to basic and value-
added telecommunications services. According to the United States, since the entry into force of the 
GATS, Mexico has adopted or maintained anti-co mpetitive and discriminatory regulatory measures, 
tolerated certain privately-established market access  barriers, and failed to take needed regulatory 
action in Mexico's basic and value-added telecomm unications sectors. The US claimed that Mexico 
had, for example:  
• enacted and maintained laws, regulations, rules,  and other measures that deny or limit market 
access, national treatment, and additional co mmitments for service suppliers seeking to 
provide basic and value-added telecommunica tions services into and within Mexico;  
• failed to issue and enact regulations, permits, or  other measures to ensure implementation of 
Mexico's market access, national treatment, and additional commitments for service suppliers seeking to provide basic and value-added telecommunications services into and within Mexico;  
• failed to enforce regulations and other measures to ensure compliance with Mexico's market 
access, national treatment, and additional co mmitments for service suppliers seeking to 
provide basic and value-added telecommunica tions services into and within Mexico;  
• failed to regulate, control and prevent its majo r supplier, Teléfonos de México ("Telmex"), 
from engaging in activity that denies or limits Mexico's market access, national treatment, and additional commitments for service suppliers seeking to provide basic and value-added 
telecommunications services into and within Mexico; and  
• failed to administer measures of general a pplication governing basic and value-added 
telecommunications services in a reasonable, objective, and impartial manner, ensure that decisions and procedures used by Mexico's telecommunications regulator are impartial with respect to all market participants, and ensure  access to and use of public telecommunications 
transport networks and services on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions 
for the supply of basic and value-a dded telecommunications services.  
The United States considered that the alleged act ion and inaction on the part of Mexico may be 
inconsistent with Mexico's GATS commitments and obligations, including Articles VI, XVI, and WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 162  
 
  XVII; Mexico's additional commitments under Arti cle XVIII as set forth in the Reference Paper 
inscribed in Mexico's Schedule of Specific Commitme nts, including Sections 1, 2, 3, and 5; and the 
GATS Annex on Telecommunications, including Sections 4 and 5.  
On 10 November 2000, the United States requested th e establishment of a panel. On the same date, 
the United States notified to the DSB a request for consultations concerning several recent measures 
adopted by Mexico affecting trade in telecomm unication services. At its  meeting on 12 December 
2000, the DSB deferred establishment of a panel. On 13 February 2002, the United States requested 
the establishment of a panel. In particular, the Un ited States claimed that Mexico's measures had:  
• failed to ensure that Telmex provides inte rconnection to US cross-border basic telecom 
suppliers on reasonable rat es, terms and conditions;  
• failed to ensure US basic telecom suppliers reasonable and non-discriminatory access to and 
use of public telecom networks and services;  
• did not provide national treatment to US-owned commercial agencies; and  
• did not prevent Telmex from engaging in anti-competitive practices.  
At its meeting on 8 March 2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second 
request by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 17 April 2002. Canada, Cuba, the 
EC, Guatemala, Japan and Nicaragua reserved th eir third-party rights to participate in the 
proceedings. On 18 April 2002, India joined as a third party to the disp ute. On 19 April 2002, 
Honduras joined as a third party to the dispute. On 23 April 2002, Australia joined as a third party. On 24 April 2002, Brazil joined as a third party. On 16 August 2002, the US requested the Director General to determine the composition of the pa nel. On 26 August 2002, the panel was composed. 
On 13 March 2003, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible to 
complete its work in six months due to the time need ed for translation into Spanish and English of all 
relevant documents and the complexity of the issu es involved. The Panel expected to complete its 
work in August 2003. On 6 August 2003, the Chairm an of the Panel informed the DSB that the Panel 
expected to complete its work in December 2003.  
On 2 April 2004, the Panel report was circulated to Members. The Panel ruled that Mexico violated its 
GATS commitments because:  
• Mexico failed to ensure interconnection at cost-oriented rates  for the cross-border supply of 
facilities-based basic telecom services, contrary to Article 2.2(b) of its Reference Paper;  
• Mexico failed to maintain appropriate measures to prevent anti-competitive practices  by firms 
that are a major telecom supplier, contrary to Article 1.1 of its Reference Paper; and  
• Mexico failed to ensure re asonable and non-discriminatory access to and use of  
telecommunications networks, contrary to Ar ticle 5(a) and (b) of the GATS Annex on 
Telecommunications.  
In respect of cross-border telecom services supplied on a non-facilities  basis in Mexico, however, the 
Panel ruled that Mexico did not violate its obliga tions because it had not taken commitments for these 
services.  
On 1 June 2004, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 163 
 
 
  56. WT/DS202 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures On Imports Of Circular 
Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe From Korea 
Complaint by Korea. On 13 June 2000, Korea requ ested consultations with the United States in 
respect of concerns the definitive safeguard me asure imposed by the United States on imports of 
circular welded carbon quality line pipe (line pipe ). Korea noted that on 18 February 2000 the United 
States proclaimed a definitive safeguard measure on imports of line pipe (subheadings 7306.10.10 and 
7306.10.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States). In that proclamation, the United 
States announced that the proposed date of introduc tion of the measure was 1 March 2000 and that the 
measure was expected to remain in effect for 3 years and 1 day. Korea considered that the US 
procedures and determinations that led to the imposition of the safeguard measure as well as the 
measure itself contravened various  provisions contained in the Safeguards Agreement and the GATT 
1994. In particular, Korea considers that the me asure is inconsistent with the United States' 
obligations under Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 11 and 12 of  the Safeguards Agreement; and Articles I, XIII and 
XIX of the GATT 1994.  
Further to Korea's request, the DSB established a pa nel at its meeting of 23 October 2000. Australia, 
Canada, EC, Japan and Mexico reserved their third- party rights. On 12 January 2001, Korea requested 
the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 22 January 2001, the Panel was 
composed.  
On 29 October 2001, the Panel circulated its report to  the Members. The Panel concluded that the US 
line pipe measure was imposed inconsistently with certain provisions of GATT 1994 and/or the 
Safeguards Agreement, in particular:  
• the line pipe measure is not consistent with the general rule contained in the chapeau of 
Article XIII:2 because it has been applied wit hout respecting traditional trade patterns;  
• the line pipe measure is not consistent with  Article XIII2:(a) because it has been applied 
without fixing the total amount of impor ts permitted at the lower tariff rate;  
• the US acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) by failing to include in its published 
report a finding or reasoned conc lusion either (i) that increased imports have caused serious 
injury, or (ii) that increased imports ar e threatening to cause serious injury;  
• the US acted inconsistently with Article 4.2( b) by failing to establish a causal link between 
the increased imports and the serious  injury, or threat thereof;  
• the US has not complied with its obligations under Article 9.1 by applying the measure to 
developing countries whose imports do not exceed the individual and collective thresholds in 
that provision;  
• the US acted inconsistently with its obligati ons under Article XIX by failing to demonstrate 
the existence of unforeseen developments prior to  the application of the line pipe measure;  
• the US has acted inconsistently with its obliga tions under Article 12.3 by failing to provide an 
adequate opportunity for prior consultations w ith Members having a substantial interest as 
exporters of line pipe;  
• the US has acted inconsistently with its obligati ons under Article 8.1 to endeavour to maintain 
a substantially equivalent level of  concessions and other obligations;  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 164  
 
  All other claims by Korea were rejected by the Pane l. The Panel also declined  Korea's request for the 
Panel to find that the US safeguard measure s hould be lifted immediately and the ITC safeguard 
investigation on line pipe terminated.  
On 6 November 2001, the US notified its decision to appeal certain findings of law and legal 
interpretations contained in the Panel Report. Ho wever, on 13 November 2001, it withdrew its notice 
of appeal. Later, on 19 November 2001, the US notified its decision to re-file its appeal to the 
Appellate Body. On 18 January 2002, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that there would be a 
delay in the circulation of the report. Accordingly,  the Appellate Body informed that the report would 
be circulated to the Members no later than 15 Fe bruary 2002. On 15 February 2002, the Appellate 
Body circulated its report to the Members. The Appellate Body:  
• upheld, albeit for different reasons, the Panel' s finding, in paragraph 8.1(7) of the Panel 
Report, that the United States acted inconsisten tly with its obligation under Article 12.3 of the 
Agreement on Safeguards  by failing to provide an adequate opportunity for prior 
consultations with Korea, a Member having a s ubstantial interest in exports of line pipe;  
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.1(8)  of the Panel Report, that the United States 
acted inconsistently with its obligation under Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards  to 
endeavour to maintain a substantially equivale nt level of concessions and other obligations;  
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.1(5) of the Panel Report, that the United States did 
not comply with its obligation under Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards  that 
safeguard measures shall not be applied against a product originating in a developing country Member as long as its imports do not exceed the individual and collective thresholds in that 
provision;  
• reversed the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.1(3)  of the Panel Report, that the United States 
acted inconsistently with its obligati ons under Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) of the Agreement on  
Safeguards  by failing to include in its published repo rt a finding or reasoned conclusion either 
(1) that increased imports have caused serious injury, or (2) that increased imports are 
threatening to cause serious injury;  
• reversed the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.2(9)  of the Panel Report, that the United States 
did not violate its obligations under Articles 2 and 4 of the Agreement  on Safeguards  by 
exempting Canada and Mexico from the line pipe measure;  
• modified the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.2(1 )) of the Panel Report, that the United States 
did not violate its obligations under Article s I, XIII:1 and XIX of GATT 1994 by exempting 
Canada and Mexico from the line pipe measur es, declaring it moot and as having no legal 
effect;  
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.1(4)  of the Panel Report, that the United States 
acted inconsistently with its oblig ation under Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards  
by failing to establish a causal link between th e increased imports and the serious injury or 
threat thereof;  
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.81 of  the Panel Report, that the United States was 
not required by Article 5.1, first sentence, of the Agreement on Safeguards  to demonstrate, at 
the time of imposition, that the line pipe measur e was necessary to prevent or remedy serious 
injury and to facilitate adjustment;   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 165 
 
 
  • reversed the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.2( 2) of the Panel Report, that Korea failed to 
make a prima facie  case that the United States violated its obligation under Article 5.1, first 
sentence, of the Agreement on Safeguards , by imposing a measure that exceeds what is 
"necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury a nd to facilitate adjustment", and finds that the 
United States applied the line pipe measure beyond the "extent necessary to prevent or 
remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment".  
On 8 March 2002, the DSB adopted the Appellate Bo dy Report and the Panel Report, as modified by 
the Appellate Body Report.  
57. WT/DS194 – United States – Measures Treating Export Restraints as Subsidies 
Complaint by Canada. On 19 May 2000, Canada re quested consultations with the US regarding 
certain US measures that treat a restraint on exports  of a product as a subsidy to other products made 
using or incorporating the restricted product if the domestic price of the restricted product is affected by the restraint. The measures at issue included pr ovisions of the Statement of Administrative Action 
(SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) (H.R. 5110, H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 
1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., 656, in particular at 925-926 (1994)) and the Explanation of the Final Rules, 
US Department of Commerce, Countervailing Duties,  Final Rule (63 Federal Register 65,348 at 
65,349-51 (Nov. 25, 1998)) interpreting section 771(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 USC. § 1677(5)), 
as amended by the URAA. Canada's claims were as follows:  
• Canada considered that these measures were in consistent with US ob ligations under Articles 
1.1, 10, (as well as Articles 11, 17 and 19, as they relate to the requirements of Article 10), and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement because these measures provide that the US will impose 
countervailing duties against practices that are not subsidies within the meaning of Article 1.1 
of the SCM Agreement.  
• Canada also considered that the US has faile d to ensure that its laws, regulations and 
administrative procedures are in conformity with its WTO obligations as required by Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
On 24 July 2000, Canada requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 4 August 2000, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to est ablish a panel by Canada, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 11  September 2000. Australia, the EC and India 
reserved their third-party rights. On 23 October 2000 , the Panel was composed. The Panel circulated 
its report on 29 June 2001. The Panel concluded that:  
• an export restraint as defined in this dis pute cannot constitute government-entrusted or 
government-directed provision of goods in the se nse of subparagraph (iv) and hence does not 
constitute a financial contribution in the sense of  Article 1.1(a) of the SCM Agreement; and  
• Section 771(5)(B)(iii) read in light of the SAA and the Preamble to the US CVD Regulations 
is not inconsistent with Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement by "requir[ing] the imposition of 
countervailing duties against practices that ar e not subsidies within the meaning of 
Article 1.1".  
• with respect to those of Canada's claims not  addressed above, the Panel concluded that in 
light of considerations of judicial economy, it was neither necessary nor appropriate to make 
findings thereon. The Panel therefore made no recommendations with respect to the US' 
obligations under the SCM and WTO Agreements.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 166  
 
  The DSB adopted the Panel Report on 23 August 2001.  
58. WT/DS192 – United States – Transitional Sa feguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn 
from Pakistan 
Complaint by Pakistan. On 3 April 2000, Pakistan re quested consultations with the US in respect of a 
transitional safeguard measure applied by the Unite d States, as of 17 March 1999, on combed cotton 
yarn (United States category 301) from Pakistan  (see US Federal Register of 12 March 1999, 
document 99-6098). In accordance with Article 6.10 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), the United States had notified the TMB on 5 March 1999 that it had decided to unilaterally 
impose a restraint, after consultations as to whethe r the situation called for a restraint had failed to 
produce a mutually satisfactory solution. In April 1999, the TMB examined th e US restraint pursuant 
to Article 6.10 of the ATC and recommended that the US restraint should be rescinded. On 28 May 
1999, in accordance with Article 8.10 of the AT C, the United States notified the TMB that it 
considered itself unable to conform to the recomm endations issued by the TMB. Despite a further 
recommendation of the TMB pursuant to Article 8.10 of  the ATC that the United States reconsider its 
position, the United States continued to maintain its unilateral restra int and thus the matter remained 
unresolved.  
Pakistan claimed as follows:  
• the transitional safeguards applied by the Un ited States are inconsistent with the United 
States' obligations under Articles 2.4 of the ATC and not justified by Article 6 of the ATC;  
• the US restraint does not meet the requireme nts for transitional safeguards set out in 
paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 7 of Article 6 of the ATC.  
On 3 April 2000, Pakistan requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 18 May 2000, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by Pakistan, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 19 June 2000. India and the EC reserved their 
third-party rights. On 30 August 2000, the Panel was composed.  
The Panel circulated its report on 31 May 2001. Th e Panel concluded that the transitional safeguard 
measure (quantitative restriction) imposed by the US  on imports of combed cotton yarn from Pakistan 
as of 17 March 1999, and extended as of 17 March 2000 for a further year is inconsistent with the 
provisions of Article 6 of the ATC. Specifically, the Panel found that:  
• Inconsistently with its obliga tions under 6.2, the US excluded the production of combed 
cotton yarn by vertically integrated producers for their own use from the scope of the "domestic industry producing like and/or dir ectly competitive products" with imported 
combed cotton yarn;  
• Inconsistently with its obligati ons under Article 6.4, the US did not examine the effect of 
imports from Mexico (and possibly other appropriate Members) individually;  
• Inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 6.2 and 6.4, the US did not demonstrate that 
the subject imports caused an "actual threat" of serious damage to the domestic industry. 
With respect to the other claims, the Panel found th at Pakistan did not estab lish that the measure at 
issue was inconsistent with the US obligations u nder Article 6 of the ATC. Specifically, the Panel 
found that: (a) Pakistan did not establish that th e US determination of serious damage was not 
justified based on the data used by the US investig ating authority; (b) Pakistan did not establish that  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 167 
 
 
  the US determination of serious damage was not  justified regarding the evaluation by the US 
investigating authority of establishments that ce ased producing combed cotton yarn; (c) Pakistan did 
not establish that the US determinations of serious  damage and causation th ereof were not justified 
based upon an inappropriately chosen period of in vestigation and period of incidence of serious 
damage and causation thereof.  
The Panel recommended that the DSB request that the US bring the measure at issue into conformity 
with its obligations under the ATC, and suggested that  this can best be achieved by prompt removal of 
the import restriction.  
On 9 July 2001, the US notified its decision to app eal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the Panel Report and certa in legal interpretations develope d by the Panel. On 5 September 
2001, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that it woul d not be able to circulate its report within the 
7 September deadline. The Report was circulated  to Members on 8 October 2001. The Appellate 
Body upheld the Panel's overall c onclusion that the transitional saf eguard measure taken by the 
United States with respect to imports of combed co tton yarn from Pakistan was inconsistent with the 
ATC. In particular, the Appellate Body upheld th e Panel's findings that, in taking safeguard action 
with respect to imports of yarn from Pakistan, th e US: (a) failed to define properly the relevant 
"domestic industry" producing yarn; and (b) failed to examine the effect of imports of yarn from other 
major suppliers individually when attributing serious  damage to imports from Pakistan. Furthermore, 
the Appellate Body concluded that  the Panel should not have consid ered data which were not in 
existence at the time when the US determined that serious damage had been caused to the domestic 
industry. It declined to rule on the broader issue of whether an importing Member must attribute 
serious damage to all Members whose exports cont ributed to that damage and concluded therefore 
that the Panel's interpretation of this broader issue was of no legal effect.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and th e Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body Report, on 5 November 2001.  
At the DSB meeting on 21 November 2001, the US  stated that it had implemented the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. Specifically, on  8 November 2001, the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreemen ts, chaired by the Department of Commerce, had directed the US 
Customs Service to eliminate the limit on imports of combed cotton yarn from Pakistan. This action 
was effective from 9 November 2001.  
59. WT/DS189 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-D umping Measures on Carton-Board Imports 
from Germany and Definitive Anti-Dumping  Measures on Imports of Ceramic Tiles 
from Italy 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 26 Janua ry 2000, the EC requested consultations with 
Argentina in respect of Argentina's definitive an ti-dumping measures on imports of ceramic floor tiles 
from Italy imposed on 12 November 1999. The EC claimed that the Argentinian investigating 
authority without justification disregarded all the information on normal value and on export prices 
provided by the exporters included in the sample; fail ed to calculate an individual dumping margin for 
each of the exporters included in the sample; faile d to make due allowance for the differences in 
physical characteristics between the models exported to Argentina and those sold in Italy; and failed 
to inform the Italian exporters of the essential facts concerning the existence of dumping which 
formed the basis for the decision whether to apply definitive measures. The EC considered that the 
anti-dumping measures in question were  inconsistent with Articles 2.4,  6.8 in conjunction with Annex 
II, 6.9 and 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 168  
 
  On 7 November 2000, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 26 September 
2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its me eting on 17 November 2000 on the basis of the EC's 
reduced complaint which relates only to definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of ceramic floor 
tiles from Italy. Japan, Turkey and the US reserved their third-party rights. On 12 January 2001, the 
Panel was composed.  
The Panel circulated its report to Member s on 28 September 2001. The Panel found that:  
• Argentina acted inconsistently with Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement 
by disregarding in large part the information pr ovided by the exporter for the determination of 
the normal value and export price, and this wit hout informing the exporters of the reasons for 
such a rejection;  
• Argentina acted inconsistently with Article  6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by not 
determining an individual dumping margin for each sampled exporter;  
• Argentina acted inconsistently with Article 2. 4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to 
make due allowance for difference in physical characteristics affecting price comparability;  
• Argentina acted inconsistently with Article  6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by not 
disclosing to the exporters the essential facts unde r consideration which form the basis for the 
decision whether to apply definitive measures.  
On 5 November 2001, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.  
60. WT/DS184 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel 
Products from Japan 
Complaint by Japan. On 18 November 1999, Japan requ ested consultations with the US in respect of 
the preliminary and final determinations of the US  Department of Commerce and the US International 
Trade Commission on the anti-dumping investigation of Certain Hot Rolled Steel Products from Japan issued on 25 and 30 November 1998, 12 February 1999, 28 April 1999 and 23 June 1999. Japan considered that these determinations are erroneous  and based on deficient procedures under the US 
Tariff Act of 1930 and related regulations. The Japan ese complaint also concerned certain provisions 
of the Tariff Act of 1930 and related regulations. Japan  claimed violations of Articles VI and X of the 
GATT 1994 and Articles 2, 3, 6 (including Annex II) , 9 and 10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
On 11 February 2000, Japan requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 24 February 
2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by Japan, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 20 March 2000. Brazil, Canada, Chile, the EC 
and Korea reserved their third-party rights. On 9 Ma y 2000, Japan requested the Director-General to 
determine the composition of the Panel. On 24 May 2000, the Panel was composed. The Panel circulated its report on 28 February 200 1. The Panel concluded as follows:  
• The US acted inconsistently with Articles 6. 8 and Annex II of the AD Agreement in its 
application of "facts available" to Kawasaki Steel Corporation (KSC), Nippon Steel 
Corporation (NSC) and NKK Corporation;  
• Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of 19 30, as amended, which mandates that USDOC 
exclude only margins based entirely on facts ava ilable in determining an  all others rate, is 
inconsistent with Article 9.4 of the AD Agre ement, and that therefore the US has acted  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 169 
 
 
  inconsistently with its obliga tions under Article 18.4 of the AD Agreement and Article XVI:4 
of the Marrakesh Agreement by failing to bri ng that provision into conformity with its 
obligations under the AD Agreement; and  
• The US acted inconsistently with Article 2.1 of the AD Agreement in excluding certain home-
market sales to affiliated parties from the calculation of normal value on the basis of the 
"arm's length" test. In addition, in light of the findings above, the pa nel concluded that the 
replacement of those sales with sales to una ffiliated downstream purchasers was inconsistent 
with Article 2.1 of the AD Agreement.  
• With respect to those of Japan's claims not a ddressed above the panel concluded: (1) that the 
claim was not within its terms of reference ("general practice" concerning adverse facts 
available; "general practice" of excluding cer tain home-market sales from the calculation of 
normal value), or (2) that, in light of consid erations of judicial economy, it is neither 
necessary nor appropriate to make findings.  
On 25 April 2001, the US notified its decision to app eal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the Panel Report and cer tain legal interpretations devel oped by the Panel. The Appellate 
Body circulated its Report on 24 July 2001. In th is regard, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's 
findings except for the following:  
• It reversed the Panel's finding regarding th e inconsistency with Article 2.1 of the Anti-
dumping Agreement of the US's methodology for calculating the normal value as regards the using of certain downstream sales made by an in vestigated exporters' affiliates to dependent 
purchasers;  
• It found that there was insufficient factual r ecord to allow completion of the analysis of 
Japan's claim under Article 2.4 of the Anti-dumping Agreement that the US did not make a fair comparison in its use of downstream sales when calculating normal value;  
• It reversed the Panel's finding that the US di d not act inconsistently with the Anti-dumping 
Agreement in its application of the captive produc tion provision in its determination of injury 
sustained by the US hot-rolled steel industry;  
• It reversed the Panel's finding that the US ITC demonstrated the existence of a causal 
relationship, under Article 3.5 of the said agre ement, between dumped imports and material 
injury to that industry; but found that there w as insufficient factual reco rd to allow completion 
of the analysis of Japan's claim on causation;  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and th e Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body Report, on 23 August 2001.  
61. WT/DS179 – United States – Anti-Dumping measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils 
and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea 
Complaint by Korea. On 30 July 1999, Korea requ ested consultations with the US in respect of 
Preliminary and Final Determinations of the US's Department of Commerce (DOC) on Stainless Steel 
Plate in Coils from Korea dated 4 November 1998 and 31 March 1999 respectively, and Stainless 
Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea dated 20 Janua ry 1999 and 8 June 1999 respectively. Korea 
considered that several errors were made by th e US in those determinations which resulted in 
erroneous findings and deficient conclusions as we ll as the imposition, calculation and collection of 
anti-dumping margins which are incompatible with th e obligation of the US under the provisions of WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 170  
 
  the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of GATT 1994 and in particular, but not necessarily 
exclusively, Article 2, Article 6 and Article 12 of  the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Korea believed that 
the US did not act in conformity with the cite d provisions, among others, in its treatment of the 
following: certain US sales made to a bankrupt compan y; the calculation of two distinct exchange rate 
periods for export sales; and currency conversion for certain normal value sales made in US dollars.  
On 14 October 1999, Korea requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 27 October 
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by Korea, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 19 November 1999. The EC and Japan 
reserved their third-party rights. On 24 March 2000, the Panel was composed. The panel circulated its 
report on 22 December 2000. The panel concluded that:  
(i) with respect to "local sales":  
• the US in the Plate  investigation did not act inconsis tently with its obligations under 
Article 2.4.1, Article 2.4 chapeau ("fair comp arison"), and Article 12.2 of the AD Agreement 
nor with its obligations under Article X:3(a) of GATT 1994;  
• the US in the Sheet  investigation acted inconsistently w ith Article 2.4.1 of the AD Agreement 
by performing a currency conversion that was not required.  
(ii) with respect to the treatment of unpaid sales, the US:  
• acted inconsistently with its obligations unde r Article 2.4 chapeau of the AD Agreement in 
both the Plate  and Sheet  investigations by making allowances in respect of sales through 
unaffiliated importers which were not permissi ble allowances for differences affecting price 
comparability;  
• acted inconsistently with its obligations unde r Article 2.4 chapeau of the AD Agreement in 
both the Plate and Sheet  investigations by making allowan ces in respect of sales through an 
affiliated importer which were not permissible allowances in the construction of the export 
price for costs incurred between importation and resale.  
(iii) with respect to multiple averaging, the panel concluded that:  
• the US's use of multiple averaging periods in the Plate and Sheet  investigations was 
inconsistent with the requirement of Article 2.4.2 to compare "a weighted average normal 
value with a weighted average of a ll comparable export transactions";  
• the US's use of multiple averaging periods in the Plate and Sheet  investigations was not 
inconsistent with Article 2.4.1 of the AD Agreement;  
• the US's use of multiple averaging periods in the Plate and Sheet  investigations was not 
inconsistent with the first sentence of the chap eau of Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement ("fair 
comparison").  
(iv) to the extent that the US has acted inconsiste ntly with the provisions of the AD Agreement, it has 
nullified or impaired benefits accruing to Korea under that Agreement.  
At its meeting of 1 February 2001, the DSB adopted the panel report.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 171 
 
 
  62. WT/DS177, WT/DS178 – United States – Sa feguard Measure on Imports of Fresh, 
Chilled or Frozen Lamb from New Zealand 
Complaints by New Zealand and Australia. On 16 Ju ly 1999, New Zealand requested consultations 
with the US in respect of a safeguard measure imposed by the US on imports of lamb meat from New Zealand (WT/DS177). New Zealand alleged that by  Presidential Proclamation under Section 203 of 
the US Trade Act 1974, the US imposed a definitive safeguard measure in the form of a tariff-rate 
quota on imports fresh, chilled, or frozen lamb meat effective from 22 July 1999. New Zealand 
contended that this measure is inconsistent with Articles 2, 4,  5, 11 and 12 of the Agreement on 
Safeguards, and Articles I and XIX of GATT 1994.  
On 23 July 1999, Australia requested consultations with the US in respect of a definitive safeguard 
measure imposed by the US on imports of lamb (W T/DS178). Australia alleged that by Presidential 
Proclamation under Section 203 of the US Trade Ac t 1974, the US imposed a definitive safeguard 
measure in the form of a tariff-rate quota on imports of fresh, chilled, or frozen lamb meat from Australia effective from 22 July 1999. Australia cont ended that this measure is inconsistent with 
Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 12 of the Agreemen t on Safeguards, and Articles I, II and XIX of GATT 
1994.  
On 14 October 1999, New Zealand and Australia re quested the establishment of a panel. At its 
meeting on 27 October 1999, the DSB deferred the es tablishment of the panels. Further to the second 
requests to establish a panel by New Zealand and Australia, at its meeting on 19 November 1999, the 
DSB established, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, a single panel to examine the complaints 
WT/DS177 and WT/DS178. Canada, the EC, Iceland and Japan reserved their third-party rights. 
Australia reserved its third-party rights in rela tion to the complaint by New Zealand, while New 
Zealand reserved its third-party rights in relati on to the complaint by Australia. On 21 March 2000, 
the Panel was composed. The Panel circulated its  report on 21 December 2000. The Panel concluded 
that:  
• the US has acted inconsistently with Ar ticle XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 by failing to 
demonstrate as a matter of fact the existence of "unforeseen developments";  
• the US has acted inconsistently with Article 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards because 
the USITC, in the lamb meat investigation,  defined the domestic industry as including input 
producers as producers of the like product at issue (i.e. lamb meat);  
• the complainants failed to establish that the US ITC's analytical approach to determining the 
existence of a threat of serious injury, in par ticular with respect to the prospective analysis 
and the time-period used, is inconsistent with Ar ticle 4.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards;  
• the complainants failed to establish that the USIT C's analytical approach to evaluating all of 
the factors listed in Article 4.2(a) of the Ag reement on Safeguards when  determining whether 
increased imports threatened to cause serious in jury with respect to the domestic industry as 
defined in the investigation is in consistent with that provision;  
• the US has acted inconsistently with Article 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards because 
the USITC failed to obtain data in respect of  producers representing a major proportion of the 
total domestic production by the domestic indus try as defined in the investigation;  
• the US has acted inconsistently with Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards because 
the USITC's determination in the lamb meat investigation in respect of causation did not 
demonstrate the required causal link between increas ed imports and threat of serious injury, in WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 172  
 
  that the determination did not establish that increased imports were by themselves a necessary 
and sufficient cause of threat of serious injury, and in that the determination did not ensure 
that threat of serious injury caused by "other f actors" was not attributed to increased imports;  
• by virtue of the above violations of Article 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards, the US also has 
acted inconsistently with Article 2. 1 of the Agreement on Safeguards.  
On 31 January 2001, the US notified the DSB of its intention to appeal certain issues of law covered 
in the Panel Report and legal interp retations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body circulated 
its report on 1 May 2001. The Appellate Body:  
• upheld the Panel's finding that the US acted inc onsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 
1994 by failing to demonstrate, as a matte r of fact, the existence of "unforeseen 
developments";  
• upheld the Panel's finding that the United Stat es acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 
4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards  because the USITC defined the relevant "domestic 
industry" to include growers and feeders of live lambs;  
• upheld the Panel's finding that the USITC ma de a determination re garding the "domestic 
industry" on the basis of data that was not su fficiently representative of that industry; but 
modified the Panel's ultimate finding that the US thereby acted inconsistently with 
Articles 2.1 and 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards  by finding, instead, that the United 
States thereby acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of that Agreement;  
• found that the Panel correctly interpreted the sta ndard of review, set forth in Article 11 of the 
DSU, which is appropriate to its examinati on of claims made under Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement on Safeguards ; but concluded that the Panel erre d in applying that standard in 
examining the claims made concerning the USITC' s determination that there existed a threat 
of serious injury; and found, moreover, that th e US acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 
4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards  because the USITC Report did not explain adequately 
the determination that there existed a threat of  serious injury to the domestic industry;  
• reversed the Panel's interpretation of the causation requirements in the Agreement on 
Safeguards  but, for different reasons, upheld the Pa nel's ultimate finding that the US acted 
inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4.2(b) of the Agreement because the USITC's determination that there existed a causal link between increased imports and a threat of serious injury did not ensure that injury caused to the domestic industry, by factors other than 
increased imports, was not attributed to those imports;  
• upheld the Panel's exercise of judicial econom y in declining to rule on the claim of New 
Zealand under Article 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards ; and  
• declined to rule on the respective conditional appeals of Australia and New Zealand relating 
to Articles I, II and XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994, a nd to Articles 2.2, 3.1, 5.1, 8.1, 11.1(a) and 
12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards .  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and th e Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body Report, on 16 May 2001.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 173 
 
 
  63. WT/DS176 – United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 
Complaint by the European Communities and its Memb er States. On 8 July 1999, the EC requested 
consultations with the US in respect of Section 211 of the US Omnibus Appropriations Act. The EC 
and its member States alleged as follows:  
• Section 211, which was signed into law on 21 Oc tober 1998, did not allow the registration or 
renewal in the United States of a trademark, if it was previously abandoned by a trademark 
owner whose business and assets have been confiscated under Cuban law.  
• This law provided that no US court shall r ecognize or enforce any assertion of such rights.  
• Section 211 US Omnibus Appropriations Act was no t in conformity with the US' obligations 
under the TRIPS Agreement, notably its Article 2 in conjunction with the Paris Convention, 
Article 3, Article 4, Articles 15 to 21, Article 41, Article 42 and Article 62.  
Further to the request of the EC and its member States, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 
26 September 2000. Canada, Japan and Nicaragua reser ved their third-party rights. On 17 October 
2000, the EC and its member States requested the Di rector-General to determine the composition of 
the Panel. On 26 October 2000, the Panel was composed.  
The Panel circulated its Report on 6 August 2001. Th e Panel rejected most of the claims by the EC 
and their member States except that relating to the inconsistency of Section 211(a)(2) of the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act with Article 42 of the TRIPS Agre ement. In this regard, the panel concluded that 
this Section is inconsistent with the relevant TR IPs Article on the grounds that it limits, under certain 
circumstances, right holders' e ffective access to and availability of  civil judicial procedures.  
On 4 October 2001, the EC and its Member States no tified their decision to appeal certain issues of 
law and legal interpretations devel oped by the panel report. The Appellate Body report was circulated 
to Members on 12 January 2002. The Appellate Body:  
• found, in respect of the protection of tradem arks, that Sections 211(a)(2) and (b) of the 
Omnibus Appropriations Act violated the national treatment and most-favoured nation 
obligations under the TRIPS Agreement and th e Paris Convention for the Protection of 
Industrial Property, thereby reversing th e Panel's findings to the contrary;  
• reversed the Panel's finding that Section 211(a )(2) is inconsistent w ith Article 42 of the 
TRIPS Agreement and concluded that Article 42 contains procedural obligations, while 
Section 211 affects substantive trademark rights;  
• upheld the Panel's findings that Section 211 does not violate the US' obligations under 
Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunc tion with Article 6quinquies A(1) of the Paris 
Convention, and Articles 15 and 16 of the TRIP S Agreement. It also upheld the Panel's 
finding under Article 42 of the TRIPS Agreement in respect of Section 211(b); and  
• reversed the Panel's conclusion that trade na mes are not a category of intellectual property 
protected under the TRIPS Agreement and then  completed the analysis reaching the same 
conclusions for trade names as with respect to  trademarks. It also found that Sections 
211(a)(2) and (b) are not inconsistent with Artic le 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunction 
with Article 8 of the Paris Convention (1967).  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 174  
 
  At its meeting on 2 January 2002, the DSB adopted th e Appellate Body report a nd the Panel report, as 
upheld by the Appellate Body report.  
64. WT/DS174, WT/DS290 – European Communi ties – Protection of Trademarks and 
Geographical Indications for Agricu ltural Products and Foodstuffs 
Complaints by the United States (WT/DS174) and Australia (WT/DS290).  On 1 June 1999, the US requested consultations w ith the EC in respect of  the alleged lack of 
protection of trademarks and geogr aphical indications (GIs) for agri cultural products and foodstuffs in 
the EC. The US contended that EC Regulation 2081/92, as amended, does not provide national 
treatment with respect to geographical indications  and does not provide sufficient protection to pre-
existing trademarks that are similar or identical to  a geographical indication. The US considered this 
situation to be inconsistent with the EC's oblig ations under the TRIPS Agreement, including but not 
necessarily limited to Articles 3, 16, 24, 63 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
On 4 April 2003, the US sent an additional request  for consultations concerning the protection of 
trademarks and GIs for agricultural products and fo odstuffs in the EC. This request does not replace 
but rather supplements the 1999 request. The measures concerned are EC Regulation 2081/92, as 
amended, and its related implem enting and enforcement measures (the "EC Regulation"). According 
to the US, the EC Regulation limits the GIs that the EC will protect and limits the access of nationals of other Members to the EC GI procedures and pr otections provided under the Regulation. The US 
claims that the EC Regulation appears to be inconsiste nt with Articles 2, 3, 4, 16, 22, 24, 63 and 65 of 
the TRIPS Agreement and Articles I and III:4 of the GATT 1994.  
On 17 April 2003, Australia requested consultati ons with the EC concerning the protection of 
trademarks and to the registration and protecti on of geographical indications for foodstuffs and 
agricultural products in the EC. The measures at issue include Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical  indications and designations of origin for 
agricultural products and foodstuffs and re lated measures ("the EC measure").  
According to Australia:  
• the EC measure seems not to accord immediately and unconditionally to the nationals and/or 
products of each WTO Member any advantage, fa vour, privilege of immunity granted to the 
nationals and/or like products of any other WTO Member,  
• the EC measure seems not to accord to the nationals and/or products of each WTO Member 
treatment no less favourable than that it accords to its own nationals and/or like products of 
national origin,  
• the EC measure may diminish the legal protection for trademarks,  
• the EC measure may not be consistent with the EC's obligation to provide the legal means for 
interested parties to prevent misleading use of a geographical indication or any use which 
constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 10bis of the Paris 
Convention (1967),  
• the EC may not have met its transparency obl igations in respect of the measure, and  
• the EC measure may be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, 
taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would create.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 175 
 
 
  Australia claims that the EC measure appears to be inconsistent with the EC's obligations pursuant to 
Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 16, 20, 22, 24, 41, 42, 63 an d 65 of the TRIPS Agreement, Articles I and III of 
GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement a nd Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
In dispute WT/DS174, Sri Lanka Australia, Hungary, India, Argentina, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech 
Republic, Malta, Slovenia, Romania, the Slovak Republic  and Turkey requested to join the additional 
consultations. The EC informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Argentina, Australia, 
Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Indi a, Malta, Mexico, New Zealand, Romania, the 
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sri Lanka and Turkey to join the consultations.  
In dispute WT/DS290, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech  Republic, Malta, the United States, Hungary and 
Slovenia, New Zealand, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Chinese Taipei and Turkey, Argentina, 
Colombia and Mexico requested to join the cons ultations. The EC informed the DSB that it has 
accepted the requests of Argentina, Bulgaria, Colo mbia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta, 
Mexico, New Zealand, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Chinese Taipei, Turkey and the United States to join the consultations.  
On 18 August 2003, the United States and Australia re quested separately the establishment of a panel. 
At its meeting on 29 August 2003, the DSB deferred  the establishment of the panels. Further to 
second requests to establish a panel from the US a nd Australia, the DSB estab lished a single panel at 
its meeting on 2 October 2003. Australia, Colombia , Guatemala, India, Mexico, New Zealand, 
Norway, Chinese Taipei and Turkey reserved their th ird-party rights. On 6 October, China reserved its 
third-party right. On 10 October, Argentina and Canada reserved their third-party rights. On 13 
October, Brazil reserved its third-party rights.  
On 13 February 2004, the United States and Australi a requested the Director-General to determine the 
composition of the Panel. On 23 February 2004, the Director-General composed the Panel.  
On 17 August 2004, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be able to 
complete its work in six months due to the complexi ty of the case and that the Panel expected to issue 
its final report to the parties before the end of year 2004.  
On 15 March 2005, the Panel reports were circulated to Members.  
• the Panel agreed with the United States and Au stralia that the EC's GI Regulation does not 
provide national treatment to other WTO Memb ers' right holders and products, because: (i) 
registration of a GI from a country outside the European Union is contingent upon the government of that country adopting a system of GI protection equivalent to the EC's system 
and offering reciprocal protection to EC GIs;  and (ii) the Regulation's procedures require 
applications and objections from other WTO Memb ers to be examined and transmitted by the 
governments of those Members, and require tho se governments to operate systems of product 
inspection like EC member States. Therefore, foreign nationals do not have guaranteed access 
to the EC's system for their GIs, unlike EC nationals;  
• otherwise, there is no finding that the substance of the EC system of GI protection, which 
requires product inspection, is incons istent with WTO obligations; and  
• the Panel agreed with the EC that, although its GI Regulation allows it to register GIs even 
when they conflict with a prior trademark, the Regulation, as written, is sufficiently constrained to qualify as a "limited exception" to  trademark rights. However, the Panel agreed 
with the United States and Australia that the TRIPS Agreement does not allow unqualified 
coexistence of GIs with prior trademarks.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 176  
 
  The DSB adopted the Panel report on 20 April 2005.  
65. WT/DS170 – Canada – Term of Patent Protection 
Complaint by the United States. On 6 May 1999, th e US requested consulta tions with Canada in 
respect of the term of protection granted to patents that were file d in Canada before 1 October 1989. 
The US contended that the TRIPS Agreement oblig ates Members to grant a term of protection for 
patents that runs at least until twenty years after the filing date of the underlying protection, and 
requires each Member to grant this minimum term to all patents existing as of the date of the application of the Agreement to that Member. The US  alleged that under the Canadian Patent Act, the 
term granted to patents issued on the basis of a pplications filed before 1 October 1989 is 17 years 
from the date on which the patent is issued. The US c ontended that this situati on is inconsistent with 
Articles 33, 65 and 70 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
On 15 July 1999, the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 26 July 1999, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by the US, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 22  September 1999. On 13 October 1999, the US 
requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 22 October 1999, the 
Panel was composed. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 5 May 2000. The panel 
found that:  
• pursuant to Article 70.2 of the TRIPS Agreement,  Canada was required to apply the relevant 
obligations of the TRIPS Agreement to inventions  protected by patents that were in force on 1 
January 1996, i.e. the date of entry into force for Canada of the TRIPS Agreement.  
• Section 45 of Canada's Patent Act does not make available a term of protection that does not 
end before 20 years from the date of f iling as mandated by Article 33 of the TRIPS 
Agreement, thus rejecting, inter alia , Canada's argument that the 17-year statutory protection 
under its Patent Act was effectively equivalent to the 20-year term prescribed by the TRIPS 
Agreement because of average pendency periods fo r patents, informal and statutory delays 
etc.  
On 19 June 2000, Canada notified its  intention to appeal certain issu es of law and legal interpretations 
developed by the panel. The Appellate Body re port was circulated to Members on 18 September 
2000. The Appellate Body upheld all of the findings a nd conclusions of the panel that were appealed.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and th e Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body 
report, on 12 October 2000.  
66. WT/DS166 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat 
Gluten from the European Communities 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 17 Ma rch 1999, the EC requested consultations with 
the US in respect of definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of wheat gluten 
from the European Communities. The EC contended that by a Proclamation of 30 May 1998, and a Memorandum of the same date, by the US Pres ident, under which the US imposed definitive 
safeguard measures in the form of a quantitative lim itation on imports of wheat gluten from the EC, 
effective as of 1 June 1998. The EC considered these measures to be in violation of Articles 2, 4, 5 
and 12 of the Agreement on Safegua rds; Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Articles I 
and XIX of GATT 1994.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 177 
 
 
  On 3 June 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 16 June 1999, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Furthe r to a second request to establish a panel, the DSB 
established a panel at its meeting on 26 July 1999. Australia, Canada and New Zealand reserved their 
third-party rights. On 11 October 1999, the Panel was composed. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 31 July 2000. The panel found that:  
(i) the United States had not acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4 of the Safeguards Agreement 
or with Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 in  
• redacting certain confidential informa tion from the published USITC Report or  
• determining the existence of imports in "increased quantities" and serious injury.  
(ii) the definitive safeguard measure imposed by th e US on certain imports of wheat gluten based on 
the US investigation and determin ation was inconsistent with Artic les 2.1 and 4 of the Safeguards 
Agreement in that  
• the causation analysis applied by the USITC did not  ensure that injury caused by other factors 
was not attributed to imports and  
• imports from Canada (a NAFTA partner) were excluded from the application of the measure 
after imports from all sources were included in the investigation for the purposes of 
determining serious injury caused by incr eased imports (following a separate inquiry 
concerning whether imports from Canada accounted  for a "substantial share" of total imports 
and whether they "contributed importantly" to th e "serious injury" caused by total imports).  
(iii) The panel further concluded that the US fa iled to notify immediately the initiation of the 
investigation under Article 12.1(a) and the finding of serious injury under Article 12.1(b) of the 
Safeguards Agreement.  
(iv) in notifying its decision to take the measure only after the measure was implemented, the US did 
not make timely notification under Article 12.1(c) . For the same reason, the US violated the 
obligation of Article 12.3 to provide adequate opp ortunity for prior consultations on the measure. 
(v) the US therefore also violated its obligation under Article 8.1 of the Safeguards Agreement to 
endeavour to maintain a substantia lly equivalent level of concessions and other obligations to that 
existing under the GATT 1994 between it and the expor ting Members which would be affected by 
such measures, in accordance with Article  12.3 of the Safeguards Agreement.  
On 26 September 2000, the US notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of 
law and legal interpretation covere d in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by 
the Panel. The Appellate Body circulated its report on 22 December 2000. The Appellate Body:  
• upheld the Panel's conclusion that the US had not  acted inconsistently with its obligations 
under Articles 4.2(a) and 4.2(b) of the Safeguard s Agreement, but, in so doing, reversed the 
Panel's interpretation of Article 4.2(a) of the Safeguards Agreement that the competent 
authorities are required to evaluate only the "relev ant factors" listed in Article 4.2(a) of that 
Agreement as well as any other "factors" whic h were clearly raised before the competent 
authorities as relevant by the interested pa rties in the domestic investigation;  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 178  
 
  • reversed the Panel's interpretation of Article  4.2(b) of the Safeguards Agreement that 
increased imports "alone", "in and of themselves", or " per se ", must be capable of causing 
"serious injury", as well as the Panel's c onclusions on the issue of causation;  
• found, nonetheless, that the US had acted in consistently with its obligations under 
Article 4.2(b) of the Safeguards Agreement;  
• upheld the Panel's finding that the US had acted  inconsistently with its obligations under 
Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Safeguards Agreement;  
• upheld the Panel's findings that the US had act ed inconsistently with its obligations under 
Articles 12.1(a) and 12.1(b) of the Safeguards Agreement;  
• reversed the Panel's finding that the US had act ed inconsistently with  its obligations under 
Article 12.1(c) of the Safeguards Agreement; found that the US had acted consistently with its 
obligations under Article 12.1(c) of that Agre ement to notify "immediately" its decision to 
apply a safeguard measure;  
• upheld the Panel's finding that the US had acted  inconsistently with its obligations under 
Article 12.3 of the Safeguards Agreement, a nd, in consequence, upheld the Panel's finding 
that the US had acted inconsistently with its  obligations under Article  8.1 of the Safeguards 
Agreement;  
• the Panel did not act inconsistently with Artic le 11 of the DSU in concluding that the USITC 
had "considered industry productivity as require d by Article 4.2(a)" of the Safeguards 
Agreement;  
• the Panel did not act inconsistently in finding that the USITC was not required to evaluate the 
overall relationship between the protein content of wheat and the price of wheat gluten as a 
"relevant factor", under Article 4.2(a) of th e Safeguards Agreement,  during the post-1994 
period of investigation; and,  
• the Panel did not act inconsistently in declini ng to draw "adverse" inferences from the refusal 
of the US to provide certain allegedly confiden tial information requested from it by the Panel 
under Article 13.1 of the DSU;  
• the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in finding that "the USITC Report 
provides an adequate, reasoned and reasonable expl anation with respect to 'profits and losses'" 
and, therefore, reversed this finding; and foun d no error in the Panel's exercise of judicial 
economy in not examining the claims of the EC under Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994, and also under Article 5 of the Safeguards Agreement and Article I of the GATT 1994.  
At its meeting of 19 January 2001, the DSB adopted  the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, 
as modified by the Appellate Body report.  
67. WT/DS165 – United States – Import Measures on Certain Products from the European 
Communities 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 4 Marc h 1999, the EC requested consultations with the 
US in respect of the US decisi on, effective as of 3 March 1999, to withhold liquidation on imports 
from the EC of a series of products together valu ed at over $500 million on an annual basis, and to 
impose a contingent liability for 100% duties on each  individual importation of affected products. On  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 179 
 
 
  2 March 1999, the arbitrators charged with dete rmining the level of suspension of concessions, 
requested by the United States in response to the fa ilure by the EC to implement the recommendations 
of the DSB in respect of the EC's banana regime  (WT/DS27), had asked for additional data from the 
parties and informed the parties that they were una ble to issue their report within the 60-day period 
envisaged by the DSU. The EC contends that the measure made effective by the US as of 3 March 
1999 deprives EC imports into the United States, of the products in question, of the right to a duty not 
in excess of the rate bound in th e US Schedule. The EC further contended that, by requiring the 
deposit of a bond to cover the contingent liability for 100% duties, US Customs effectively impose 
100% duties on each individual importation. The EC alle ged violations of Articles 3, 21, 22 and 23 of 
the DSU, and Articles I, II, VIII and XI of GATT 1994. The EC also alleged nullification and 
impairment of benefits under GATT 1994, as well as the impediment of the objectives of the DSU 
and GATT 1994. The EC had requested urgent consu ltations pursuant to Article 4.8 of the DSU.  
On 11 May 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 26 May 1999, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by the EC, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 16 June  1999. Dominica, Ecuador, India, Jamaica, Japan 
and St. Lucia reserved their third party rights. On  29 September 1999, the EC requested the Director-
General to determine the composition of the Panel.  On 8 October 1999, the Panel was composed. The 
report of the panel was circulated to Memb ers on 17 July 2000. The panel found that:  
• the US measure of 3 March 1999 was seeking to redress a WTO violation and was thus 
covered by Article 23.1 of the DSU;  
• by putting into place that measure prior to the time authorized by the DSB, the US made a 
unilateral determination that the revised EC bananas regime in respect of its bananas import, 
sales and distribution regime violated WTO rules, contrary to Articles 23.2(a) and 21.5, first sentence, of the DSU. In doing so, the United States did not abide by the DSU and thus also violated Article 23.1 together with Ar ticle 23.2(a) and 21.5 of the DSU;  
• the increased bonding requirements of the measure of 3 March 1999 as such led to violations 
of Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b), first sentence ( one panelist dissented, considering that those 
requirements rather violated Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994);  
• the increased interest charges, costs and f ees resulting from the 3 March Measure violated 
Article II:1(b), last sentence;  
• the measure in question also violated Article I of the GATT 1994;  
• in light of these conclusions, the measure of 3 March 1999 constituted a suspension of 
concessions or other obligations within the mean ing of Articles 3.7, 22.6 and 23.2(c) of the 
DSU imposed without DSB authorization and during the ongoing Article 22.6 arbitration 
process; and  
• in suspending concessions in those circumstanc es, the US did not abide by the DSU and thus 
violated Article 23.1 together with Articles 3.7, 22.6 and 23.2(c) of the DSU.  
On 12 September 2000, the EC notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the panel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated on 11 
December 2000. The Appellate Body:  
• concluded that the Panel erred by stating that  the WTO-consistency of a measure taken by a 
Member to comply with recommendations and rulings of the DSB can be determined by WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 180  
 
  arbitrators appointed under Article 22.6 of the DSU, and, thus, concluded that the Panel's 
statements on this issue have no legal effect.  
• concluded that the Panel erred by stating that  "[o]nce a Member imposes DSB authorised 
suspensions of concessions or obligations, that Member's measure is WTO compatible (it was 
explicitly authorised by the DSB)", and, thus , concluded that this statement has no legal 
effect.  
• reversed the Panel's findings that the increas ed bonding requirements are inconsistent with 
Articles II:1(a) and II:2(b), first sentence, of the GATT 1994, and  
• reversed the Panel's finding that, by adopting the 3 March Measure, the US acted 
inconsistently with Article 23.2(a) of the DSU.  
As it upheld the Panel's finding that the 3 March Measu re, the measure at issue in this dispute, is no 
longer in existence, the Appellate Body did no t make any recommendation to the DSB pursuant to 
Article 19.1 of the DSU.  
At its meeting of 10 January 2001, the DSB adopted  the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, 
as modified by the Appellate Body report.  
68. WT/DS163 – Korea – Measures Affecting Government Procurement 
Complaint by the United States. On 16 February 1999 , the US requested consultations with Korea in 
respect of certain procurement practices of the Korean Airport Construction Authority (KOACA), and 
other entities concerned with the procurement of airp ort construction in Korea. The US claimed that 
such practices were inconsistent with Korea' s obligations under the Agreement on Government 
Procurement (GPA). These include practices relating to qualification for bidding as a prime 
contractor, domestic partnering, and the absence of access to challenge procedures that are in breach 
of the GPA. The US contended that KOACA and the other entities are within the scope of Korea's list 
of central government entities as specified in Annex 1 of Korea's obligations in Appendix I of the 
GPA, and pursuant to Article I(1) of the GPA, appl y to the procurement of airport construction.  
On 11 May 1999, the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 26 May 1999, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by the US, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 16 June 1999. The EC and Japan reserved their third 
party rights. On 30 August 1999, the Panel was composed. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 1 May 2000. The panel found that:  
• the entities conducting procurement for the proj ect at issue were not covered entities under 
Korea's Appendix I of the GPA and were not ot herwise covered by Kore a's obligations under 
the GPA.  
• based on less than complete Korean answers to  certain US questions during negotiations for 
Korea's accession to the GPA, there had initially b een an error on the part of the US as to 
which Korean authority was in charge of the project  at issue. However, in light of all the facts 
the panel considered that there was notice of  the error and the US should at least have 
conducted further inquiries in this regard before the negotiations were ended.  
• the US had not demonstrated that benefits reas onably expected to accrue under the GPA, or in 
the negotiations resulting in Korea's accession to  the GPA, were nullified or impaired by  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 181 
 
 
  measures taken by Korea (whether or not in conf lict with the provisions of the GPA), within 
the meaning of Article XXII:2 of the GPA.  
The DSB adopted the Panel Report at  its meeting on 19 June 2000.  
69. WT/DS162 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 
Complaint by Japan. On 10 February 1999, Japan requ ested consultations with the US in respect of 
the US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, 15 USC. 72 (1994), ("US 1916 Act"). Japan alleged that the US 
1916 Act stipulates that the importation or sale of imported goods within the US market in certain 
circumstances is unlawful, constituting a criminal offence and inviting civil liability. Japan further 
alleged that judicial decisions under the US 1916 Act are made without the procedural safeguards 
provided for in the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Japan stated that a court action had been brought under 
the US 1916 Act against affiliates of Japanese compan ies. Japan contended that the US 1916 Act is 
inconsistent with Articles III, VI and XI of  GATT 1994, and the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
On 3 June 1999, Japan requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 16 June 1999, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by Japan, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 26 July  1999. The EC and India reserved their third-
party rights. On 11 August 1999, the Panel was composed. The report of the panel was circulated to 
Members on 29 May 2000. The panel considered th at Article VI:1 of GATT 1994 applies to any 
situation where a Member addresses the type of transnational price discrimination defined in that Article. The panel then found that, on the basis of th e terms of the 1916 Act, its legislative history and 
its interpretation by US courts, the transnational price discrimination test found in the 1916 Act met 
the definition of Article VI:1 of GATT 1994.  The panel next went on to find that:  
• by providing for the imposition of treble damages, fines or imprisonment, instead of anti-
dumping duties, the 1916 Act violated Article VI :2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 18.1 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement;  
• by not providing for a number of procedural re quirements found in Article VI:1 of the GATT 
1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the 1916 Act violated Articles VI:1 of the GATT 
1994 and Articles 1, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and  
• by violating Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, and Articles 1, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4 and 
18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the 1916 Act violated Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement and Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
On 29 May 2000, the US notified its intention to app eal certain issues of law and legal interpretations 
developed by the panel. The Appellate Body exam ined this appeal with that of WT/DS136. The 
Appellate Body report was circulated to Members on 28 August 2000. The Appellate Body upheld all 
of the findings and conclusions of the panel that were appealed.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and th e Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body 
report, on 26 September 2000.  
70. WT/DS161, WT/DS169 – Korea – Measures A ffecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and 
Frozen Beef 
Complaints by the United States and Australia. On 1 February 1999, the US requested consultations 
with Korea in respect of a Korean regulatory sch eme that allegedly discriminates against imported 
beef by inter alia, confining sales of imported beef to specialised stores (dual retail system), limiting WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 182  
 
  the manner of its display, and otherwise constrai ning the opportunities for the sale of imported beef. 
The US alleged that Korea imposes a markup on sales of imported beef, limits import authority to certain so-called "super-groups" and the Livestoc k Producers Marketing Organization ("LPMO"), and 
provides domestic support to the cattle industry in Korea in amounts which cause Korea to exceed its 
aggregate measure of support as reflected in Ko rea's schedule. The US contended that these 
restrictions apply only to imported beef, thereby de nying national treatment to beef imports, and that 
the support to the domestic industry amounts to domes tic subsidies that contra vene the Agreement on 
Agriculture. The US alleged violations of Articles II, III, XI, and XVII of GATT 1994; Articles 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Artic les 1 and 3 of the Import Licensing Agreement.  
On 13 April 1999, Australia requested consultations with Korea on the same basis as the US request. 
On 15 April 1999, the US requested the establishmen t of a panel in respect of WT/DS161. At its 
meeting on 28 April 1999, the DSB deferred the estab lishment of a panel. Further to a second request 
to establish a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 26 May 1999. Australia, 
Canada and New Zealand reserved their third-party ri ghts. Further to Australia's request to establish a 
panel in respect of WT/DS169, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 26 July 1999. Canada, 
New Zealand and the US reserved their third-party ri ghts. At the request of Korea, the DSB agreed 
that, pursuant to DSU Article 9.1, this complaint w ould be examined by the same panel established in 
respect of WT/DS161. On 4 August 1999, the Panel was composed. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 31 July 2000. The panel found that:  
• a number of the contested Korean measures benefited, by virtue of a Note in Korea's Schedule 
of Concessions, from a transitional period until 1 Ja nuary 2001, by which date they had to be 
eliminated or otherwise brought into conformity with the WTO Agreement.  
• the requirement that the supply of beef from the LPMO's wholesale market be limited to 
specialised imported beef stores and that tho se stores bear a special sign "Specialized 
Imported Beef Store" was in violation of Ar ticle III:4 of the GATT 1994, which violation 
could not be justified under Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994.  
• the more stringent record-keeping requirements imposed on purchasers of imported beef were 
also inconsistent with Article III:4. Certain ot her regulations dealing with the importation and 
distribution of imported beef were likewise found to violate Article III:4.  
• the LPMO's lack of and delays in calling for tenders and its discharge practices between 
November 1997 and the end of May 1998 cons tituted import restrictions contrary to 
Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 4. 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Moreover, 
the LPMO's calls for tenders that were made subject to distinctions between grass-fed and 
grain-fed cattle, constituted, in the view of the panel, a restriction inconsistent with 
Article XI:1. They also treated imports of b eef from grass-fed cattle less favourably than 
provided for in Korea's Schedule, which was in breach of Article II:1(a) of the GATT 1994.  
• in addition, Korea's domestic support for beef  for 1997 and 1998 was not correctly calculated 
and exceeded the de minimis  level, contrary to Article 6 of the Agreement on Agriculture, and 
was not included in Korea's Current Total AMS, contrary to Article 7.2(a) of the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  
• Korea's total domestic support (Current Tota l AMS) for 1997 and 1998 exceeded Korea's 
commitment levels, as specified in Section 1, Part  IV of its Schedule, contrary to Article 3.2 
of the Agreement on Agriculture.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 183 
 
 
  On 11 September 2000, Korea notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the panel. On 11 D ecember 2000, the report of the Appellate Body was 
circulated. The Appellate Body reversed the Pa nel's finding on recalculated amounts of Korea's 
domestic support for beef in 1997 and 1998, as  the Panel used, for these recalculations, a 
methodology inconsistent with Article 1(a)(ii) a nd Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and 
reversed, therefore, the Panel's following c onclusions, based on these recalculated amounts:  
• that Korea's domestic support for beef in 1997 and 1998 exceeded the de minimis  level 
contrary to Article 6 of the Agreement on Agriculture;  
• that Korea's failure to include Current AMS for beef in Korea's Current Total AMS was 
contrary to Article 7.2(a) of that Agreement; and  
• that Korea's total domestic support for 1997 an d 1998 exceeded Korea's commitment levels 
contrary to Article 3.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
The Appellate Body was unable, in view of the in sufficient factual findings made by the Panel, to 
complete the legal analysis of:  
• whether Korea's domestic support for beef exceeds the de minimis  level contrary to Article 6 
of the Agreement on Agriculture;  
• whether the failure to include Current AMS for beef in Korea's Current Total AMS was 
contrary to Article 7.2(a) of that Agreement; and  
• whether Korea's total domestic support for 199 7 and 1998 exceeded Korea's commitment 
levels contrary to Ar ticle 3.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
At its meeting of 10 January 2001, the DSB adopted  the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, 
as modified by the Appellate Body report.  
71. WT/DS160 – United States – Section 110(5) of US Copyright Act 
Complaint by the European Communities and thei r member States. On 26 January 1999, the EC 
requested consultations with the US in respect of Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act, as amended 
by the Fairness in Music Licensing Act, which was enacted on 27 October 1998. The EC contended 
that Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act perm its, under certain conditions, the playing of radio 
and television music in public places (bars, shops, restaurants, etc.) without the payment of a royalty fee. The EC considered that this statute is inconsis tent with US obligations under Article 9(1) of the 
TRIPS Agreement, which requires Members to comp ly with Articles 1-21 of the Berne Convention. 
The dispute centered on the compatibility of two exem ptions provided for in Section 110(5) of the US 
Copyright Act with Article 13 of the TRIPS Agre ement, which allows certain limitations or 
exceptions to exclusive rights of copyright holders, subject to the condition that such limitations are 
confined to certain special cases, do not conflict with  a normal exploitation of the work in question 
and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder:  
• The so-called "business" exemption, provided for in sub-paragraph (B) of Section 110(5), 
essentially allows the amplification of music broadcasts, without an authorization and a 
payment of a fee, by food service and drinki ng establishments and by  retail establishments, 
provided that their size does not exceed a certain square footage limit. It also allows such amplification of music broadcasts by establishmen ts above this square footage limit, provided 
that certain equipment limitations are met.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 184  
 
  • The so-called "homestyle" exemption, provided for in sub-paragraph (A) of Section 110(5), 
allows small restaurants and retail outlets to amplify music broadcasts without an 
authorization of the right holders and without the payment of a fee, provided that they use only homestyle equipment (i.e. equipment of a kind commonly used in private homes).  
On 15 April 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 28 April 1999, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by the EC, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 26  May 1999. Brazil, Australia, Canada, Japan and 
Switzerland reserved their third-party rights. On 27 Ju ly 1999, the EC made a request to the Director-
in-Charge to determine the composition of the Pa nel. On 6 August 1999, the Panel was composed. 
The report of the panel was circulated to Me mbers on 15 June 2000. The panel found that:  
• the "business" exemption provided for in sub-pa ragraph (B) of Section 110(5) of the US 
Copyright Act did not meet the requirements of  Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement and was 
thus inconsistent with Articles 11bis(1)(iii) a nd 11(1)(ii) of the Berne Convention (1971) as 
incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement by Artic le 9.1 of that Agreement. The panel noted, 
inter alia, that a substantial majority of eating and drinking establishments and close to half of 
retail establishments were covered by the business exemption.  
• the "homestyle" exemption provided for in sub-paragraph (A) of Section 110(5) of the US 
Copyright Act met the requirements of Article  13 of the TRIPS Agreement and was thus 
consistent with Articles 11bis(1)(iii) and 11( 1)(ii) of the Berne Convention (1971) as 
incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement by Artic le 9.1 of that Agreement. Here, the panel 
noted certain limits imposed on the beneficiaries of the exemption, permissible equipment and 
categories of works as well as the practice by US courts.  
The DSB adopted the Panel Report at its meeting on 27 July 2000.  
72. WT/DS156 – Guatemala – Definitive Anti-Dum ping Measure on Grey Portland Cement 
from Mexico 
Complaint by Mexico. On 5 January 1999, Mexi co requested consultations with Guatemala 
concerning definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by the authorities of Guatemala on imports of grey 
Portland cement from Mexico and the proceedings lead ing thereto. Mexico alleged that the definitive 
anti-dumping measure is inconsistent with Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 of the Antidumping 
Agreement and its Annexes I and II, as well as with  Article VI of GATT 1994. See also WT/DS60.  
On 15 July 1999, Mexico requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 26 July 1999, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by Mexico, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 22 September 1999. Ecuador, El Salvador, the EC, 
Honduras and the US reserved their third-party ri ghts. On 12 October 1999, Mexico requested the 
Director-General to determine the composition of  the panel. On 2 November 1999, the Panel was 
composed. The panel report was circulated on 24 October 2000. The pa nel concluded that 
Guatemala's initiation of an investigation, the conduct of the investigation and imposition of a 
definitive measure on imports of grey Portland cement from Mexico's Cruz Azul is inconsistent with 
the requirements in the AD Agreement in that:  
• Guatemala's determination that there was suffici ent evidence of dumping and threat of injury 
to initiate an investigation, is inconsiste nt with Article 5.3 of the AD Agreement;   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 185 
 
 
  • Guatemala's determination that there was suffici ent evidence of dumping and threat of injury 
to initiate an investigation and consequent failure to reject the application for anti-dumping 
duties by Cementos Progreso is inconsistent  with Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's failure to timely notify Mexico  under Article 5.5 of the AD Agreement is 
inconsistent with that provision;  
• Guatemala's failure to meet the requirements for a public notice of the initiation of an 
investigation is inconsistent with Article 12.1.1 of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's failure to timely provide the full text  of the application to Mexico and Cruz Azul 
is inconsistent with Article 6.1.3 of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's failure to grant Mexico access to the f ile of the investigation is inconsistent with 
Articles 6.1.2 and 6.4 of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's failure to timely make Cement os Progreso's 19 December 1996 submission 
available to Cruz Azul until 8 January 1997 is  inconsistent with Ar ticle 6.1.2 of the AD 
Agreement;  
• Guatemala's failure to provide two copies of th e file of the investigation as requested by Cruz 
Azul is inconsistent with Artic le 6.1.2 of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's extension of the period of inves tigation requested by Cementos Progreso without 
providing Cruz Azul with a full opportunity for the defence of its interest is inconsistent with 
Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's failure to inform Mexico of the inclusion of non–governmental experts in the 
verification team is inconsis tent with paragraph 2 of A nnex I of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's failure to require Cementos Progreso 's to provide a statement of the reasons why 
summarization of the information submitted during verification was not possible is 
inconsistent with Article 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's decision to grant Cementos Progr eso's 19 December submission confidential 
treatment on its own initiative is inconsiste nt with Article 6.5 of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's failure to "inform all interested parties of the essential facts under consideration 
which form the basis for the decision whether to  apply definitive measures" is inconsistent 
with Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's recourse to "best information av ailable" for the purpose of making its final 
dumping determination is in consistent with Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's failure to take into account imports  by MATINSA in its determination of injury 
and causality is inconsistent with Articles 3. 1, 3.2 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement; and  
• Guatemala's failure to evaluate all relevant f actors for the examination of the impact of the 
allegedly dumped imports on the domestic indus try is inconsistent with Article 3.4.  
The DSB adopted the Panel Report on 17 November 2000.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 186  
 
  73. WT/DS155 – Argentina – Measures Affectin g the Export of Bovine Hides and the 
Import of Finished Leather 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 24 D ecember 1998, the EC requested consultations 
with Argentina concerning certain measures taken by Argentina on the export of bovine hides and the 
import of finished leather. The EC alleged that th e de facto export prohibiti on on raw and semi-tanned 
bovine hides (which is implemented in part thr ough the authorization granted by the Argentinian 
authorities to the Argentinian tanning industry to pa rticipate in customs control procedures of hides 
before export) is in violation of GATT Articles; XI:1 (which outlaws de jure  export prohibitions and 
measures of equivalent effect); and X:3(a) (which  requires uniform and impartial administration of 
laws and regulations) to the extent that personnel of  the Argentinian Chamber for the tanning industry 
are authorized to assist Argentinian customs aut horities. The EC also claimed that the "additional 
value added tax" of 9 per cent on imports of products into Argentin a and the "advance turnover tax" 
of 3 per cent based on the price of imported goods  imposed on operators when importing goods into 
Argentina are in violation of GATT Article III:2 (which prohibits tax discrimination of foreign 
products which are like, directly competitive or substitutable to domestic products).  
On 31 May 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 16 June 1999, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by the EC, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 26 July 1999. On 31 January 2000, the Panel was composed. The Panel circulated its report on 19 December 2000. The Panel concluded that:  
• it has not been proved that Resolution (ANA) No . 2235/96 is inconsiste nt with Argentina's 
obligations under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994;  
• Resolution (ANA) No. 2235/96 is inconsiste nt with Argentina's obligations under 
Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994;  
• General Resolution (DGI) No. 3431/91 is inconsiste nt with Article III:2, first sentence, of the 
GATT 1994;  
• General Resolution (DGI) No. 3543/92 is inconsiste nt with Article III:2, first sentence, of the 
GATT 1994;  
• General Resolutions (DGI) No. 3431/91 and 3543/ 92, although they fall within the terms of 
paragraph (d) of Article XX of the GATT 1994, fail to meet the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX and are therefore not justified under Article XX as a whole;  
• there is nullification or impairment of the benefits accruing to the European Communities 
under the GATT 1994.  
The DSB adopted the Panel Report on 16 February 2001.  
74. WT/DS152 – United States – Sections 301 – 310 of the Trade Act 1974 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 25 November 1998, the EC requested consultations 
with the US in respect of Title III, chapter 1 (sections 301-310) of the US Trade Act of 1974 (the Trade Act), as amended, and in pa rticular sections 306 and 305 of th is Act. The EC alleged that:  
• by imposing strict time limits within which un ilateral determinations mu st be made and trade 
sanctions taken, sections 306 and 305 of the Tr ade Act do not allow the US to comply with 
the rules of the DSU in situations where a prior multilateral ruling under the DSU on  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 187 
 
 
  conformity of measures taken pursuant to im plementation of DSB recommendations has not 
been adopted by the DSB.  
• the DSU procedure resulting in a multilateral findi ng, even if initiated immediately after the 
end of the reasonable period of time for im plementation, cannot be finalised, nor can 
subsequent DSU procedure for seeking comp ensation or suspension of concessions be 
complied with, within the time limits of sections 306 and 305.  
• Title III, chapter 1(sections 301-310) of the Trade Act, as amended, and in particular sections 
306 and 305 of the Act, are inconsistent w ith Articles 3, 21, 22 and 23 of the DSU; 
Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement; and Artic les I, II, III, VIII and XI of GATT 1994.  
• the Trade Act nullifies and impairs benefits accruing, directly or indirectly, to it under GATT 
1994, and also impedes the objectives of GATT 1994 and of the WTO.  
On 26 January 1999, the EC requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 17 February 
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its me eting on 2 March 1999. Braz il;  Canada;  Colombia; 
Costa Rica;  Cuba;  Dominica;  Dominican Republic;  Ecuador;  Hong Kong, China; India;  Israel;  
Jamaica; , Japan;  Korea;  St. Lucia and Thaila nd reserved their third-party rights. On 24 March 1999, 
the EC requested the Director-General to determ ine the composition of the Panel. On 31 March 1999, 
the Panel was composed. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 22 December 1999. 
The Panel found that Sections 304(a)(2)(A), 305(a) a nd 306(b) of the US Trade Act of 1974 were not 
inconsistent with Article 23.2(a) or (c) of the DSU or with any of the GATT 1994 provisions cited. 
The panel noted that its findings were based in full or in part on US undertakings articulated in the 
Statement of Administrative Action approved by the US Congress at the time it implemented the 
Uruguay Round agreements and confirmed in the statem ents by the US to the panel. The panel stated 
therefore that should those undertakings be repudiated  or in any other way removed, its findings of 
conformity would no longer be warranted. The DS B adopted the panel report at its meeting on 27 
January 2000.  
75. WT/DS146, WT/DS175 – India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector 
Complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS 146). On 6 October 1998, the EC requested 
consultations with India concerning certain measures affecting the automotive sector being applied by 
India. The EC stated that the measures include  the documents entitled "Export and Import Policy, 
1997-2002", "ITC (HS Classification) Export and Import Policy 1997-2002" ("Classification"), and 
"Public Notice No. 60 (PN/97-02) of 12 December 1997, Export and Import Policy April 1997-March 
2002", and any other legislative or administrative provision implemented or consolidated by these 
policies, as well as MoUs signed by the Indian  Government with certain manufacturers of 
automobiles. The EC contended that:  
• under these measures, imports of complete auto mobiles and of certain parts and components 
were subject to a system of non-automatic import licenses.  
• in accordance with Public Notice No. 60, impor t licenses might be granted only to local joint 
venture manufacturers that had signed an MoU with the Indian Government, whereby they undertook, inter alia , to comply with certain local conten t and export balancing requirements.  
• The EC alleged violations of Articles III a nd XI of GATT 1994, and Article 2 of the TRIMs 
Agreement.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 188  
 
  On 1 May 1999, the United States requested cons ultations (WT/DS175) with India in respect of 
certain Indian measures affecting trade and investme nt in the motor vehicle sector. The United States 
contended that the measures in question required ma nufacturing firms in the motor vehicle sector to:  
(i) achieve specified levels of local content; (ii)  achieve a neutralization of foreign exchange by 
balancing the value of certain imports with the va lue of exports of cars and components over a stated 
period; and (iii) limit imports to a value based on the previous year's exports.  
According to the United States, these measures were  enforceable under Indian law and rulings, and 
manufacturing firms in the motor vehicle sector must comply with these requirements in order to obtain Indian import licenses for certain motor vehicle parts and components. The United States considered that these measures violate the oblig ations of India under Articles III and XI of GATT 
1994, and Article 2 of the TRIMS Agreement.  
On 15 May 2000, the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 19 June 2000, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a Panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by the US, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 27 July 2000. The EC, Japan and Korea reserved their third-party rights.  
On 12 October 2000, the EC also requested the establis hment of a panel. At its  meeting on 23 October 
2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a Panel.  Further to a second request by the EC, the DSB 
established a panel at its meeting of 17 November  2000. Since a panel had already been established 
with a similar mandate in the framework of the abovementioned case WT/DS175 , the DSB decided 
to join the panel with the already established panel in that case pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU. 
Japan reserved its third-party rights. On 14 Novemb er 2000, the US requested the Director-General to 
determine the composition of the Panel. On 24 November 2000, the Panel was composed.  
On 21 December 2001, the Panel circulated its repor t to the Members. The Panel concluded that:  
• India had acted inconsistently with its oblig ations under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 by 
imposing on automotive manufacturers an obligatio n to use a certain proportion of local parts 
and components in the manufacture of cars and automotive vehicles ("indigenization" 
condition);  
• India had acted inconsistently with its ob ligations under Article XI of the GATT 1994 by 
imposing on automotive manufacturers an obligat ion to balance any importation of certain 
kits and components with exports  of equivalent value ("trade balancing" condition); and,  
• India had acted inconsistently with its oblig ations under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 by 
imposing, in the context of the trade balancing condition, an obligation to offset the amount of 
any purchases of previously imported restricted kits and components on the Indian market, by 
exports of equivalent value.  
The Panel recommended that the DSB requests India to  bring its measures into conformity with its 
obligations under the WTO Agreements.  
On 31 January 2002, India appealed the above Panel Report. In particular, India sought review of the 
following Panel's conclusion on the grounds that th ey are in error and based upon erroneous findings 
on issues of law and related legal instruments:  
• Articles 11 and 19.1 of the DSU required it to address the question of whether the measures 
found to be inconsistent with  Articles III:4 and XI:1 of the GATT had been brought into  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 189 
 
 
  conformity with the GATT as a result of measures taken by India during the course of the 
proceedings, and  
• the enforcement of the export obligations th at automobile manufacturers incurred until 1 
April 2001 under India's former import licensing scheme is inconsistent with Articles III:4 
and XI:1 of the GATT.  
On 14 March 2002, India withdrew its appeal. Furt her to India's withdrawal of its appeal, the 
Appellate Body issued a short Report outlining the pr ocedural history of the case. At the DSB meeting 
on 5 April 2002, the US commended India's decision to withdraw its appeal and shared some of 
India's reservations with regard to Section VIII of  the Panel Report. The EC considered that the 
Panel's findings were justified. Despite its deci sion to withdraw its appeal as a result of the 
introduction of its new auto policy, India indicated that the findings contained in Section VIII were 
outside of the Panel's terms of re ference and were both factually and legally incorrect. India requested 
that the DSB adopt only a part of the Panel Repor t and consider the adoption of Section VIII only at 
its next meeting. The EC responded that the Reports  should be adopted uncondi tionally by the parties, 
thus there was no justification for India's request. The DSB proceeded with the adoption in full of the 
Appellate Body and Panel reports.  
76. WT/DS141 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-type 
Bed Linen from India 
Complaint by India. On 3 August 1998, India requ ested consultations with the EC in respect of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 of 28 November  1997 on imports of cotton-type bed-linen from 
India. India asserted that the EC initiated anti-dum ping proceedings against imports of cotton- type 
bed-linen from India by publishing a notice of in itiation in September 1996. Provisional anti-dumping 
duties were imposed by EC Council Regulation No  1069/97 of 12 June 1997. This was followed by 
the imposition of definitive duties in accordance with the above-mentioned EC Council Regulation 
No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997.  India contended that:  
• the determination of standing, the initiation, th e determination of dumping and injury as well 
as the explanations of the EC authorities' findings are inconsistent with WTO law.  
• the EC authorities' establishment of the facts wa s not proper and that the EC's evaluation of 
facts was not unbiased and objective.  
• the EC has not taken into account the special situation of India as a developing country.  
• there were violations of Articles 2.2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3. 4, 3.5, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.8, 6, 12.2.2, and 15 of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Articles I and VI of the GATT 1994.  
On 7 September 1999, India requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 22 September 
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by India, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 27 October 1999. Egypt, Japan and the US reserved their third-party rights. On 12 January 2000, India requested the Director-General to 
determine the composition of the Panel. On 24 Ja nuary 2000, the Panel was composed. The panel 
report was circulated on 30 October 2000. The panel concluded that:  
(i) the EC did not act inconsistently with its obligat ions under Articles 2.2, 2.2.2, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 5.3, 
5.4, and 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement in:  
• calculating the amount for profit in constructing normal value;  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 190  
 
  • considering all imports from India (and Egypt and Pakistan) as dumped in the analysis of 
injury caused by dumped imports;  
• considering information for producers compri sing the domestic industry but not among the 
sampled producers in analyzing the state of the industry;  
• examining the accuracy and adequacy of  the evidence prior to initiation;  
• establishing industry support for the application; and  
• providing public notice of its final determination.  
(ii) The panel, however, also concluded that the EC  acted inconsistently w ith its obligations under 
Articles 2.4.2, 3.4, and 15 of the AD Agreement in:  
• determining the existence of margins of dumpi ng on the basis of a methodology incorporating 
the practice of zeroing;  
• failing to evaluate all relevant factors having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry, 
and specifically all the factors set forth in Article 3.4;  
• considering information for producers not part  of the domestic industry as defined by the 
investigating authority in analyzin g the state of the industry; and  
• failing to explore possibilities of constructive re medies before applying anti-dumping duties.  
On 1 December 2000, the EC notified the DSB of its intention to appeal certain issues of law covered 
in the Panel Report and legal interp retations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body circulated 
its report on 1 March 2001. The Appellate Body:  
(i) upheld the finding of the Panel that the practice of "zeroing" when establishing "the existence of 
margins of dumping", as applied by the EC in the anti-dumping investigation at issue in this dispute, 
is inconsistent with Article 2.4. 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;  
(ii) reversed the findings of the Panel that:  
• the method for calculating amounts for administra tive, selling and general costs and profits 
provided for in Article 2.2.2(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement may be applied where there is data on administrative, selling and general co sts and profits for only one other exporter or 
producer; and  
• in calculating the amount for profits under Artic le 2.2.2(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, 
a Member may exclude sales by other exporters or  producers that are not made in the ordinary 
course of trade; and  
(iii) as a consequence, concluded that the EC, in  calculating amounts for administrative, selling and 
general costs and profits in the anti-dumping investigati on at issue in this dispute, acted inconsistently 
with Article 2.2.2(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body 
report, on 12 March 2001.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 191 
 
 
  77. WT/DS139, WT/DS142 – Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive 
Industry 
Complaints by Japan and the European Communities.  On 3 July 1998, Japan requested consultations 
with Canada in respect of measures being take n by Canada in the automotive industry. Japan 
contended that under Canadian legislation impl ementing an automotive products agreement (Auto 
Pact) between the US and Canada, only a limited num ber of motor vehicle manufacturers are eligible 
to import vehicles into Canada duty free and to distribute the motor vehicles in Canada at the wholesale and retail distribution levels. Japan furt her contended that this duty-free treatment is 
contingent on two requirements:  
1. a Canadian value-added (CVA) content requireme nt that applies to both goods and services; 
and 
2. a manufacturing and sales requirement. Japan alleges that these measures are inconsistent 
with Articles I:1, III:4 and XXIV of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement, 
Article 3 of the SCM Agreement, and Articles II, VI and XVII of GATS.  
On 17 August 1998, the EC requested consultations w ith Canada in respect of the same measures 
raised by Japan in WT/DS139 and cites the same provisions alleged to be in violation, except for 
Article XXIV of GATT 1994, which was cite d by Japan but is not cited by the EC.  
On 12 November 1998, Japan requested the establishmen t of a panel in respect of WT/DS139. At is 
meeting on 25 November 1998, the DSB deferred the est ablishment of a panel. Further to requests to 
establish a panel by Japan and the EC, at its mee ting on 1 February 1999, the DSB established a single 
panel, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, to  examine the complaints WT/DS139 and WT/DS142. 
India, Korea, and the US reserved their third- party rights. On 15 March 1999, the EC and Japan 
requested the Director-General to determine th e composition of the Panel. On 25 March 1999, the 
Panel was composed. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 11 February 2000. The 
panel found that:  
• the conditions under which Canada  granted its import duty exemp tion were inconsistent with 
Article I of GATT 1994 and not justifie d under Article XXIV of GATT 1994.  
• the application of the CVA requirements to be inconsistent with Article III:4 of GATT 1994.  
• the import duty exemption constitutes a prohi bited export subsidy in violation of 
Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement.  
• the manner in which Canada conditioned access to  the import duty exemption is inconsistent 
with Article II of GATS and could not  justified under Article V of GATS.  
• the application of the CVA requirements constitut es a violation of Article XVII of the GATS.  
On 2 March 2000, Canada notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the pa nel. The Appellate Body report was circulated to Members on 31 
May 2000. The Appellate Body:  
• reversed the panel's conclusion that Article 3.1( b) of the Subsidies Agreement did not extend 
to contingency "in fact".  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 192  
 
  • considered that the panel had failed to examine whether the measure at issue affected trade in 
services as required under Article I:1 of the GATS.  
• reversed the panel's conclusion that the impor t duty exemption was inconsistent with the 
requirements of Article II:1 of the GATS as we ll as the panel's findings leading to that 
conclusion.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body 
report, on 19 June 2000.  
78. WT/DS138 – United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled 
Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 30 June  1998, the EC requested consultations with the 
US in respect of the alleged imposition of counterva iling duties on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth 
carbon steel (leaded bars) from the UK. The EC asserte d that the US imposed countervailing duties of 
1.69 per cent on United Engineering Steels Ltd (UES ) for the review period 1 January 1994 to 31 
December 1994, and of 2.4 per cent for the review period 1 January 1995 to 20 March 1995, on the 
basis of subsidies which had been granted to Britis h Steel Corporation (BSC). The EC also contended 
that the US imposed countervailing duties on British Steel plc (BSplc) / British Steel Engineering 
Steels LTD (BSES) for the review period 1 Janua ry 1996 to 31 December 1996 on the basis of 
subsidies granted to BSC before its privatizati on in 1988. The EC alleged that these impositions of 
countervailing duties constitute a violation of Arti cles 1.1(b), 10, 14 and 19.4 of the Subsidies 
Agreement.  
On 14 January 1999, the EC requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 1 February 
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 17 February 1999. Brazil and Mexico 
reserved their third-party rights. On 16 March 1999, the Panel was composed. The report of the panel 
was circulated to Members on 23 December 1999. The panel found that by imposing countervailing 
duties on 1994, 1995 and 1996 imports of leaded ba rs produced by UES and BSES respectively, the 
US violated Article 10 of the Subsidies Agreement. In reaching this conclusion, the panel noted that 
the presumption of "benefit" flowing from untied, non-recurring "financial contributions" even after 
changes in ownership was rebutted in the ci rcumstances surrounding the changes in ownership 
leading to the creation of UES and BSplc/BSES respectively, inter alia , because the change in 
ownership involved the payment of  consideration for the productive assets etc. acquired by those 
entities from BSC. According to the panel, the US  should therefore have examined whether the 
production of leaded bars by UES and BSplc/BSES respectively, and not BSC, was subsidised.  
On 27 January 2000, the US notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 10 May 2000. The Appellate Body upheld all of the findings of the panel that were appealed but on 
one point corrected the reasoning of the panel.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and th e panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body 
report, on 7 June 2000.  
79. WT/DS136 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 9 June  1998, the EC requested consultations with the 
US in respect of the alleged failure of the US to repeal its Anti-Dumping Act of 1916. The EC 
contended that the US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 is s till in force and is applicable to the import and  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 193 
 
 
  internal sale of any foreign product irrespective of its origin, including products originating in 
countries which are WTO Members. The EC also alle ged that the 1916 Act exists in the US statute 
books in parallel with the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, which includes the US implementing 
legislation of multilateral Anti-Dumping provisions. Th e EC alleged violations of Articles III:4, VI:1, 
and VI:2 of GATT 1994, Article XVI:4 of the WTO Ag reement, and Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
On 1 November 1998, the EC requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 25 November 
1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its mee ting on 1 February 1999. India, Japan and Mexico 
reserved their third-party rights. On 1 April 1999,  the Panel was composed. The report of the panel 
was circulated to Members on 31 Marc h 2000. The panel considered that:  
• Article VI:1 of GATT 1994 applies to any situ ation where a Member addresses the type of 
transnational price discrimination defined in that Article.  
• on the basis of the terms of the 1916 Act, its legislative history and its interpretation by US 
courts, the transnational price discrimination t est found in the 1916 Act met the definition of 
Article VI:1 of GATT 1994.  
• by not providing exclusively for the injury test set out in Article VI, the 1916 Act violated 
Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994;  
• by providing for the imposition of treble damages, fines or imprisonment, instead of anti-
dumping duties, the 1916 Act violated Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994;  
• by not providing for a number of procedural requirements found in the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement, the 1916 Act violated Articles 1, 4 and 5.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and  
• by violating Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, the 1916 Act violated Article XVI:4 
of the WTO Agreement.  
On 29 May 2000, the US notified its intention to app eal certain issues of law and legal interpretations 
developed by the panel. The Appellate Body exam ined this appeal with that of WT/DS162. The 
Appellate Body report was circulated to Members on 28 August 2000. The Appellate Body upheld all 
of the findings and conclusions of the panel that were appealed.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and th e Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body 
report, on 26 September 2000.  
80. WT/DS135 – European Communities – Measu res Affecting Asbestos and Products 
Containing Asbestos 
Complaint by Canada. On 28 May 19 98, Canada requested consultations with the EC in respect of 
measures imposed by France, in particular Decr ee of 24 December 1996, with respect to the 
prohibition of asbestos and products containing asb estos, including a ban on imports of such goods. 
Canada alleged that these measures violate Articles 2,  3 and 5 of the SPS Agreement, Article 2 of the 
TBT Agreement, and Articles III, XI and XIII of GATT 1994. Canada also al leged nullification and 
impairment of benefits accruing to it under the various agreements cited.  
On 8 October 1998, Canada requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meetings on 21 October 
1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 194  
 
  by Canada, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 25 November 1998. The US reserved its 
third-party rights. The report of the panel was ci rculated to Members on 18 September 2000. The 
Panel found that:  
• the "prohibition" part of the Decree of 24 Dece mber 1996 does not fall within the scope of the 
TBT Agreement;  
• the part of the Decree relating to "excep tions" does fall within the scope of the TBT 
Agreement. However, as Canada had not made  any claim concerning the compatibility with 
the TBT Agreement of the part of the Decree relating to exceptions, the Panel refrained from 
reaching any conclusion with regard to the latter;  
• chrysotile asbestos fibres as such and fibres that  can be substituted for them as such are like 
products within the meaning of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994;  
• the asbestos-cement products and the fibro-ceme nt products for which sufficient information 
had been submitted to the Panel are like products  within the meaning of Article III:4 of the 
GATT 1994;  
• with respect to the products found to be like, the Decree violates Article III:4 of the GATT 
1994;  
• insofar as it introduces a treatment of these products that is discriminatory under Article III:4, 
the Decree is justified as such  and in its implementation by the provisions of paragraph (b) 
and the introductory clause of Article XX of the GATT 1994;  
• Canada has not established that it suffered non- violation nullification or impairment of a 
benefit within the meaning of Ar ticle XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994.  
On 23 October 2000, Canada notified the Dispute Settle ment Body of its decision to appeal certain 
issues of law covered in the Pane l Report and legal interpretations  developed by the Panel. The 
Appellate Body circulated its report on 12 March 2001. The Appellate Body:  
• ruled that the French Decree,  prohibiting asbestos and asbestos -containing products had not 
been shown to be inconsistent with the Eu ropean Communities' obligations under the WTO 
agreements;  
• reversed the Panel's finding that the TBT Agreem ent does not apply to the prohibitions in the 
measure concerning asbestos and asbestos-cont aining products and found that the TBT 
Agreement applies to the measure viewed as an integrated whole. The Appellate Body 
concluded that it was unable to examine Canada's  claims that the measure was inconsistent 
with the TBT Agreement;  
• reversed the Panel's findings with respect to "like products", under Article III:4 of the GATT 
1994. The Appellate Body ruled, in particular, that the Panel erred in excluding the health 
risks associated with asbestos from its examination of "likeness".  
• reversed the Panel's conclusion that the measur e is inconsistent with Article III:4 of the 
GATT 1994. The Appellate Body itself examined Canada's claims under Article III:4 of the 
GATT 1994 and ruled that Canada has not satisfied its burden of proving the existence of 
"like products" under that provision; and   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 195 
 
 
  • upheld the Panel's conclusion, under Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994, that the French 
Decree is "necessary to protect human … life or health".  
In this appeal, the Appellate Body adopted an add itional procedure "for the purposes of this appeal 
only" to deal with amicus curiae  submissions. The Appellate Body received, and refused, 17 
applications to file such a submission. The A ppellate Body also refused to accept 14 unsolicited 
submissions from non-governmental organizations  that were not submitted under the additional 
procedure.  
At its meeting of 5 April 2001, the DSB adopted th e Appellate Body report and the panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body report.  
81. WT/DS132 – Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup 
(HFCS) from the United States 
Complaint by the United States. On 8 May 1998, th e US requested consultations with Mexico in 
respect of an anti-dumping investigation of high -fructose corn syrup (HFCS) grades 42 and 55 from 
the US, conducted by Mexico. The US alleged that on 27 February 1997, the Government of Mexico 
published a notice initiating this anti-dumping investig ation on the basis of an application dated 14 
January 1997 from the Mexican National Chamber of  Sugar and Alcohol Producers. The US further 
alleged that on 23 January 1998, Mexico issued a no tice of final determination of dumping and injury 
in that investigation, and consequently imposed  definitive anti-dumping measures on these imports 
from the United States. The US contended that the manner in which the application for an anti-
dumping investigation was made, as well as the manner in which a determination of threat of injury 
was made, is inconsistent with Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
On 8 October 1998, the US requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 21 October 
1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 25 November 1998.  Jamaica and Mauritius 
reserved their third-party rights. On 13 January 1999, the Panel was composed. The report of the 
panel was circulated to Members on 28 January 2000. The Panel found that:  
• Mexico's initiation of the anti-dumping inves tigation on imports of HFCS from the US was 
consistent with the requirements of Articles 5. 2, 5.3, 5.8, 12.1 and 12.1.1(iv) of the Anti 
Dumping Agreement.  
• Mexico's imposition of the definitive anti-dumping measure on imports of HFCS from the US 
was inconsistent with the following provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement: Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.7(i); Article 7.4; Article 10.2; Article 10.4; and Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2.  
The DSB adopted the panel report at its meeting on 24 February 2000.  
82. WT/DS126 – Australia – Subsidies Provided to  Producers and Exporters of Automotive 
Leather 
Complaint by the United States. On 4 May 1998, th e US requested consultations with Australia in 
respect of prohibited subsidies allegedly provid ed to Australian producers and exporters of 
automotive leather, including subsidies provided to Ho we and Company Proprietary Ltd. (or any of its 
affiliated and/or parent companies), which allege dly involve preferential government loans of about 
A$25 million and non-commercial term s and grants of about A$30 million. The US contended that 
these measures violate the obligations of Australia  under Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 196  
 
  Further to the US's request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 22 June 1998 (see also 
WT/DS106). On 27 October 1998, the US request ed the Director-General to determine the 
composition of the Panel. On 2 November 1998, the Panel was composed. The report of the Panel was 
circulated to Members on 25 May 1999. The Panel found that the loan from the Australian Government to Howe/ALH is not a subsidy contin gent upon export performance within the meaning 
of Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement, but that the payments under the grant contract are subsidies 
within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement, which are contingent upon export 
performance within the meaning of Article 3.1(a) of  that Agreement. At its meeting on 16 June 1999, 
the DSB adopted the Panel report.  
83. WT/DS122 – Thailand – Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron 
or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland 
Complaint by Poland. On 6 April 1998, Poland requ ested consultations with Thailand concerning the 
imposition of final anti-dumping duties on imports of angles, shapes and sections of iron or non alloy 
steel and H-beams. Poland asserted that provisiona l anti dumping duties were imposed by Thailand on 
27 December 1996, and a final anti dumping dut y of 27.78% of CIF value for these products, 
produced or exported by any Polish producer or exporter, was imposed on 26 May 1997. Poland 
further asserted that Thailand refused two request s by Poland for disclosure of findings. Poland 
contended that these actions by Thailand violat e Articles 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement.  
On 13 October 1999, Poland requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 27 October 
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by Poland, the DSB established a panel at its me eting on 19 November 1999. The EC, Japan and the 
US reserved their third-party rights. On 20 Dece mber 1999, the Panel was composed. The report was 
circulated to Members on 28 Septembe r 2000. The Panel concluded that:  
(i) Poland failed to establish that Thailand had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 2 
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement or Article VI of  the GATT 1994 in the calculation of the amount for 
profit in constructing normal value.  
(ii) Thailand's imposition of the definitive anti-dum ping measure on imports of H-beams from Poland 
was inconsistent with the requirements of Artic le 3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in that: 
• inconsistently with the second sentence of Article  3.2 and Article 3.1, the Thai authorities did 
not consider, on the basis of an "objective examination" of "positive evidence" in the 
disclosed factual basis, the price effects of dumped imports;  
• inconsistently with Articles 3.4 and 3.1, the Thai investigating authorities failed to consider 
certain factors listed in Article 3.4, and failed to provide an adequate explanation of how the 
determination of injury could be reached on the basis of an "unbiased or objective evaluation" 
or an "objective examination" of "positive ev idence" in the disclosed factual basis; and  
• inconsistently with Articles 3.5 and 3.1, the Th ai authorities made a determination of a causal 
relationship between dumped imports and any possi ble injury on the basis of (a) their findings 
concerning the price effects of dumped imports, which the Panel had already found to be inconsistent with the second sentence of Article  3.2 and Article 3.1; and (b) their findings 
concerning injury, which the Panel had already f ound to be inconsistent  with Article 3.4 and 
3.1.  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 197 
 
 
  (iii) under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is infringement of the obligations assumed 
under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to cons titute a case of nullification or 
impairment of benefits under that agreement, and that, accordingly, to the extent Thailand has acted 
inconsistently with the provisions of the AD Agreem ent, it has nullified or impaired benefits accruing 
to Poland under that Agreement.  
On 23 October 2000, Thailand notified the DSB of its decision to appeal certain issues of law covered 
in the Panel Report and legal interp retations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body circulated 
its report on 12 March 2001. The Appellate Body:  
• upheld the Panel's conclusion that with respect to the claims under Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the 
AD Agreement, the request for the establishment of a panel submitted by Poland in this case 
was sufficient to meet the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU;  
• reversed the finding of the Panel that the AD Agreement requires a panel reviewing the 
imposition of an anti-dumping duty to consider  only the facts, evidence and reasoning that 
were disclosed to, or discernible by, Polish firms at the time of the final determination of dumping. The Appellate Body was of the view that there was no basis for the Panel's 
reasoning, either in Article 3.1 of the AD Ag reement, which lays down the obligations of 
Members with respect to the determination of injury, or in Article 17.6 of the AD Agreement, which sets out the standard of review for panels.  
• Although having reversed the reasoning of the Pa nel on this issue, it left undisturbed the 
Panel's main findings of violation;  
• upheld the Panel's conclusion under Article 3. 4 of the AD Agreement. The Appellate Body 
agreed with the Panel that Article 3.4 requires a mandatory evaluation of all the factors listed 
in that provision,  
• concluded that the Panel did not err in its app lication of the burden of proof, or in the 
application of the standard of review under  Article 17.6(i) of the AD Agreement.   
At its meeting of 5 April 2001,the DSB adopted th e Appellate Body report and the panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body report.  
84. WT/DS121 – Argentina – Safeguard Me asures on Imports of Footwear 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 3 Ap ril 1998, the EC requested consultations with 
Argentina in respect of provisional and definiti ve safeguard measures imposed by Argentina on 
imports of footwear. The EC asserted that by Resolution 226/97 of 24 February 1997, Argentina 
imposed a provisional safeguard measure in the fo rm of specific duties on imports of footwear 
effective from 25 February 1997, which was foll owed by Resolution 987/97, which imposed a 
definitive safeguard measure on these imports effect ive from 13 September 1997. The EC alleged that 
the above measures violate Articles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, and 
Article XIX of GATT 1994.  
On 10 June 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 22 June 1998, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Furthe r to a second request to establish a panel, the DSB 
established a panel at its meeting on 23 July 1998.  Brazil, Indonesia, Paraguay, the US and Uruguay 
reserved their third-parties rights. On 15 Septembe r 1998, the Panel was composed. The report of the 
panel was circulated on 25 June 1999.  The panel found that Argentina's measure is inconsistent with 
Articles 2 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 198  
 
  On 15 September 1999, Argentina notified its inten tion to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 14 December 1999. The Appellate Body upheld the panel's finding that Argentina's measure is 
inconsistent with Articles 2 and 4 of the Agreemen t on Safeguards, but reversed certain findings and 
conclusions of the panel in respect of the rela tionship between the Agreement on Safeguards and 
Article XIX of GATT 1994 and the justificati on of imposing safeguard measures only on non-
MERCOSUR third country sources of supply.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and th e Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body Report, on 12 January 2000.  
85. WT/DS114 – Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products 
Complaint by the European Communities and thei r member States. On 19 December 1997, the EC 
requested consultations with Canada in respect of the alleged lack of protection of inventions by 
Canada in the area of pharmaceuticals under the re levant provisions of the Canadian implementing 
legislation, in particular the Patent Act. The EC alleged that Canada's legi slation is not compatible 
with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, b ecause it does not provide for the full protection of 
patented pharmaceutical inventions for the entire duration of the term of protection envisaged by 
Articles 27.1, 28 and 33 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
On 11 November 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 25 
November 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a pane l at its meeting on 1 February 1999. Australia, 
Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, India, Israel, Japan, Pola nd, Switzerland, Thailand and the United States 
reserved their third-party rights. On 15 March 1999, the EC and their member States requested the 
Director-General to determine the composition of  the Panel. On 25 March 1999, the Panel was 
composed. The report of the panel was circulat ed to Members on 17 March 2000. The panel found 
that:  
• the so-called regulatory review exception provi ded for in Canada's Patent Act (Section 
55.2(1)) – the first aspect of the Patent Act cha llenged by the EC – was not inconsistent with 
Article 27.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and was c overed by the exception in Article 30 of the 
TRIPS Agreement and therefore not inconsistent  with Article 28.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. 
Under the regulatory review exception, potential competitors of a patent owner are permitted 
to use the patented invention, without the author ization of the patent owner during the term of 
the patent, for the purposes of obtaining government marketing approval, so that they will 
have regulatory permission to sell in competiti on with the patent owner by the date on which 
the patent expires.  
• the so-called stockpiling excepti on (Section 55.2(2)) –the second aspect of the Patent Act 
challenged by the EC, was inconsistent with Article 28.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and was 
not covered by the exception in Article 30 of  the TRIPS Agreement. Under the stockpiling 
exception, competitors are allowed to manufact ure and stockpile patented goods during a 
certain period before the patent expires, but th e goods cannot be sold until after the patent 
expires. The panel considered that, unlike th e regulatory review exception, the stockpiling 
exception constituted a substantial curtailment of  the exclusionary rights required to be 
granted to patent owners under Article 28.1 to such an extent that it could not be considered 
to be a limited exception within the meaning of Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
The DSB adopted the panel report at its meeting on 7 April 2000.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 199 
 
 
  86. WT/DS108 – United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 18 November 1997, the EC requested consultations 
with the US in respect of Sections 921-927 of the US Internal Revenue Code  and related measures, 
establishing special tax treatment for "Foreign Sal es Corporations" (FSC). The EC contended that 
these provisions were inconsistent with US ob ligations under Articles III:4 and XVI of the GATT 
1994, Articles 3.1(a) and (b) of the Subsidies Agr eement, and Articles 3 and 8 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
On 1 July 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a Panel. In the request for a panel, the EC 
invoked Article 3.1(a) and (b) of the Subsidies Ag reement, and Articles 3 and 8, 9 and 10 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, and did not pursue the claims under the GATT 1994. At its meeting on 23 
July 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a 
panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 22 Septembe r 1998. Barbados, Canada 
and Japan reserved their third-parties rights. On  9 November 1998, the Panel was composed. The 
report of the panel was circulated to Members on 8 October 1999. The panel found that, through the 
FSC scheme, the United States had acted inconsistently  with its obligations under Article 3.1(a) of the 
Subsidies Agreement as well as with its obligations  under Article 3.3 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
(and consequently with its obligations under Article 8 of that Agreement).  
On 28 October 1999, the US notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the panel. On 2 Nove mber 1999, the US withdrew its notice of appeal 
pursuant to Rule 30 of the Working Procedures for A ppellate Review, stating that the withdrawal was 
conditional on its right to file a new notice of app eal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures. 
On 26 November 1999, the US notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 24 February 2000. The Appellate Body ruled as follows:  
• it upheld the panel's finding that the FSC me asure constituted a pr ohibited subsidy under 
Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement.  
• it reversed the panel's finding that the FSC me asure involved "the provision of subsidies to 
reduce the costs of marketing exports" of agri cultural products under Article 9.1(d) of the 
Agriculture Agreement and, in consequence, re versed the panel's findings that the US had 
acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 3.3 of the Agriculture Agreement.  
• it found that the US acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 10.1 and 8 of the 
Agriculture Agreement by applying export subs idies, through the FSC measure, in a manner 
which results in, or threatens to lead to, ci rcumvention of its export subsidy commitments 
with respect to agricultural products.  
• it also emphasized that it was not ruling that a Member must choose one kind of tax system 
over another so as to be consistent w ith that Member's WTO obligations.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body 
report, at its meeting on 20 March 2000.  
87. WT/DS103, WT/DS113 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the 
Exportation of Dairy Products 
Complaints by the United States and New Zeal and. On 8 October 1997, the US requested 
consultations with Canada in respect of export subsidies allegedly granted by Canada on dairy WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 200  
 
  products and the administration by Canada of th e tariff-rate quota on milk. The US contended that 
these export subsidies by Canada distort markets for dairy products and adversely affect US sales of 
dairy products. The US alleged violations of Articles II, X and X1 of GATT 1994, Articles 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10 of the Agreement on Agriculture, Article 3 of  the Subsidies Agreement, and Articles 1, 2 and 3 
of the Import Licensing Agreement.  
On 29 December 1997, New Zealand requested consulta tions with Canada in respect of an alleged 
dairy export subsidy scheme commonly referred to as  the "special milk classes" scheme. New Zealand 
contended that the Canadian "special milk classes" sc heme is inconsistent with Article XI of GATT, 
and Articles 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
On 2 February 1998, the US requested the establis hment of a panel in respect of WT/DS103. At its 
meeting on 13 February 1998, the DSB deferred th e establishment of a panel. On 25 March 1998, 
further to requests from the US and New Zealand, th e DSB established, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the 
DSU, a single panel to examine the disputes WT/DS103 and WT/DS113. Australia and Japan reserved their third-party rights. On 12 August 1998, the Panel was composed. The report of the Panel 
was circulated to Members on 17 May 1999. The Pa nel found that the measures complained against 
were inconsistent with Canada's  obligations under Article II:1(b) of GATT 1994, and Articles 3.3 and 
8 of the Agreement on Agriculture by providing export  subsidies as listed in Article 9.1(a) and 9.1(c) 
of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
On 15 July 1999, Canada notified its intention to ap peal certain issues of law and legal interpretations 
developed by the Panel. The report of the Appellate  Body was circulated on 13 October 1999. The 
Appellate Body ruled as follows:  
• it reversed the Panel's interpretation of Article  9.1(a) and, in consequence, reversed the 
Panel's finding that Canada acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 3.3 and 8 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture.  
• it upheld the Panel's finding that Canada was in violation of Article 3.3 and 8 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture in respect of export  subsidies listed in Article 9.1(c) of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  
• it partly reversed the Panel's finding that Cana da acted inconsistently  with its obligations 
under Article II:1(b) of GATT 1994.  
At its meeting on 27 October 1999, the DSB adopted  the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, 
as modified by the Appellate Body report.  
88. WT/DS99 – United States – Anti-Dumping  Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory 
Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea 
Complaint by Korea. On 14 August 1997, Korea requ ested consultations with the US in respect of a 
decision of the US Department of Commerce (DoC) not to revoke the anti-dumping duty on dynamic 
random access memory semi-conductors (DRAMS) of  one megabyte or above originating from 
Korea. Korea contended that the DoC's decision w as made despite the finding that the Korean DRAM 
producers have not dumped their products for a peri od of more than three and a half consecutive 
years, and despite the existence of evidence de monstrating conclusively that Korean DRAM 
producers will not engage in dumping DRAMS in the future. Korea considered that these measures are in violation of Articles 6 and 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 201 
 
 
  On 6 November 1997, Korea requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 18 November 
1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by Korea, the DSB established a panel at its m eeting on 16 January 1998. On 10 March 1998, Korea 
requested the Director-General to determine th e composition of the Panel. On 19 March 1998, the 
Panel was composed. The report of the Panel was ci rculated on 29 January 1999. The Panel found the 
measures complained of to be in violation of Ar ticle 11.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. At its 
meeting on 19 March 1999, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.  
89. WT/DS98 – Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy 
Products 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 12 Au gust 1997, the EC requested consultations with 
Korea in respect of a definitive safeguard measure  imposed by Korea on imports of certain dairy 
products. The EC contended that under the provisions  of different governmental measures, Korea has 
imposed a safeguard measure in the form of an im port quota on imports of certain dairy products. The 
EC considered that this measure is in violation of Articles 2, 4, 5 and 12 of the Agreement on 
Safeguard Measures, as well as a violation of Article XIX of GATT 1994.  
On 9 January 1998, the EC requested the establishmen t of a panel. At the DSB meeting on 22 January 
1998, the EC informed the DSB that it was, for th e time being, not pursuing the panel request. On 10 
June 1998, the EC made a another request to estab lish a panel. At its meeting on 22 June 1998, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to  another request to establish a panel by the EC, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 23 July  1998. The US reserved its  third party rights. On 
20 August 1998, the Panel was composed. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 21 
June 1999. The panel found that Korea's measure is inconsistent with Articles 4.2(a), and 5 of the 
Agreement on Safeguards, but rejected the EC clai ms under Article XIX of GATT 1994, Articles 2.1, 
12.1 (although it found that Korea's notifications to the Committee on Safeguards were not timely, 
and to that extent were inconsis tent with Article 12.1), 12.2 and 12. 3 of the Agreement on Safeguards.  
On 15 September 1999, Korea notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 14 December 1999. The Appellate Body rever sed one of the panel's conclusions on the 
interpretation of Article XIX of GATT 1994 and its  relationship with the Agreement on Safeguards; 
upheld one, but reversed another of the panel's inte rpretations of Article 5.1 of the Agreement on 
Safeguards; and concluded that Korea violated Ar ticle 12.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, thereby 
reversing in part the panel's finding.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and th e Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body Report, on 12 January 2000.  
90. WT/DS90 – India – Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and 
Industrial Products 
Complaint by the United States. On 15 July 1997, the US requested consultations with India in respect 
of quantitative restrictions maintained by India on importation of a large number of agricultural, 
textile and industrial prod ucts. The US contended that these quantitative restrictions, including the 
more than 2,700 agricultural and industrial product ta riff lines notified to the WTO, are inconsistent 
with India's obligations under Articles XI:1 and XVIII:11 of GATT 1994, Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, and Article 3 of th e Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  
On 3 October 1997, the US requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 16 October 
1997, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel, WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 202  
 
  the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 18 November 1997. On 10 February 1998, the US 
requested the Director-General to determine the co mposition of the Panel. On 20 February 1998, the 
Panel was composed. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 6 April 1999. The panel 
found that the measures at issue were inconsistent  with India's obligations under Articles XI and 
XVIII11 of GATT 1994, and to the extent that th e measures apply to products subject to the 
Agreement on Agriculture, are inconsistent with Ar ticle 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The 
panel also found the measures to be nullifying or im pairing benefits accruing to the United States 
under GATT 1994, and the Agreement on Agriculture.  
On 26 May 1999, India notified its intention to app eal certain issues of law and legal interpretations 
developed by the Panel. The report of the Appella te Body was circulated to Members on 23 August 
1999. The Appellate Body upheld all of the finding s of the panel that were appealed from.  
The DSB adopted the Panel and Appellate Body re ports at its meeting on 22 September 1999.  
91. WT/DS87, WT/DS110 – Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages 
Complaints by the European Communities. On 4 June 1997 and 15 December 1997, the EC requested 
consultations with Chile in respect of Chile's Sp ecial Sales Tax on spirits, which allegedly imposes a 
higher tax on imported spirits than on Pisco , a locally brewed spirit. The EC's second request 
(WT/DS110), takes issue with the modification to the law on taxation on alcoholic beverages passed 
by Chile to address the concerns of the EC in WT /DS87. The EC contended that this differential 
treatment of imported spirits violates Article III:2 of GATT 1994.  
On 3 October 1997, the EC requested the establishment of a panel in respect of the complaint 
WT/DS87. At its meeting on 16 October 1997, the DS B deferred the establishment of a panel. Further 
to a second request to establish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 18 
November 1997. Canada, Mexico, Peru and th e US reserved their third-party rights. 
 Further to the EC's complaint with respect to WT/DS110, the DSB established a panel at its meeting 
on 25 March 1998. The DSB also agreed that a si ngle panel be established to examine the two 
complaints. Peru, Canada and the US reserved their third-party rights. On 10  and 11 June 1998, the 
EC and Chile, respectively, requested the Director-G eneral to determine the composition of the Panel. 
On 1 July 1998, the Panel was composed. The repor t of the panel was circulated to Members on 15 
June 1999. The panel found that Chile's Transiti onal System and its New System for taxation of 
distilled alcoholic beverages was inconsis tent with Article III:2 of GATT 1994.  
On 13 September 1999, Chile notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 13 December 1999. The Appellate Body upheld th e panel's interpretati on and application of 
Article III:2 of GATT 1994, subject to exclusion of cer tain considerations relie d upon by the panel.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and th e Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body Report, on 12 January 2000.  
92. WT/DS79 – India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical 
Products 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 28 April 1997, the EC requested consultations with 
India in respect of the alleged absence in India of patent protection for pharmaceutical and agricultural 
chemical products, and the absence of formal systems that permit the filing of patent applications of 
and provide exclusive marketing rights for such produc ts. The EC contended that  this is inconsistent  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 203 
 
 
  with India's obligations under Ar ticle 70, paragraphs 8 and 9, of the TRIPS Agreement (see similar 
US complaint in WT/DS50, where the Panel and Ap pellate Body reports were adopted on 16 January 
1998).  
On 9 September 1997, the EC requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 25 September 
1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its mee ting on 16 October 1997. The US reserved its third-
party rights. The report of the Panel was circul ated to Members on 24 August 1998. The Panel found 
that India has not complied with its obligations under Article 70.8(a) of the TRIPS Agreement by 
failing to establish a legal basis that adequately  preserves novelty and priority in respect of 
applications for product patents for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical inventions, and was also 
not in compliance with Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement by failing to establish a system for the 
grant of exclusive marketing rights. At its mee ting on 22 September 1998, the DSB adopted the Panel 
Report.  
93. WT/DS76 – Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products 
Complaint by the United States. On 7 April 1997, the US requested consultations with Japan in 
respect of the latter's prohibition, under quarantin e measures, of imports of certain agricultural 
products. The US alleged that Japan prohibits the importation of each variety of a product requiring 
quarantine treatment until the quarantine treatment h as been tested for that variety, even if the 
treatment has proved to be effective for other varie ties of the same product. The US alleged violations 
of Articles 2, 5 and 8 of the SPS Agreement, Article XI of GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. In addition, the US ma de a claim for nullification and impairment of 
benefits.  
On 3 October 1997, the US requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 16 October 
1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 18 November 1997. The EC, Hungary and Brazil reserved their third-party rights. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 27 
October 1998. The Panel found that Japan acted inc onsistently with Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS 
Agreement, and Annex B and, consequent ly, Article 7 of the SPS Agreement.  
On 24 November 1998, Japan notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 22 February 1999. The Appellate Body upheld th e basic finding that Japan's varietal testing of 
apples, cherries, nectarines and walnuts is inconsis tent with the requirements of the SPS Agreement.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and th e Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body Report, on 19 March 1999.  
94. WT/DS75, WT/DS84 – Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages 
Complaints by the European Communities and the Un ited States. On 4 April 1997, the EC requested 
consultations with Korea in respect of internal ta xes imposed by Korea on cer tain alcoholic beverages 
pursuant to its Liquor Tax Law and Education Tax Law. The EC contended that the Korean Liquor 
Tax Law and Education Tax Law appear to be inconsistent with Korea's obligations under 
Article III:2 of GATT 1994. On 23 May 1997, the US  requested consultations with Korea in respect 
of the same measures complained of by the EC. Th e US also alleged violations of Article III:2.  
On 10 September 1997, the EC and the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 
25 September 1997, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel. Further to a second request to WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 204  
 
  establish a panel by the EC and the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 16 October 
1997. Canada and Mexico reserved th eir third-party rights. On 26 November 1997, the EC and the US 
requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 5 December 1997, the 
Panel was composed. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 17 September 1998. The 
Panel found that:  
• soju (both diluted and distilled), is directly competitive and substitutable with the imported 
distilled alcoholic beverages that were in issu e, namely, whisky, brandy, rum, gin, vodka, 
tequila, liqueurs and ad-mixtures.  
• Korea has taxed the imported products in a dissi milar manner and that the tax differential was 
more than de minimis, and is applied so as to afford protection to domestic production.  
• The Panel therefore concluded that Korea had violated Article III:2 of GATT 1994. On 20 
October 1998, Korea notified its intention to  appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to 
Members on 18 January 1999. The Appellate Body upheld the panel's findings on all points.  
The DSB adopted the Panel and Appellate Body Reports on 17 February 1999.  
95. WT/DS70 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft 
Complaint by Brazil. On 10 March 1997, Brazil requ ested consultations with Canada in respect of 
certain subsidies granted by the Government of Ca nada or its provinces inte nded to support the export 
of civilian aircraft. The request was made pursuant to Article 4 of the Subsidies Agreement. Brazil 
contended that these measures are inconsistent w ith Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement.  
At its meeting on 23 July 1998, the DSB established a panel. The US reserved its third party rights. 
On 16 October 1998, Brazil requested the Director-Gen eral to determine the composition of the Panel. 
On 22 October 1998, the Panel was composed. The re port of the panel was circulated to Members on 
14 April 1999. The Panel found that certain of Canada's measures were  inconsistent with 
Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the Subsidies Agreement,  but rejected Brazil's claim that EDC assistance to 
the Canadian regional aircraft industry constitutes export subsidies.  
On 3 May 1999, Canada notified its intention to app eal certain issues of law and legal interpretations 
developed by the Panel. The report of the Appella te Body was circulated to Members on 2 August 
1999. The Appellate Body upheld the findings of the panel.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body and Panel Reports on 20 August 1999.  
96. WT/DS69 – European Communities – Meas ures Affecting Importation of Certain 
Poultry Products 
Complaint by Brazil. On 24 February 1997, Brazil re quested consultations with the EC in respect of 
the EC regime for the importation of certain poultr y products and the implementation by the EC of the 
Tariff Rate Quota for these products. Brazil contende d that the EC measures are inconsistent with 
Articles X and XXVII of GATT 1994 and Articles 1 and 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. Brazil also contended that the measures nu llify or impair benefits accruing to it directly or 
indirectly under GATT 1994.  
On 12 June 1997, Brazil requested the establishment of  a panel. At its meeting on 25 June 1997, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by Brazil,  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 205 
 
 
  the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 30 Ju ly 1997. Thailand and the US reserved their third-
party rights. On 11 August 1997, the Panel was composed. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 12 March 1998. The panel found that Brazil had not demonstrated that the EC had failed 
to implement and administer the tariff rate quota for poultry in line with its obligations under the cited 
agreements.  
On 29 April 1998, Brazil notified its intention to app eal certain issues of law and legal interpretations 
developed by the Panel. The report of the Appella te Body was circulated to Members on 13 July 
1998. The Appellate Body upheld most of the Pa nel's findings and conclusions, but reversed the 
Panel's finding that the EC had acted inconsisten tly with Article 5.1(b) of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. The Appellate Body, however, conclude d that the EC had acted inconsistently with 
Article 5.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
At its meeting on 23 July 1998, the DSB adopted th e Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body report.  
97. WT/DS62, WT/DS67, WT/DS68 – European Co mmunities – Customs Classification of 
Certain Computer Equipment 
Complaints by the United States. These are in respec t of the alleged reclassification by the European 
Communities, for tariff purposes, of certain Local Area Network (LAN) adapter equipment and personal computers with multimedia capability. The US alleged that these measures violate Article II 
of GATT 1994.  
At its meeting on 25 February 1997, the DSB esta blished a panel in respect of the complaint 
WT/DS62. Japan, Korea, India and Singapore reserved their third-party rights.  
At its meeting on 20 March 1997, the DSB established a panel in respect of the complaints WT/DS67 
and WT/DS68. In accordance with Article 9.1 of th e DSU, the DSB agreed to establish a single panel 
to examine the complaints WT/DS62, WT/DS67 and WT/DS68.  
The report of the Panel was circulated to Member s on 5 February 1998. The Panel found that the EC 
failed to accord imports of LAN equipment from the US treatment no less favourable than that 
provided for in the EC Schedule of commitments, th ereby acting inconsistently with Article II:1 of 
GATT 1994.  
On 24 March 1998, the EC notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 5 June 1998. The Appellate Body reversed the Pa nel's conclusion that the EC tariff treatment of 
LAN equipment is inconsistent with Article II:1 of GATT 1994.  
At its meeting on 22 June 1998, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report a nd the Panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body report.  
98. WT/DS60 – Guatemala – Anti-Dumping Invest igation Regarding Portland Cement from 
Mexico 
Complaint by Mexico. On 15 October 1996, Mexico  requested consultations with Guatemala in 
respect of an anti-dumping investigation commenced by  Guatemala with regard to imports of portland 
cement from Mexico. Mexico alleged that this investigation was in violation of Guatemala's 
obligations under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 7.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 206  
 
  On 4 February 1997, Mexico requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 25 February 
1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by Mexico, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 20 March 1997. The US, Canada, Honduras 
and El Salvador reserved their third-party rights . On 21 April 1997, Mexico requested the Director-
General to determine the composition of the Pane l. On 1 May 1997, the Panel was composed. The 
report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 19 June 1998. The Panel found that Guatemala had 
failed to comply with the requirements of Article  5.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by initiating 
the investigation on the basis of evidence of dumping,  injury and casual link that was not "sufficient" 
as a justification for initiation.  
On 4 August 1998, Guatemala notified its intentio n to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 2 November 1998. The Appellate Body reversed th e Panel's finding that the dispute was properly 
before the Panel, on the ground that Mexico did not co mply with Article 6.2 of the DSU in its request 
for a panel since it did not identify the measure it was complaining against. Having found that the 
dispute was not properly before the Panel, the A ppellate Body could not make any conclusions on the 
findings by the Panel on the substantive issues that we re also the subject of the appeal. The Appellate 
Body stressed that its decision was without prejudice to Mexico's right to pursue new dispute settlement proceedings on this matter.  
At the DSB meeting on 25 November 1998, the DS B adopted the Appellate Body Report and the 
Panel Report, as reversed by th e Appellate Body Report.  
99. WT/DS58 – United States – Import Prohibit ion of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products 
Complaint by India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thaila nd. On 8 October 1996, India, Malaysia, Pakistan 
and Thailand requested consultations with the US concerning a ban on importation of shrimp and 
shrimp products from these complainants imposed by the US under Section 60 9 of US Public Law 
101-162. Violations of Articles I, XI and XIII of  GATT 1994, as well nullification and impairment of 
benefits, were alleged.  
On 9 January 1997, Malaysia and Thailand requested  the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 
22 January 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of  a panel. On 30 January 1997, Pakistan also 
requested the establishment of a panel. Further to Malaysia's, Pakistan's and Thailand's requests, the 
DSB established a panel at its meeting on 25 Fe bruary 1997. Australia, Colombia, Costa Rica, 
Ecuador, the EC, Guatemala, Hong Kong, India, Jap an, Mexico, Nigeria, the Philippines, Senegal, 
Singapore and Sri Lanka reserved their third-party rights.  
On 25 February 1997, India also requested the est ablishment of a panel on the same matter. At its 
meeting on 20 March 1997, the DSB deferred the estab lishment of a panel. Further to a second 
request to establish a panel by India, the DSB agre ed to establish a panel at its meeting on 10 April 
1997. It was also agreed to incorporate this panel w ith that already established in respect of the other 
complainants. El Salvador and Venezuela reserved their third party rights , in addition to those 
delegations who had reserved their third-party rights to the panel established at the requests of 
Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand.  
On 15 April 1997, the Panel was composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 15 May 1998. The Panel found that the import 
ban in shrimp and shrimp products as applied by the Un ited States is inconsistent with Article XI:1 of 
GATT 1994, and cannot be justified under Article XX of GATT 1994.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 207 
 
 
  On 13 July 1998, the US notified its intention to ap peal certain issues of law and legal interpretations 
developed by the Panel. The report of the Appellate  Body was circulated to Members on 12 October 
1998. The Appellate Body reversed th e Panel's finding that the US measure at issue is not within the 
scope of measures permitted under the chapeau of Article XX of GATT 1994, but concluded that the 
US measure, while qualifying for provisional justif ication under Article XX(g), fails to meet the 
requirements of the chapeau of Article XX.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and th e Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body Report, on 6 November 1998.  
100. WT/DS56 – Argentina -Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel and 
Other Items 
Complaint by the United States. On 4 October 1996, the US requested consultations with Argentina 
concerning the imposition of specific duties on th ese items in excess of the bound rate and other 
measures by Argentina. The US contended that th ese measures violate Articles II, VII, VIII and X of 
GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, Article  1 to 8 of the Agreement on the Implementation 
of Article VII of GATT 1994, and Article 7 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.  
On 9 January 1997, the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 22 January 1997, 
the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Furthe r to a second request to establish a panel by the 
US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 25 February 1997. The EC and India reserved their 
third-party rights. On 4 April 1997, the Panel was composed. The report of the Panel was circulated on 25 November 1997. The Panel found that the minimum specific duties imposed by Argentina on textiles and apparel are inconsistent with the re quirements of Article II of GATT, and that the 
statistical tax of three per cent ad valorem  imposed by Argentina on imports is inconsistent with the 
requirements of Article VIII of GATT.  
On 21 January 1998, Argentina notified its intent ion to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 27 March 1998. The Appellate Body upheld, with some modification, the Panel's findings and 
conclusions.  
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body, were adopted by 
the DSB on 22 April 1998.  
101. WT/DS54, WT/DS55, WT/DS59, WT/DS64 – Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting 
the Automobile Industry 
Complaints by the European Communities (WT/ DS54), Japan (WT/DS55 and WT/DS64), and the 
United States (WT/DS59). On 3 October 1996, the EC  requested consultations with Indonesia, on 4 
October 1996 and 29 November 1996, Japan requested  consultations with Indonesia, and on 8 
October 1996, the US requested consultations w ith Indonesia concerning Indonesia's National Car 
Programme. The EC alleged that the exemption from customs duties and luxury taxes on imports of "national vehicles" and components thereof, and re lated measures were in violation of Indonesia's 
obligations under Articles I and III of GATT 1994, Ar ticle 2 of the TRIMs Agreement and Article 3 
of the SCM Agreement. Japan contended that th ese measures were in violation of Indonesia's 
obligations under Articles I:1, III:2, III:4 and X:3(a)  of GATT 1994, as well as Articles 2 and 5.4 of 
the TRIMs Agreement. The US contended that the measures were in violation of Indonesia's 
obligations under Article I and III of  GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIM s Agreement, Article 3, 6 and 
28 of the SCM Agreement and Articles 3, 20 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 208  
 
  On 17 April 1997, Japan requested the establishment of  a panel with respect to complaints WT/DS55 
and WT/DS64. At its meeting on 30 April 1997, the DS B deferred the establishment of a panel. On 12 
May 1997, the EC requested the establishment of a pa nel with respect to WT/DS54. At its meeting on 
23 May 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to the EC's and Japan's second 
requests, the DSB established a panel at its mee ting on 12 June 1997. In accordance with Article 9.1 
of the DSU, the DSB decided that a single panel will examine the disputes WT/DS54, WT/DS55 and 
WT/DS64. India, Korea and the US r eserved their third party rights.  
On 12 June 1997, the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 25 June 1997, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by the US, 
the DSB established a Panel at its meeting on 30 July 1997. In accordance with Article 9.1 of the 
DSU, the DSB decided that a single panel will ex amine this dispute together with WT/DS54, 
WT/DS55 and WT/DS64. India and Korea reserved their third party rights.  
On 25 July 1997, the EC and Japan requested the Director-General to determine the composition of 
the Panel. On 29 July 1997, the Panel was composed.  
The report of the Panel was circulated to Memb ers on 2 July 1998. The Panel found that Indonesia 
was in violation of Articles I and II:2 of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement, Article 5(c) 
of the SCM Agreement, but was not in violation of Article 28.2 of the SCM Agreement. The Panel 
however, found that the complainants had not de monstrated that Indonesia was in violation of 
Articles 3 and 65.5 of the TRIPS Agreement. At its meeting on 23 July 1998, the DSB adopted the Panel report.  
102. WT/DS50 – India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical 
Products 
Complaint by the United States. On 2 July 1996 , the US requested consultations with India 
concerning the alleged absence of patent protecti on for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical 
products in India. Violations of the TRIPS Ag reement Articles 27, 65 and 70 are claimed.  
The DSB established a panel at its meeting on 20 November 1996. The EC reserved their third party 
rights. On 29 January 1997, the Panel was compos ed. The report of the Panel was circulated on 5 
September 1997. The Panel found that India has not complied with its obligations under Article 70.8(a) or Article 63(1) and (2) of the TRIPS Agreement by failing to establish a mechanism 
that adequately preserves novelty and priority in respect of applications for product patents for 
pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical inventions, and was also not in compliance with Article 70.9 
of the TRIPS Agreement by failing to establish a system  for the grant of exclusive marketing rights.  
On 15 October 1997, India notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 19 December 1997. The Appellate Body upheld, with modifications, the Panel's findings on 
Articles 70.8 and 70.9, but ruled that Article 63(1) was not within the Panel's terms of reference.  
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body, were adopted by 
the DSB on 16 January 1998.  
103. WT/DS48 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Livestock and Meat 
(Hormones) 
Complaint by Canada. On 28 June 1996, Canada re quested consultations with the EC regarding the 
importation of livestock and meat from livestock that  have been treated with certain substances  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 209 
 
 
  having a hormonal action under GATT Article XXII and the corresponding provisions in the SPS, 
TBT and Agriculture Agreements. Violations SPS Ar ticles 2, 3 and 5; GATT Article III or XI; TBT 
Article 2; and Agriculture Article 4 are alleged. The Canadian claim was essentially the same as the 
US claim (WT/DS26), for which a panel was established earlier.  
On 16 September 1996, Canada requested the esta blishment of a panel. At its meeting on 27 
September 1996, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel. Further to a second request to 
establish a panel by Canada, the DSB established a pa nel at its meeting on 16 October 1996. On 4 
November 1996, the Panel was composed. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 18 
August 1997. The Panel found that the EC ban on imports of meat and meat products from cattle 
treated with any of six specific hormones for gr owth promotion purposes was inconsistent with 
Articles 3.1, 5.1 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.  
On 24 September 1997, the EC notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body examined this appeal with that of 
WT/DS26. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 16 January 1998. The 
Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that the EC import prohibition was inconsistent with 
Articles 3.3 and 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, but reversed the Panel's finding that the EC import 
prohibition was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement. On the general and 
procedural issues, the Appellate Body upheld most of the findings and conc lusions of the Panel, 
except with respect to the burden of proof in proceedings under the SPS Agreement.  
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body, were adopted by 
the DSB on 13 February 1998.  
104. WT/DS46 – Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft 
Complaint by Canada. On 19 J une 1996, Canada requested cons ultations with Brazil based on 
Article 4 of the Subsidies Agreement, which provi des for special procedures for export subsidies. 
Canada claimed that export subs idies granted under the Brazilian Programa de Financiamento às  
Exportações (PROEX),  to foreign purchasers of Brazil's Embraer aircraft are inconsistent with the 
Subsidies Agreement Articles 3, 27.4 and 27.5.  
Canada requested the establishment of a panel on 16 September 1996, a lleging violations of both the 
Subsidies Agreement and GATT 1994. The DSB cons idered this request at its meeting on 27 
September 1996. Due to Brazil's objection to the estab lishment of a panel, Canada agreed to modify 
its request, limiting the scope of the request to th e Subsidies Agreement. The modified request was 
submitted by Canada on 3 October 1996 but was subsequently withdr awn prior to a DSB meeting at 
which it was to be considered.  
On 10 July 1998, Canada again requested the estab lishment of a panel. At its meeting on 23 July 
1998, the DSB established a Panel. The EC and the US reserved their third-party rights. On 16 
October 1998, Canada requested the Director-General  to determine the composition of the Panel. On 
22 October 1998, the Panel was composed. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 14 
April 1999. The Panel found that Brazil's measures we re inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) and 27.4 of 
the Subsidies Agreement.  
On 3 May 1999, Brazil notified its intention to appe al certain issues of law and legal interpretations 
developed by the Panel. The report of the Appella te Body was circulated to Members on 2 August 
1999. The Appellate Body upheld all the findings of th e panel, but reversed and modified the panel's 
interpretation of the "material advantage" clause in item (k) of the Illustrative List of Export Subsidies 
in Annex I of the SCM Agreement.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 210  
 
  The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and th e Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body Report, on 20 August 1999.  
105. WT/DS44 – Japan – Measures Affecting Co nsumer Photographic Film and Paper 
Complaint by the United States. On 13 June 1996 , the United States requested consultations with 
Japan concerning Japan's laws, regulations and requ irements affecting the distribution, offering for 
sale and internal sale of imported consumer photogr aphic film and paper. The US alleged that: 
• the Japanese Government treated imported film  and paper less favourably through these 
measures, in violation of GATT Articles III and X.  
• these measures nullify or impair benefits accr uing to the US (a non-violation claim).  
On 20 September 1996, the US requested the establis hment of a panel. At its meeting on 3 October 
1996, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by the US, the DSB established a panel at its me eting on 16 October 1996. The EC and Mexico 
reserved their third party rights. On 12 December 1996, the US requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 17 D ecember 1996, the Panel was composed. The report 
of the Panel was circulated to Member s on 31 March 1998. The Panel found: 
• that the US had not demonstrated that the Jap anese 'measures' cited by the US nullified or 
impaired, either individually or collectively, benefits accruing to the US within the meaning 
of GATT Article XXIII:1(b);  
• that the US had not demonstrated that the Jap anese distribution 'measures' cited by the US 
accord less favourable treatment to imported photographic film and paper within the meaning of GATT Article III:4; and  
• that the US did not demonstrate that Japan fa iled to publish administrative rulings of general 
application in violation of GATT Article X:1.  
The Panel report was adopted by the DSB on 22 April 1998.  
106. WT/DS34 – Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products 
Complaint by India. On 21 March 1996, India re quested consultations with Turkey concerning 
Turkey's imposition of quantitative restrictions on im ports of a broad range of textile and clothing 
products. India claimed that those measures are inc onsistent with Articles XI and XIII of GATT 1994, 
as well as ATC Article 2. Earlier, India had requested to be joined in the co nsultations between Hong 
Kong and Turkey on the same subject matter (WT/DS29).  
On 2 February 1998, India requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 13 February 
1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by India, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 13 March 1998. Japan, the Philippines, 
Thailand, the US and Hong Kong, China reserved thei r third-party rights. On 11 June 1998, the Panel 
was composed. The report of the Panel was circul ated to Members on 31 May 1999. The Panel found 
that Turkey's measures are inconsistent with Ar ticles XI and XIII of GA TT 1994, and consequently 
inconsistent also with Article 2.4 of the ATC. Th e Panel also rejected Turkey's assertion that its 
measures are justified by Article XXIV of GATT 1994.   WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 211 
 
 
  On 26 July 1999, Turkey notified its intention to ap peal certain issues of law and legal interpretations 
developed by the Panel. The report of the Appellate  Body was circulated on 21 October 1999. The 
Appellate Body upheld the Panel's conclusion that Article XXIV of GATT 1994 does not allow 
Turkey to adopt, upon the formation of a customs union with the EC, quantitative restrictions which 
were found to be inconsistent with Articles XI and XIII of GATT 1994 and Article 2.4 of the ATC. 
However, the Appellate Body conc luded that the Panel erred in its  legal reasoning in interpreting 
Article XXIV of GATT 1994.  
At its meeting on 19 November 1999, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.  
107. WT/DS33 – United States – Measures Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and 
Blouses 
Complaint by India. On 30 December 1994, India requested consultations with the United States 
concerning the transitional safeguard measure imposed  by the United States. India claimed that the 
safeguard measure is inconsistent with  Articles 2, 6 and 8 of the ATC.  
On 14 March 1996, India requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 27 March 1996, 
the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Fu rther to a second request to establish a panel by 
India, the DSB meeting established a panel at its meeting on 17 April 1996. Canada, the EC, Norway, 
Pakistan and Turkey reserved their third party ri ghts. On 24 June 1996, the Panel was composed. The 
report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 6 January 1997. The Panel found that the safeguard 
measure imposed by the United States violated the provisions of the ATC.  
On 24 February 1997, India notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 25 April 1997. The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's decisions on those issues of law and legal interpretations that were appealed against.  
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body, were adopted by 
the DSB on 23 May 1997.  
108. WT/DS31 – Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals 
Complaint by the United States. On 11 March 1996, the United States requested consultations with 
Canada concerning certain measures prohibiting or r estricting the importation into Canada of certain 
periodicals. The US claimed that the measures ar e in contravention of GATT Article XI. The US 
further alleged that the tax treatment of so-ca lled "split-run" periodicals and the application of 
favourable postage rates to certain Canadian peri odicals are inconsistent with GATT Article III.  
On 24 May 1996, the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 6 June 1996, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by the US, 
the DSB established a panel on 19 June 1996. On 25 July 1996, the Panel was composed. The report 
of the Panel was circulated to Members on 14 Ma rch 1997. The Panel found the measures applied by 
Canada to be in violation of GATT rules.  
On 29 April 1997, Canada notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 30 June 1997. The Appellate Body  upheld the Panel's findings and conclusions on the applicability 
of GATT 1994 to Part V.1 of Canada's Excise Tax Ac t, but reversed the Panel's finding that Part V.1 
of the Excise Act is inconsistent with the first sentence of Article III:2 of GATT 1994. The Appellate WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 212  
 
  Body further concluded that Part V.1 of the Exci se Act is inconsistent with the second sentence of 
Article III:2 of GATT 1994. The Appellate Body also  reversed the Panel's conclusion that Canada's 
"funded" postal rate scheme is justifie d by Article III:8(b) of GATT 1994. 
 At its meeting on 30 July 1997, the DSB adopted th e Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body.  
109. WT/DS27 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas 
Complaints by Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico  and the United States. The complainants in 
this case other than Ecuador had requested consu ltations with the EC on the same issue on 28 
September 1995 (WT/DS16). After Ecuador's accessi on to the WTO, the current complainants again 
requested consultations with the EC on 5 February  1996. The complainants alleged that the EC's 
regime for importation, sale and distribution of bana nas is inconsistent with GATT Articles I, II, III, 
X, XI and XIII as well as provisions of the Import Licensing Agreement, the Agreement on 
Agriculture, the TRIMs Agreement and the GATS.  
On 11 April 1996, the five complainants requested th e establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 24 
April 1996, the DSB deferred the establishment of a pa nel. Further to a second request by the five 
complainants, a panel was established at the DSB meeting on 8 May 1996. On 29 May 1996, the five complainants requested the Director-General to de termine the composition of the Panel. On 7 June 
1996, the Panel was composed. The report of the Pa nel was circulated to Members on 22 May 1997. 
The Panel found that the EC's ba nana import regime, and the licen sing procedures for the importation 
of bananas in this regime, are inconsistent with  the GATT. The Panel further found that the Lomé 
waiver waives the inconsistency with GATT Articl e XIII, but not inconsistencies arising from the 
licensing system.  
On 11 June 1997, the European Communities notified its  intention to appeal certain issues of law and 
legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to 
Members on 9 September 1997. The Appellate Body mo stly upheld the Panel's findings, but reversed 
the Panel's findings that the inconsistency with GA TT Article XIII is waived by the Lomé waiver, and 
that certain aspects of the licensing regime violated Article X of GATT and the Import Licensing Agreement.  
At its meeting on 25 September 1997, the Appellate  Body report and the Panel report, as modified by 
the Appellate Body, were adopted by the DSB.  
110. WT/DS26 – European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products 
(Hormones) 
Complaint by the United States. On 26 January 1996 , the United States requested consultations with 
the European Communities claimi ng that measures taken by the EC under the Council Directive 
Prohibiting the Use in Livestock Farming of Certai n Substances Having a Hormonal Action restrict or 
prohibit imports of meat and meat products from th e United States, and are apparently inconsistent 
with GATT Articles III or XI, SPS Agreement Articl es 2, 3 and 5, TBT Agreement Article 2 and the 
Agreement on Agriculture Article 4.  
On 25 April 1996, the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meetings on 8 May 1996, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by the US, 
a panel was established at the DSB meeting on 20 May 1996. On 2 July 1996, the Panel was 
composed. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 18 August 1997. The Panel found  WT/DS/OV/34 
 Page 213 
 
 
  that the EC ban on imports of meat and meat products from cattle treated with any of six specific 
hormones for growth promotion purposes was inconsiste nt with Articles 3.1, 5.1 and 5.5 of the SPS 
Agreement.  
On 24 September 1997, the EC notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body examined this appeal with that of 
WT/DS48. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 16 January 1998. The 
Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that the EC import prohibition was inconsistent with 
Articles 3.3 and 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, but reversed the Panel's finding that the EC import prohibition was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement. On the general and 
procedural issues, the Appellate Body upheld most of the findings and conc lusions of the Panel, 
except with respect to the burden of proof in proceedings under the SPS Agreement.  
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body, were adopted by 
the DSB on 13 February 1998.  
111. WT/DS24 – United States – Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man-made Fibre 
Underwear 
Complaint by Costa Rica. On 22 December 1995, Costa Rica requested consultations with the United 
States concerning US restrictions on textile impor ts from Costa Rica. Costa Rica alleged that these 
restrictions were in violation of the ATC agreement.  
Further to Costa Rica's request, the DSB established a panel at it s meeting on 5 March 1996. India 
reserved its third-party rights. On  4 April 1996, the Panel was com posed. The report of the panel was 
circulated to members on 8 November 1996. The Pane l found that the US restraints were not valid. 
On 11 November 1996, Costa Rica notified its deci sion to appeal against one aspect of the Panel 
report. The report of the Appellate Body was ci rculated to Members on 10 February 1997. The 
Appellate Body upheld the appeal by Costa Rica on that particular point.  
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report as modified by the Appellate Body report, were 
adopted by the DSB on 25 February 1997.  
112. WT/DS22 – Brazil – Measures Affecting Desiccated Coconut 
Complaint by the Philippines. On 27 November 1995,  the Philippines requested consultations with 
Brazil in respect of a countervailing duty imposed by Brazil on the Philippine's exports of desiccated 
coconut. The Philippines claimed that this duty was inconsistent with WTO and GATT rules.  
On 5 February 1996, the Philippines requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 21 
February 1996, the DSB deferred the establishment of  a panel. Further to a second request to establish 
a panel by the Philippines, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 5 March 1996. Canada, the 
EC, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and the US reserved their third-party rights. On 16 April 1996, the Panel was composed. The report was circulated to Members on 17 October 1996. The report of the Panel concluded that the provisions of the agreements  relied on by the claimant were inapplicable to 
the dispute.  
On 16 December 1996, the Philippines notified its decisi on to appeal against certain issues of law and 
legal interpretations developed by  the panel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to 
Members on 21 February 1997. The Appellate Body uphe ld the findings and legal interpretations of 
the Panel.  WT/DS/OV/34 
Page 214  
 
  The Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report, were 
adopted by the DSB on 20 March 1997.  
113. WT/DS18 – Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon 
Complaint by Canada. On 5 October 1995, Canada requested consultati ons with Australia in respect 
of Australia's prohibition of imports of salmon fro m Canada based on a quarantine regulation. Canada 
alleged that the prohibition is inconsistent with GAT T Articles XI and XIII, and also inconsistent with 
the SPS Agreement.  
On 7 march 1997, Canada requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 20 March 1997, 
the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Fu rther to a second request to establish a panel by 
Canada, the DSB established a pane l at its meeting on 10 April 1997. The EC, India, Norway and the 
US reserved their third-party rights. On 28 May 1997, the Panel was composed. The report of the 
Panel was circulated to Members on 12 June 19 98. The Panel found that Australia's measures 
complained against were inconsistent with Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.5, and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement, 
and also nullified or impaired benefits accruing to Canada under the SPS Agreement.  
On 22 July 1998, Australia notified its intent ion to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 20 October 1998. The Appellate Body reversed th e Panel's reasoning with respect to Articles 5.1 
and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement but nevertheless found that:  
• Australia had acted inconsistently with Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement;  
• broadened the Panel's finding that Australia had acted inconsistently with Articles 5.5 and 2.3 
of the SPS Agreement;  
• reversed the Panel's finding that Australia had act ed inconsistently with Article 5.6 of the SPS 
Agreement but was unable to come to a conclu sion whether or not Australia's measure was 
consistent with Article 5.6 due to insu fficient factual findings by the Panel.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and th e Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body Report, on 6 November 1998.  
114. WT/DS8, WT/DS10, WT/DS11 – Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages 
Complaints by the European Communities, Cana da and the United States. The EC requested 
consultations on 21 June 1995, and Ca nada and the US on 7 July 1995. The complainants claimed that 
spirits exported to Japan were discriminated agai nst under the Japanese liquor tax system which, in 
their view, levies a substantially lower tax on "shoc hu" than on whisky, cognac and white spirits.  
A joint panel was established at the DSB mee ting on 27 September 1995. On 30 October 1995, the 
Panel was composed. The report of the panel, whic h found the Japanese tax system to be inconsistent 
with GATT Article III:2, was circulated to Members on 11 July 1996.  
On 8 August 1996 Japan filed an appeal. The report of  the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 4 October 1996. The Appellate Body's Report a ffirmed the Panel's conclusion that the Japanese 
Liquor Tax Law is inconsistent with GATT Article  III:2, but pointed out several areas where the 
Panel had erred in its legal reas oning. The Appellate Report, together with the panel report as 
modified by the Appellate Report, was adopted on 1 November 1996.